Greenland is at the center of the great powers’ struggle for control over the Arctic, but how far is the US willing to go to secure dominance over the island?
Thomas Emanuel Dans was appointed as a commissioner of the US Arctic Research Commission by President Donald J. Trump on December 17, 2020, and held the position until September 2, 2021. During his tenure as Arctic commissioner, Dans’ political work encompassed various issues related to the US’s Arctic neighbors, particularly Greenland.
In a new interview with Grønland, Dans outlines Trump’s vision for Greenland, covering political, economic, and security-related aspects, as well as the million-dollar question: How far is Trump willing to go to gain control over the island?
You recently went to Greenland, where you spoke with Greenlanders about whether they want to be part of the United States. What did you make of your trip?
Well, just to be upfront and state things clearly: I don’t represent the U.S. administration, and I’m outside of government now, although I worked with the Trump administration in 2016. Then afterward, I served as an Arctic commissioner under Biden for a while, but I was a Trump appointee.
During my recent trip to Greenland, I was therefore there in my capacity as an investor and entrepreneur. I would also like to add that we separately do some work on foreign affairs and political affairs through a nonprofit we founded called American Daybreak.
So, Greenland has a huge territory, but it’s still a very small country in terms of population. For example, there are only about 20,000 citizens in the capital, Nuuk. When you go there, you pretty much see the key players, running into them casually over the course of a few days.
We traveled around the country for a couple of different projects we’re working on. When we were there, I got to talk to a lot of people—particularly in the business sphere—and I’d say they’re very excited about the changes. My impression is that most people are excited about what’s happening, maybe with a few exceptions among some people from Denmark.
But most Greenlanders are happy about the attention that has been brought to Greenland, and the worldwide focus that has come with it, because it’s creating a forcing function that can enable Greenland to move to the next stage of its development. We’ll see how that plays out in the coming weeks and months—what ultimate path and shape it takes.
So, do you believe they’re interested in becoming part of the United States?
I think they’re certainly open to it. I think there’s a lack of definition around what that exactly means or entails, because the “sales case” isn’t out there right now. Furthermore, there is a relative lack of information, often filtered through sources that I would say are more oppositional to the idea.
But in the hearts and minds of the locals, who are going to the polls in elections in less than a month, I think there’s a longstanding desire to be independent. Many are realizing this is their moment, and so it’s incumbent on them to either seize it or recognize they’ve set their course in another direction. So, yes, I think we’re going to see answers in the relatively short term regarding how the Greenlanders choose to proceed.
The polls referred to in the Norwegian media are very clear: Around 80% of Greenlanders want to be independent, very few want to be part of the United States, and a bit more want to remain part of Denmark. Assuming these polls are accurate, are they even capable of being independent? For now, they’re at least very dependent on subsidies from Denmark, which amount to hundreds of millions of dollars…
You know, I think there’s momentum in that direction. Maybe independence takes on a different form—different understandings. The Greenlanders are wise and realize this is the modern era. As a Texan, we often compare things in multiples of Texas, and Greenland is almost three to four times the size of Texas.
That’s a lot of ground to cover for about 56,000 Greenlanders. From a security perspective, it’s just not feasible, given the strength of certain adversaries—namely China and Russia. This is a crucial issue. So, I think there’s an understanding that independence exists within the context of security.
It also exists within the context of economic development and the need to partner with actors who can help them grow economically, so they can exert their will and represent their people properly. Sadly, right now, they don’t have either of those elements.
The Greenlanders are not economically developed, which is linked to the fact that they haven’t received significant economic assistance over the years. While they do receive subsidies from Denmark, these are essentially a legacy of the Scandinavian social welfare state imposed upon them. I mean that in a positive way—some aspects of it are admirable.
However, when discussing a country with the potential to be among the wealthiest in the world, the reality is that it’s far from it. The best and highest opportunity for Greenland isn’t to be a welfare state; it should be developed economically. They could be very wealthy and wouldn’t need to rely on handouts. This is part of a colonial legacy that’s running its course, and I think the modern age has abruptly collided with it.
So, you’re saying that the Danish are holding them back by refusing to let them develop economically?
Yes, I think so. It’s just a fact that they’re hamstrung in terms of gaining the autonomy needed to attract the investment that would enable them to grow to the next stage. That said, the course is already set: Greenland is opening up. The key unlocking piece here was, ironically, triggered by the Chinese.
Dial back to 2014. The Chinese, calling themselves a “Near-Arctic nation”—whatever that means—were making a big play in Greenland under the Belt and Road Initiative. They wanted to get heavily involved in uranium, and they were willing to finance three new airports. There was a sort of romance going on, but as they say “beware of Chinese bearing gifts.”
So, the U.S. and the Trump administration came in and said: “Whoa, whoa, whoa—hold on, back up here, guys. There’s no scenario where the U.S. provides security for Greenland and the Chinese just waltz in to exploit its resources for their own designs.” That fortunately got communicated to the Danes, and I think at a partner-to-partner level, they stepped in and helped finance those airports.
