Deal or No Deal: Trump’s Greenland Problem isn't Going Anywhere

It's the rare idea that is putrid politics and policy

In politics, there are ideas that are good politics and bad policy. There are other ideas that are bad politics but good policy. Once in a blue moon, you find an idea that is both good politics and good policy.

It’s even rarer to encounter an idea that is bad politics and bad policy. But Trump has done that with his half-cocked, delusional desire to annex Greenland—by military force if necessary.

With this president, in this media environment, we are constantly being waterboarded with a nonstop onslaught of outrages and absurdities. So sometimes I find it useful to just state out loud what Trump is doing so I can fully appreciate the insanity.

In this instance, Trump wants to invade a NATO ally so we can have military bases we already have, to combat a threat that does not exist. To make matters worse, Trump is now citing his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize as a reason for his aggression toward Greenland.

A military takeover of Greenland would blow up NATO, isolate the U.S., and dramatically strengthen Russia and China—and for what?

It’s pure idiocy.

Trump does a lot of dumb things that titillate the MAGA base and get near-unanimous support among Republicans.

His obsession with Greenland is not one of them. The politics are so bad that it’s the sort of thing that could functionally end a presidency.

And yes, I know Trump walked back from the brink on Wednesday and announced a fake deal of sorts involving Greenland, but I don’t trust him, the Europeans don’t trust him, and neither should you.

---

1. Politically Toxic

It is really hard to overstate how unpopular Trump’s Greenland obsession is. It’s one of the most politically toxic ideas I’ve ever seen in decades of looking at polling.

According to an Economist/YouGov poll, 8% of Americans—and only 18% of Republicans—support using military force to take Greenland.

Only 13% would support the U.S. paying Greenland residents between $10,000 and $100,000 to encourage them to secede from Denmark and join the U.S. (Yes, this is a real proposal making its way around the Trump Administration.

Buying Greenland is still quite unpopular even when you leave out the detail of the U.S. writing personal checks to every Greenlander. A CBS News/YouGov poll found that only 30% of Americans support using federal funding to buy Greenland.

Finally, voters also see no real upside in acquiring Greenland. In that CBS poll, nearly 70% of Americans believe that the U.S. taking over Greenland would be the end of NATO and make the world less stable.

2. It’s Making His Economic Problems Worse

The focus on Greenland is making Trump’s economic problems worse—substantively and politically.

Trump has slapped and then removed tariffs on European countries for opposing his bid to take over Greenland. These would raise prices for Americans in the service of an idea opposed by the vast majority of the country, at the exact moment when people are furious about high prices.

Global instability from Trump’s escalating Greenland threats is also hurting the American economy. Stocks plummeted on Tuesday, and U.S. bonds and the dollar lost value as investors embraced a “Sell America” strategy. This will raise interest rates and keep mortgage rates high.

Politically, Trump’s obsessive, increasingly erratic behavior over Greenland is contributing to the sense that he is focused on everything other than lowering people’s costs.

Trump’s political aides have been promising a focus on affordability ever since the resounding Democratic wins in Virginia and New Jersey.

Trump has shown little interest in talking about affordability, but even when he does, his message gets drowned out by Greenland. Yesterday, Trump was scheduled to deliver a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on his plan to make housing more affordable. Now, talking about affordable housing at a gathering of European moneyed elites in the Swiss Alps is an odd choice, to say the least. But putting that aside for a minute, the entire housing announcement was dwarfed by coverage of his comments on Greenland.

Other Republicans can’t go on TV or podcasts without getting repeated questions about their position on Trump’s drive to acquire Greenland.

This makes for plenty of awkward encounters—and missed messaging opportunities—for a party desperately trying to make up ground before the midterms.

---

---

4. There Is No Constituency for This Idiocy

Even unpopular ideas have passionate advocates. There are groups, organizers, and activists who have been toiling in the shadows for years to push an idea into the public consciousness. Even when that idea polls at 30%, that 30% is as fired up as they can be.

There is no constituency for annexing Greenland. This isn’t some long-gestating GOP project waiting for its moment. There are no groups lobbying or organizing for U.S. ownership of the island.

This is something Trump made up in his head—and he’s been unable to let it go for years. Sure, some Republicans are now echoing his desires, but they’re either humoring Trump, trying to ingratiate themselves with him, or simply avoiding his wrath.

And that matters, because Trump gets no ancillary political benefit from pursuing Greenland. No constituency is fired up. No grassroots donors are excited.

It’s all pure downside.

5. Where Do We Go From Here

So, Trump backed off his threats to invade and levy tariffs and instead announced a vague concept of a deal with no real details. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, he said a “framework” had been reached for future negotiations on Greenland and canceled his planned tariffs on European countries that opposed his push. There are three possible paths from here, but given what Trump said earlier in the day, it’s clear he still wants to “own” Greenland. That would either require the use of military force or a massive outlay of taxpayer dollars—both of which are incredibly unpopular and politically toxic.

Democrats should not stop talking about Trump’s obsession with Greenland. But how we do it matters.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Greenland will be the issue that decides the midterms. Voters are not passionate about the sanctity of international institutions or Danish sovereignty. But they do want their president to focus on their needs—not on chasing a geopolitical fantasy. They see distractions like Greenland and Venezuela as evidence that Trump is more focused on spectacle than on lowering costs, the very task he was elected to deliver.

So even if Trump tries to move past Greenland, we shouldn’t let him. Every day he spends chasing this fantasy is another day he’s not lowering costs, fixing housing, or making life easier for the people who actually live here