The reaction of the corporate media and Democrat establishment to Donald Trump’s pitch that the United States should acquire Greenland from Denmark has ranged from outrage to mockery. But Trump is right – gaining control of the world’s largest island with its immense natural resources and strategic location would be a stroke of geopolitical and military genius.

Trump’s ambitions to purchase Greenland date back to at least 2019, but the president-elect has reignited the discussion after floating the idea several times since his decisive victory on November 5. Earlier this week, Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., even took a flight aboard “Trump Force One” to the glacier-covered island, home to about 56,000 people, where he shared photos of Greenlanders sporting Trump’s iconic “MAGA” hats and holding an American flag. Other users on social media have likewise reported anecdotal evidence of enthusiastic support for Trump – and the idea of joining the United States – in Greenland.

“We need Greenland for national security purposes,” Trump said during a press conference on Tuesday. “You look outside you have Chinese ships all over the place, you have Russian ships all over the place – we’re not letting that happen.”

Indeed, while Greenland may seem a remote, icy frontier, it occupies a location of prime strategic importance in the North Atlantic. After Denmark fell to Nazi Germany in 1940, the U.S. military quickly occupied the island, protecting it from German invasion. The military subsequently established radar stations and air bases which proved critical in monitoring and responding to German air and naval movements.

Greenland became even more important during the Cold War, with Thule Air Base serving as a critical point in the U.S. early warning radar system for a potential Soviet nuclear attack. That importance has only grown as receding Arctic Sea ice has opened up new shipping lanes for both military and commercial purposes. Recognizing the importance of the Arctic in ongoing competition with Russia and China, Trump ordered a review of the military’s capability to deploy heavy icebreaker ships to counter threats from Moscow and Beijing late in his first term.

As Trump alluded to, America’s top two geopolitical rivals are becoming increasingly aggressive in the region. The Wall Street Journal reported just this week that “Russia reopened dozens of Soviet military bases in the Arctic as tensions with the West worsened over the invasion of Ukraine.” Meanwhile, “China has pursued expanding shipping routes through the region’s melting ice and exploiting Greenland’s natural resources, including minerals used in everything from phones to electric cars and military equipment.” China has also invested in mining operations in Greenland and tried to build three airports there before the Pentagon successfully blocked the planned projects in 2018.

The U.S. currently maintains just one military base in Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base. While Denmark touted new defense spending for the island just before the new year, it was only enough to cover “two new inspection ships, two new long-range drones, and two extra dog sled teams” – hardly the show of force necessary to scare off Russia or China. As former Trump National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien wrote on X, “We love the Danes but a couple of additional drones, dogsled teams & inspection ships are not enough to defend Greenland against the Russians & Chinese Communists.”

Greenland also has significant natural resources that have been largely untapped under Danish control. Of particular interest to the United States is the island’s estimated reserves of 1.5 million tons of rare earth minerals, which are necessary for the production of everything from cell phones to solar panels.

China currently controls 60 percent of global production and 85 percent of worldwide processing capacity in rare earth minerals – a virtual monopoly that it could wield as an economic weapon in a trade (or military) war with the United States. Greenland’s rare earth mineral reserves present an opportunity for the United States to break its reliance on China and secure supply chains.

The U.S. Geological Survey also estimates that Greenland and its surrounding waters could contain 17.5 billion barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – about 13 and 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered reserves, respectively. With demand for energy exploding worldwide, these reserves could be a vital part of Trump’s promise to bring “the number one lowest cost energy” to the United States.

Even some Democrats recognize how much of an asset Greenland would be. In an appearance on Fox News, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman scolded members of his party for having “freakouts” over the mere mention of acquiring Greenland. “It’s a responsible conversation,” Fetterman said. “Remember the Louisiana Purchase? I think Alaska was a pretty great deal, too.”

Of course, there are two important considerations outside of the benefits to the United States.

The first is the desire of the people of Greenland to be under U.S. control. While there has long been a movement for independence from Denmark, whether or not a majority of the population wishes to become part of the United States, most likely as a territory, is unclear.

At the very least, it would take a strong public relations campaign on the part of the U.S. government to win the support of Greenlanders. But in a question of whether they’d be better off under the control of the United States, still the world’s preeminent economic and military superpower, or Denmark, the choice is obvious.

Then there is the Danish government, which has indicated it has no desire to sell or otherwise hand Greenland over to the United States. This will likely prove a more difficult challenge to overcome – but if Trump proved anything during his first term, it was that he has a knack for delivering seemingly unthinkable foreign policy victories. (Not to mention his penchant for savvy real estate deals during his pre-politics days.)

From a pragmatic standpoint, Denmark would stand to benefit from selling Greenland to the United States. Block grants from Denmark currently account for about 20 percent of Greenland’s GDP, despite the fact that Denmark has failed to fully capitalize on Greenland’s natural resources or strategic military importance.

Moreover, the United States has essentially provided for the security of Denmark – and virtually every other European nation – since the end of World War II. Denmark, just like every other NATO member, has benefited immensely from American taxpayer dollars funding the defense of Europe.

The United States remains the arsenal of democracy and the defender of the free world. If America’s leaders believe purchasing Greenland advances that mission, the leaders of Denmark or any other nation should be willing to come to the negotiating table.

Trump’s Greenland aspirations may or may not come to fruition. But regardless, his outside-the-box thinking and ambitious moves, even before entering the White House, are a breath of fresh air following four years of stagnation and decline on the international stage under Biden. Once again, the United States is looking to bolster its standing in the world while securing the homeland and creating domestic economic opportunities in the process.

Shane Harris is a writer and political consultant from Southwest Ohio. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.