Fast forward to November 2024, when a new airport opened—a key development that enabled Don Jr.’s 757 to land there. Previously, if he had traveled to Greenland by plane, he would have had to land at a U.S.-built World War II-era air base. This highlights that much of the country’s infrastructure—both visible and hidden, from security in space to deep below—has been provided by the United States. It’s been that way for decades. The United States never truly left Greenland after May 10, 1940, and I don’t see any scenario where it ever would.
Some argue that Greenland’s resources are not easily accessible right now. There’s simply too much ice, making extraction too costly to be economically viable for many years. What’s your take on this?
That’s not entirely wrong, except it’s a question of staging and taking smaller steps to make it viable. Clearly, major infrastructure is needed to enable even the beginnings of significant resource development. It’s not impossible—it’s about getting the right understanding among partners and the right commitments to go forward.
Remember, Americans built those bases in Greenland during World War II in a matter of months. There’s nothing the U.S. can’t do when it sets its mind to it. We built icebreakers that ran the Nazis off the eastern side—with the help of Norwegians, I should add—in just months.
In today’s modern era, we get bogged down in political processes, and it can take an ungodly 12 years to build a heavy icebreaker. But these challenges are not insurmountable when it comes to making resource extraction economically viable. Even small developments could really move the needle in a large way.
You’re basically saying you have to get rid of the ice sheet, right? Because the resources lie under the ice?
No, they’re not necessarily all under the ice sheet. There’s a citrumen fjord there. They’re at very accessible levels; it’s just that they’re blocked by ice for much of the year. So, you have to get through the ice in a regular, reliable way, and the economics have to be favorable, which entail investments in infrastructure.
At the end of the day, these are commodities. Although they’re scarce and in high demand today, they’re still commodities with an extraction cost. Greenland still has to compete within the context of other minerals around the world. You can’t escape the laws of economics.
So, you’re saying they’ll be exploited when the economics are favorable?
Yes. In Greenland, the economics can be enabled by infrastructure. That’s the whole idea behind China’s Belt and Road Initiative. They come in and build things to reduce risk and improve the economic viability of production for their private companies or parastatals.
The Russians are doing something similar in their Arctic. They’ve invested $300 billion in building the Northern Sea Route and exploiting oil and gas up there. Before the fallout from Western sanctions stemming from the Russia–Ukraine war, that gas flowed out of the Arctic to Germany through pipelines.
So, the U.S. has to do the same kind of thing to further and protect its geo-economic interests. There’s no reason why the United States can’t do so in the Artic, and we should, frankly. Not only in Alaska, but also on our East Coast, in Greenland.
The United States already has full military access to Greenland. It can properly negotiate exclusivity when it comes to extracting resources there. Why would Trump want to put it under U.S. sovereignty?
Well, I’m not sure I entirely agree with the notion that American companies can get exclusivity for resource extraction in Greenland. Today, that would be a decision for the Greenlanders and, by extension, the Danes, which can put all sorts of conditions on American companies operating in Greenland.
And these investments are costly. These are far-flung areas not easy to reach. Movement in Greenland depends heavily on ships, and to a lesser extent planes and helicopters. As the former U.S. Arctic Research Commissioner, I can tell you that for every dollar spent on actual research, you might spend seven dollars on logistics.
So, a lot of investment is required, which may cause all sorts of challenges for American businesses. Part of the limiting factor here is twofold. First, you rely on a Danish government that is currently very leftist. Here it’s not merely about political outlook; it’s simply not aligned with U.S. priorities today.
Can you elaborate what you mean by that?
The Danes recently announced a $2.8 billion defense package, but it’s not enough. We don’t have to go back too far to recall that the development of two of those ships were actually announced already last year, if I’m not mistake? And, at the time, it was Denmark that was even on the defensive for seemingly replacing the four old ships with two ones and having to explain that this was not actually a reduction in forces and capabilities.
But we all know Greenland’s coastline is not getting any smaller while challenges from geopolitical adversaries and rivals has increased markedly. Adding a third is certainly moving in the right direction, but you’d probably have to raise that number to the second power to start making some headway in terms of coverage. Plus, I think we’re looking at deliveries starting in 2033? That’s out there to say the least.
Their four patrol ships are over 30 years old, so they’ve got serious maintenance issues. The cannons on one of their destroyers don’t work—it can only fire a warning shot, lacking serious firepower. Furthermore, have a couple dozen, or maybe a hundred or so, trained Danish troops there. That’s not sufficient.
Meanwhile, the U.S. recently announced a $4 billion upgrade to its base at Pituffik, plus at least that much again in ongoing operating costs—so roughly 8x on a normal forward basis. And that doesn’t even address the fact that you need much more infrastructure there.
How does the Greenland issue fit into the larger picture of US foreign policy under the Trump-administration?
