Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act

Aappilattoq fishing village, South Greenland.

Getty Images, Posnov

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

President Donald Trump wants the U.S. to control Greenland. A bill in Congress could help.


The bill

laying off Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America great again,” the Make Greenland Great Again Act would give the president congressional authorization to enter into negotiations with Denmark about acquiring their territory. The bill would technically apply to any president, not just to Trump.

It would also specify that any such potential Greenland acquisition deal becomes official unless Congress disapproves it within 60 days. That’s essentially the exact opposite of the way international deals like treaties are supposed to work: namely, that even if the president signs a treaty, the U.S. only becomes a party once Congress affirmatively approves it.

The House bill was introduced on January 13 by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5). No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Context: Trump

In his first term, Trump expressed interest in U.S. ownership of Greenland, whether through a financial purchase or a potential land trade – with one trade reportedly involving the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. The whole Greenland idea, originally pitched to Trump by fellow billionaire Ronald Lauder of the Estée Lauder cosmetics company, ultimately went nowhere.

The U.S. previously attempted to purchase Greenland in 1868 for $5.5 million, then again in 1946 for $100 million. But certain aspects make the current idea different.

  • Timing: The U.S. hasn’t added new territory since 1947. So while adding Greenland very much fit the trend of national expansion circa 1868 or 1946, it’s literally unprecedented within the lifetimes of most Americans alive today.
  • Military possibility: In a press conference two weeks before his second inauguration, Trump refused to rule out military force to obtain Greenland.

Context: Greenland itself

Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, home to only 56,000 people. For comparison, five random U.S. small cities or towns with populations around that size are Harrisonburg, Virginia; Parker, Colorado; Euless, Texas; Sammamish, Washington; and Manhattan, Kansas.

But what Greenland lacks in people it makes up in size, natural resources, and geographical importance.

  • Size: it’s the largest island in the world, with more square miles than Mexico.
  • Natural resources: the land is plentiful with elements used in technologies like electric vehicles and artificial intelligence, plus oil reserves representing potentially more than four years’ worth of U.S. usage.
  • Geographical importance: Greenland is near geopolitical rivals China and Russia, which is why the U.S. has maintained a military base there since 1951.

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the U.S. needs Greenland to better defend against its geopolitical rivals.

“The acquisition of Greenland by the United States is essential to our national security,” Rep. Ogles said in a press release days before Trump was inaugurated. “Joe Biden took a blowtorch to our reputation these past four years, [but] before even taking office, President Trump is telling the world that America First is back. American economic and security interests will no longer take a backseat.”

Trump’s top foreign policy official also defended the idea.

Greenland “long has been a curiosity or something people have not talked about, but I think now we have the opportunity to see it for what it is,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his Senate confirmation hearing. “And that is, if not the most important, one of the most critical parts of the world over the next 100 years will be whether there's going to be freedom of navigation in the Arctic, and what that will mean for global trade and commerce.”

What opponents say

Greenland and Denmark's political leaders have expressed hesitancy.

“We don’t want to be Americans,” Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede said in a Fox News interview with Bret Baier. “We don’t want to be a part of the U.S., but we want a strong cooperation together with the U.S.”

“Greenland is not for sale,” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen echoed, in her office’s summary of points she made to Trump on a phone call. “It is up to Greenland itself to make a decision on independence.”

Former President Joe Biden’s top foreign policy official also opposes the proposal.

“The idea expressed about Greenland is obviously not a good one,” Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a press conference. “But maybe more important, it’s obviously one that’s not going to happen.”

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted 16 cosponsors, all Republicans. Curiously, one of the original cosponsors – Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL2) – withdrew only two days after signing on, but didn’t provide a public reason why.

It now awaits a potential vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, controlled by Republicans.

A similar bill

On February 10, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA1) introduced a similar bill, with a noteworthy addition: it would rename Greenland as Red, White, and Blueland.

“America is back and will soon be bigger than ever,” Rep. Carter said in a press release. “President Trump has correctly identified the purchase of what is now Greenland as a national security priority, and we will proudly welcome its people to join the freest nation to ever exist when our Negotiator-in-Chief inks this monumental deal.”

The Red, White, and Blueland Act awaits a potential vote in either the House Foreign Affairs or Natural Resources Committee, controlled by Republicans. It has not yet attracted any cosponsors.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term


Read More

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less