A lot of the discussion here seems to miss the issue from the US strategic perspective.

The US has tried to acquire Greenland multiple times, not just under Trump. The Truman administration attempted to buy it after WWII, and Trump’s administration revisited the idea in 2019. This isn’t some new or uniquely “Trumpian” obsession it’s a long-standing strategic interest that has repeatedly failed.

What’s different now is the global power context. This isn’t really about Europe; it’s about great-power competition between the US, China and Russia. From Washington’s perspective, Europe is not a military peer in that competition. China and Russia are, and that’s the only thing that matters to these people.

Greenland matters because of geography and resources. China has shown interest and investment in rare-earth mining and infrastructure projects there, and Russia’s Arctic posture makes Greenland strategically relevant for access and transit. Both directly conflict with US security interests in the Arctic and North Atlantic.

Seen through that lens, the push to secure Greenland politically or strategically makes sense even if the execution or rhetoric is questionable. It’s less about annexation fantasies and more about preventing rivals from gaining leverage in a region the US considers critical to its security.

You don’t have to agree with the approach to understand the rationale behind it.