We are in a different era of U.S. foreign policy—one where things need to pay for themselves. Ultimately, it’s the U.S. taxpayer who provides the money for all of this, and we’ve been giving it away to the rest of the world ad infinitum. For instance, we send over what started as $200 billion—now it looks more like $350 billion—to fund a war in Europe. Every dollar spent comes with the understanding that we may never pay off even a penny of the principal.
At this point, we’re running on $37 trillion in debt and just trying to cover the interest. And how does that affect people in Texas or elsewhere in the United States? We’re the ones who’ll have to dig out of this hole for generations. These are permanent, intergenerational liabilities.
You can’t keep putting this on the back of the U.S. taxpayer without them seeing a return. It’s not their job to keep Denmark and Europe safe. It’s their job to keep the U.S. safe, build prosperity, and make their families wealthier. So, when people say, “Well, nobody’s stopping you from investing billions,” it’s not an investment—it’s a giveaway.
And I think that’s what has changed under President Trump’s second term. We’re not going to do unlimited giveaways anymore. We’ve reached a practical breaking point. Thank goodness for the work by Secretary Bessent, DOGE, and Elon Musk in tackling some of this waste.
Greenland will have to be defended no matter what. Military equipment and personnel must be stationed there to maintain forward positioning in the Arctic—primarily against Russia, but increasingly against China. What difference does it make whether Greenland is under Danish sovereignty, independent, or under the U.S.? The cost will always be there…
Well, again, respectfully, it comes down to the economics—where the money comes from to pay for all of this. The U.S. isn’t in a position to just give things away indefinitely, especially with our heightened requirements going forward.
Then, secondarily, it’s about the partner you’re dealing with on the other side. Yes, people may be rational today and supportive of what needs to happen, but that’s largely because President Trump has been so declarative and essentially said, “No, this is changing now.”
In the past, all these arguments were made eight years ago, but Europe laughed at Trump. They literally laughed in his face, which was their prerogative, but he was right. Everything he warned about then has come to pass.
So, at some point, things have to change. But I don’t think this restructuring is necessarily worse for anyone—it’s a shift that needs to happen. And in the long run, I think everyone will be better off.
There’s a utopia and there’s a reality. We’re realists here. I think that, once Greenlanders make an informed choice—which they will—they’ll see that a future with the United States is far more exciting and offers greater advancement.
According to the latest polls I’ve seen, Greenlanders want to be independent. They don’t want to be part of Denmark or the United States. Just hypothetically, would the United States grab it by force if it came to that?
I don’t speak in hypotheticals. I’m just a private citizen. But ultimately, the crucial issue is U.S. vital national security interests. What happens in Greenland is far more important to Americans than what happens in Ukraine, and that’s being brought to the administration’s attention.
You know, there’s a win-win-win deal here to be had. But President Trump’s not going to back down. He’s never going to put American security second. Nothing’s off the table when the security of the American people is at stake. Today, it’s at stake because of Greenland’s current security architecture.
Do you think the Danes or the Greenlanders would oppose the U.S. putting massive amounts of military hardware and personnel on the island, if necessary?
I don’t know. Again, the Danish have had leftist governments before that can act in ways opposed to U.S. interests. They have made decisions that are not aligned with our interest before. And it’s a small group that can be easily influenced by outside forces.
So, I think that when the Greenlanders are given a real choice and can overlay it with their own desires and needs, it’s a straightforward conclusion: The relationship with the U.S. would be very productive.
And I think the same goes for Denmark. It may be difficult to break away from the legacy of colonialism, but the facts on the ground are changing, and it’s going to change further. As we say, when you see a parade coming down the street, you can stand to the side, wave as it goes by, stand in the middle of the road and get run over, or jump in front and try to lead it.
So, I think that last option is what people don’t consider enough today, and that’s what I’d encourage them to think about. Because a nation of six million that doesn’t have endless resources isn’t in a position to bankroll Greenland for what it will need, from both an economic and a security standpoint, going forward.
While Greenland may have valuable resources beneath the ground that could theoretically fund its needs, these resources are still untapped. They’re not fully realized or trade-ready. Plus, Greenland is limited by its existing resources—most importantly, its human capital. With a population of just 56,000, and maybe only 40% having access to secondary education, the workforce required to develop those resources is scarce.
So, you think there’s room for Denmark in this future you’re describing?
Absolutely. Nobody is suggesting Denmark wouldn’t maintain a continuing interest or relationship with Greenland. Commercially, they already play a significant role. So, I don’t see any reason to limit their involvement—it’s more about restructuring the political relationships.
Look, the U.S. is already protecting Greenland. It’s our personnel stationed there. And Europe, by extension, needs some self-reflection on its role here. Like I said, there’s a potential for a win-win-win deal. I think cooler heads will prevail, and when each party looks at its own interests and what it can bring to the table, it will likely lead to a far closer relationship between the U.S. and Denmark. But ultimately, how that plays out is for others to decide.
