Greenland: Not American Security but World Environmental Security Is at Stake

US ownership of Greenland is the path to environmental insecurity.

After the American Century

Every generation or so, some American politician gets the notion that the United States ought to acquire Greenland. Often, this is justified by reference to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in the 1820s, which proclaimed that European powers should stay out of the Americas. However, this is a rather silly attempt to dignify acquisition of Greenland, which has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark for one thousand years. Long before Columbus discovered America, the Vikings had explored Iceland and Greenland. The idea that the Monroe Doctrine applies to events more than eight centuries before it was proclaimed is absurd. Nor is the US close to Greenland, which lies between Iceland and the coast of Canada. The people of Greenland do not want to be bought or sold. Nor does Denmark want to sell Greenland. 

Map courtesy of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland
Its extensive home pages provide a wealth of useful information.

Whatever the justification for buying (or seizing) Greenland, there are two reasons why its acquisition looks attractive: Natural resources and military bases. There seldom seems to be any US government interest in the Greenlanders themselves, whose language and culture could easily be utterly destroyed after acquisition. There are only about 60,000 people living on the vast island, much of which is frozen all year round. Almost the entire population lives along the southwestern coast, one third in the capital, Nuuk. There are no roads connecting most of the towns together. 

In military terms, Greenland looks important because it is halfway between Washington and Moscow. For that reason, the Americans already have one base on the island, Thule, which is on the west coast, just about the only settlement in the far north. Another American base, called Century, was located inland on the great Greenland ice sheet. Established in 1959 in a series of tunnels and excavations into the ice sheet, it was occupied full time until 1964, it became a seasonal base (closed in winter), and then was abandoned in 1967. Today it lies buried in ice and snow that have since accumulated. In other words, at the height of the Cold War, the US did not find it necessary, and they found it expensive and difficult, to maintain an inland base. Greenland has an extreme environment, and after struggling to sustain bases, it became clear that the Soviets could hardly sneak in and create a meaningful military site, much less continually supply one. It is exceedingly difficult to move around on the inland surface of Greenland, which is why almost all communities are on the coast. In short, this is not a place for ground forces, base camps, and troop movements. It is rather a place for early warning systems and other equipment designed to monitor the sea and the sky. Denmark is a member of NATO, and in addition the Americans have a treaty with the Danish government, allowing them to operate the Thule military base. They can also move ships and submarines around the coast to their heart's content. In short, from a military perspective, owning Greenland will not suddenly improve American security, and if new bases are necessary (although no one seems to have said they are) that could be negotiated. I cannot see any important military advantage to be gained.  "National security" is a bogus argument for acquiring Greenland. 

In terms of resources, Greenland potentially is a bonanza. Even with much of it explored primarily from the air, it is clear that it has uranium, rare earth minerals, oil, and gas, with potentially far more still undiscovered. Why have these resources not been exploited already? First, there is the high cost of development. There are no harbors convenient to or roads to most of these resources. The weather makes it difficult or impossible to operate outside for much of the year. Such practical problems make it uncompetitive with other locations where resources are more accessible. The second reason is important. Many Greenlanders fear that an influx of mining companies will despoil the landscape, pollute the environment, and undermine their way of life. Possibly some limited mining could be negotiated, provided strong environmental safety regulations are enforced. However, the US has a disgraceful history with mining on Native American lands, notably with the uranium mining of Navajo land. More than 30 million tons of uranium ore was extracted. As the American Environmental Protection Agency summarizes, "a legacy of uranium contamination remains, including over 500 abandoned uranium mines as well as homes and water sources with elevated levels of radiation. Potential health effects include lung cancer from inhalation of radioactive particles, as well as bone cancer and impaired kidney function from exposure to radionuclides in drinking water." The mines were closed in 1986, but even in 2025 after spending more than $1 billion, many of the mines are not cleaned up. Something similar could easily in Greenland if mining companies operated with the weakened standards and poor oversight likely under the Trump administration.

Furthermore, if oil drilling is permitted, Greenland will contribute to the global warming that already is melting their ice sheet. This is not a small matter. Greenland impounds an astonishingly large portion of the earth's fresh water. Its ice has been shrinking every year for 28 years. The United Nations estimates that during 2024 it lost "50 million litres per minute, 9,000 million litres per hour" for a total of 80 gigatons of water during that single year.  Scientists estimate that were all of Greenland's ice to dissolve into the sea, the oceans would rise about 7 meters. If CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced, within one lifetime the ice melt from Greenland (with even more water released from Antartica) will flood coastal cities in all parts of the world, including Copenhagen, New York, much of Bangladesh, about half of Florida, and many island nations, to make a suggestive short list.  Greenlanders take global warming seriously, but the current President of the United States does not. Trump calls global warming a hoax, and he is passing legislation designed to increase fossil fuel exploration and consumption. If the he acquires Greenland, it will be in order to "Drill, baby drill." This makes the United States the worst possible owner of Denmark. 

Ownership of Greenland is a matter of security. But it is not a matter of American military security but the security of Greenland, as a landscape and a people. Allowing the United States to seize Greenalnd endangers the world's environmental security. It also violates a fundamental principle of international law: respect for international borders.

