President Trump just can't quit Greenland.
Like a dog with a bone, he keeps coming back to the idea that the United States should control the world's largest island. And, true to form, he's making his case the same way he approaches nearly everything else: loudly, aggressively and with little concern for who he offends along the way.
The frustrating part is that, underneath all the bluster, Trump actually has a point.
The problem is that he's making it in a way that almost guarantees he'll never get what he wants.
Trump still negotiates like the real estate developer he used to be. In business, embarrassing the other side could be part of the strategy. Wall Street executives or bankers might swallow their pride if there was enough money at the end of the deal.
World leaders don't work that way.
Politicians will waste billions of taxpayer dollars without blinking, but public humiliation is another matter. They can't afford to look weak, especially in front of their own voters. That's why Trump's habit of picking needless fights—even with governments that should be friendly to the United States—so often backfires.
Greenland is a perfect example.
Denmark's ownership of Greenland makes less sense today than it did decades ago. Nearly 90 percent of Greenland's population is Inuit, while fewer than 8 percent are Danish. The island survives on massive subsidies from Copenhagen—about $768.5 million a year—and despite that spending, Greenland still struggles with poverty, addiction and serious healthcare challenges.
Perhaps most importantly, Denmark couldn't defend Greenland from a serious military threat without American help.
That's the uncomfortable reality everyone seems willing to ignore.
Geographically, Greenland actually makes more sense as part of North America than Europe. If anyone besides the United States has a logical claim, it's Canada. Greenland sits alongside Canada's Arctic islands, and the Inuit populations on both sides of the Davis Strait share cultural ties that stretch back centuries.
So why isn't Prime Minister Mark Carney talking about bringing Greenland into Canada?
Because Canada doesn't want the responsibility.
Taking on Greenland would mean taking on another expensive welfare commitment at a time when Canada is already running deficits and struggling with slow economic growth. It would also mean defending an enormous Arctic territory when Canada's military has spent decades being neglected and still depends heavily on the United States for continental defense.
It's easy to support Denmark's claim to Greenland when someone else is paying the bills and providing the security.
That's what makes the international reaction to Trump so ironic.
Everyone agrees Greenland is strategically important. Everyone knows the Arctic is becoming more important as Russia and China expand their presence. Everyone knows Denmark can't defend Greenland on its own.
But when Trump suggests the United States should have a larger role, suddenly he's portrayed as the unreasonable one.
Now, to be clear, threatening military action is a terrible way to make that argument. It's politically toxic at home and dead on arrival overseas.
Even American voters aren't buying it. According to the Harris Poll cited in the source material, only 40 percent support acquiring Greenland even when the question is framed around national security and countering Russia and China. Support for using military force barely reaches double digits.
That's the tragedy of Trump's Greenland obsession.
He's managed to take an argument with genuine strategic merit and turn it into a political loser.
If Trump had approached Denmark quietly, treated its leaders like partners instead of punching bags and made the case through diplomacy instead of bravado, there might actually have been room for serious discussions about greater American involvement—or even some form of joint administration.
Instead, everyone has dug in their heels.
Trump often says he's the master dealmaker. On Greenland, he's proving the opposite. He's right about the destination but completely wrong about the route.