The Supreme Court's Decline in the Polls

After the American Century

A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

For decades the Supreme Court enjoyed a high rating in the polls. It was generally approved by more than half the population, who believed it upheld the law and the Constitution. Back in the middle 1990s the Court enjoyed immense popularity with approval ratings as high as 80%. In 2000, more than 60% of the public approved of the court, and less than 30% disapproved. But as the Court has become increasingly polarized, public trust in the Court has fallen. Between 2014 and 2018 more people disapproved than approved of the Court. Then it briefly recovered its good standing with the people until 2022 when it fell precipitously. Since that time, its disapproval rating has been higher than 50%.  In January, 2025,  just 38.8% approved of the Court.  

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

More than 60% of the public do not trust the justices to do the right thing. It does not help that the Court lacks ethical guidelines concerning conflict of interest. Nor does a majority of the public agree with its decision that presidents are immune from prosecution for their actions. Nor are the Court's decisions on abortion approved by a majority of Americans. Nor are Clarence Thomas's acceptance of many expensive trips and gifts from wealthy conservatives acceptable. Nor has it been a good thing for American democracy that the court has sanctified unlimited private spending by candidates, equating campaign donations with freedom of speech. The Court no longer seems impartial or wise.

Back in the 1990s, both Repblicans and Democrats had extremely high levels of satisfaction with the Court. No more. Today, only one in four Democrats approves of the Court. In contrst. 3 out of 4 Republicans like what it is doing. The Court has adopted a partisan agenda, and in doing so it has lost its aura of impartiality. It risks seeming an illegitimate rubber stamp that most Democrats and a majority of the American public disdain.

In short, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was once unassailable, but now it is questionable. Will the Court's reputation decline further during the Trump second term? How much lower can it go before it loses the credibility and respect that are necessary before its decisions will be accepted? A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

Trump's illusion of a "Golden Age"

After the American Century

In one of the worst inaugural addresses in American history, the new Felon in Chief spouted falsities and insults, made vague promises, and proclaimed that the United States had entered a new golden age. There was not a single new idea in the speech, nor a single line that will be recalled with respect generations from now. The Republicans who repeated rose to their feet and clapped at his inanities demonstrated a level of servility and stupidity that I never thought possible in the United States.

Trump has pardoned the treasonous and in some cases murderous acts of thousands of men and women who attacked the Congress of the United States on January 6, 2021. That day will live in infamy, along with his false characterization of these convicted criminals as "political prisoners."  They physically attacked the Congress. They maimed and murdered police officers, and they will always be remembered as a rabble of traitors inspired into action by Trump himself, who watched the attack on Congress in the White House and did nothing for hours. That he could be nominated and elected president is a now a permanent stain on the national character. 

Trump denies the reality of global warming, and he has become a tool of the oil corporations, amping up CO2 emissions instead of leading the adoption of the wind and solar power, which are cheaper, which create more jobs, and which produce less pollution, than drilling for petroleum. Far from creating a golden age, he is hastening a global warming apocalypse. It will be measured in forest fires, frequent hurricanes, tornados, and irregular rainfall. And to make certain that these disasters cause long-term damage, he is now threatening to get rid of FEMA, the federal agency that deals with disasters. He says the problems can be dealt with at the state level. This is nonsense, as disasters do not respect borders. When the Mississippi rises over its banks, state borders do not halt the flood.

Trump has withdrawn from the World Health Organization, offering the idiotic reason that the US pays too much. If that were the problem, then he could negotiate rather that withdraw. He also attacked the WHO's handling on the COVID crisis, when it is he, Donald Trump, who is personally responsible for spreading disinformation about the disease, politicizing the response to the crisis, and undercutting the medical profession. Any doubts about Trump's stupidity on this issue are laid aside by his appointment of Mr. Kennedy to oversee the nation's health. He rejects the very idea of vaccination, including well-tested shots that have saved millions of lives. 

Trump has resurrected the jingoistic language of Manifest Destiny and made factually inaccurate statements to justify his demands that the United States take over the Panama Canal, take control of Greenland, and annex Canada. This is naked imperialism and colonialism, and it has nothing to do with national security.  The United States already has bases in Greenland, for example, which falls under the protection of NATO, since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member.  Trump's language and actions have aroused anger in Latin America, Canada, and the Nordic countries and poison relations with the European Union. A nation that attacks its friends on all sides is not entering a golden age.

Further lowering American prestige, Trump has threatened to raise a high tariff wall against imports from the EU, China, Canada, and Mexico. Such threats and blustering do not bring in a golden age. They bring in protectionism, bankrupt companies, higher prices, and weaker economies.

And to end a short list of Trump's recklessness and nasty behavior, he has launched an attack on undocumented immigrants to the United States and sent the army to close the Mexican border. This macho posturing is popular with his base, but it will not solve the problem, as many illegal immigrants come by plane on student or tourist visas and then remain after their expiration date. Moreover, several million "illegals" were brought to the United States as children, and they know no other country, but through no fault of their own are caught in a no-man's land with no citizenship. Nor will the economy improve if Trump drives out millions of people, many of them in housing construction and caring professions, such as nursing homes.  The immigration problem is complex, and it will not be solved by sending troops to the border.

There is nothing noble about Mr. Trump. He is a bully, a liar, and a charlatan, and the above is a short list of only his most recent predations. If he carries out his full program, the United States will enter not a golden age but a dark tunnel of distrust. division, hatred, and chaos. The nation has already lost much of the world's respect. This is a wannabe emperor, not a president, and the "golden age" he conjures up is an illusion. The minister of the gospel and the teacher will long struggle to explain why this vain, corrupt, licentious, litigious, prevaricating felon could ever be elected president. He brings shame on the United States.