‘To make Greenland a part of the U.S.’: Trump appoints new special envoy

Stopped_lurking · Dec 24, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
How much of that is coming from domestic production vs. being subsidized?

Denmark provides an annual block grant to Greenland of roughly 4-5 billion Danish kroner. This subsidy accounts for around 25-30% of Greenland's GDP and covers roughly half or more of Greenland's government budget, depending on the year.

How would the US magically do something else? Where have that been proposed to the greenlandish government and danish government?

ThatRobGuy said:
EU: European Parliament adopts proposal to harmonise and expand foreign investment screening processes across all EU Member States

On 8 May 2025, the European Parliament adopted an amended proposal to revise the EU Foreign Direct Investment Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/452) (the "FDI Regulation"), amending the proposal originally published by the EU Commission and significantly deviating from it in certain important...

foreigninvestment.bakermckenzie.com

That still says that it is up to the member states

"This is because the FDI Regulation is only intended to provide a framework for the creation of national regimes."

And from my understanding Greenland's FDI regulations isn't even regulated by danish law, but Greenland is in the process of implementing their own. So this haven't stopped the US to invest in Greenland since at least 1985. Can you support why you alluded that it required an unanimous decision in Brussels?

ThatRobGuy said:
From what I've read, with regards to what's considered "strategic sectors" and things that have potential security implications. Denmark has obligations to the EU to "keep their dependent territory within the guardrails" (which is why Chinese interest in Greenland's minerals has become something of a sticking point)

You got a link about FDI and Denmark's obligations toward the EU in relation to Greenland?

Stopped_lurking · Dec 24, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Sarcasm: Milary force? We can just give them blankets at a peace offering.

I don't think that ploy will work again

Larniavc · Dec 24, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
You had mentioned the "annexed by Russia" thing.

I was replying by pointing out that absent the juggernaut that is the US military, Russia would've already annexed them along with large part of Europe beyond just the nations that were absorbed into the USSR & Soviet Bloc.

Even with the juggernaut Russia has annexed Moldova – in Transnistria, Georgia – in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Ukraine – in Crimea and Sevastopol, and Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, occupied fully or partially.

So your point doesn’t really hold.

Your error, if I may be so bold is to grossly overvalue the positives that America brings to the table. Trump is a man who loathes large scale war as it’s catastrophic for business and Russia and China know this and they know he’ll redirect his ire to those who cannot fight back.

I just wish Europe would wake up to this fact.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 24, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
How would the US magically do something else? Where have that been proposed to the greenlandish government and danish government?

If US mining companies set up shop, that would create jobs and auxiliary industries.

Obviously employees would want to have entertainment options, hotels, restaurants, bars, shopping centers, etc...

Similar to how when a city puts up a new sports stadium or amusement park, a bunch of other businesses pop up along side of it.

Stopped_lurking said:
That still says that it is up to the member states

"This is because the FDI Regulation is only intended to provide a framework for the creation of national regimes."

And from my understanding Greenland's FDI regulations isn't even regulated by danish law, but Greenland is in the process of implementing their own. So this haven't stopped the US to invest in Greenland since at least 1985. Can you support why you alluded that it required an unanimous decision in Brussels?

Agreement on to protect EU strategic sectors from risky foreign investments | News | European Parliament

On Thursday, MEPs and the Council reached a provisional agreement updating EU rules on the screening of foreign investments to prevent security risks.

www.europarl.europa.eu

"Such investments must not endanger the Union’s security or public order. The revised Foreign Investment Screening Regulation offers investors greater clarity regarding risk criteria and establishes transparent, harmonised rules for national screening authorities. By requiring all Member States to implement a screening mechanism and by strengthening cooperation among them, the regulation closes potential loopholes for high-risk investments in the internal market. Moreover, the European Parliament successfully advocated for a broader minimum scope of the national screening mechanisms, ensuring that investments in particularly critical sectors must be screened by all Member States."

Greenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Under this structure, Greenland gradually assumed responsibility for a number of governmental services and areas of competence. The Danish government retains control of citizenship, monetary policy, security policies, and foreign affairs

Stopped_lurking · Dec 24, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
If US mining companies set up shop, that would create jobs and auxiliary industries.

Obviously employees would want to have entertainment options, hotels, restaurants, bars, shopping centers, etc...

Similar to how when a city puts up a new sports stadium or amusement park, a bunch of other businesses pop up along side of it.

Agreement on to protect EU strategic sectors from risky foreign investments | News | European Parliament

On Thursday, MEPs and the Council reached a provisional agreement updating EU rules on the screening of foreign investments to prevent security risks.

www.europarl.europa.eu

"Such investments must not endanger the Union’s security or public order. The revised Foreign Investment Screening Regulation offers investors greater clarity regarding risk criteria and establishes transparent, harmonised rules for national screening authorities. By requiring all Member States to implement a screening mechanism and by strengthening cooperation among them, the regulation closes potential loopholes for high-risk investments in the internal market. Moreover, the European Parliament successfully advocated for a broader minimum scope of the national screening mechanisms, ensuring that investments in particularly critical sectors must be screened by all Member States."

Greenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Under this structure, Greenland gradually assumed responsibility for a number of governmental services and areas of competence. The Danish government retains control of citizenship, monetary policy, security policies, and foreign affairs

Nothing is stopping US mining companies investing in Greenland now or earlier. If they could make the business case they would. The same goes for danish, canadian or swedish mining companies.

FDI Regulatory Guide | Greenland

Greenland has yet to adopt a general investment screening regime, and neither the Danish FDI Act nor the EU FDI Regulation apply in Greenland.

kromannreumert.com

Investment screening

The EU framework for investment screening is part of the European Commission's commitment to a Europe that protects its companies, workers and citizens.

policy.trade.ec.europa.eu

You're wrong in regards to Greenland, FDI is seen as an economic issue not something under the purview of Denmark. You're also wrong regarding the proposed regulation since it doesn't give veto power to the EU over the member states. It's an obligation to inform the EU Commission.

"Greenland decides over it's own FDI

Greenland has yet to adopt a general investment screening regime, and neither the Danish FDI Act nor the EU FDI Regulation apply in Greenland.

However, the Government of Greenland (Naalakkersuisut) presented a bill on 28 October 2025 suggesting the introduc-tion of a Greenlandic FDI regime."

ThatRobGuy · Dec 24, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
Nothing is stopping US mining companies investing in Greenland now or earlier. If they could make the business case they would. The same goes for danish, canadian or swedish mining companies.

FDI Regulatory Guide | Greenland

Greenland has yet to adopt a general investment screening regime, and neither the Danish FDI Act nor the EU FDI Regulation apply in Greenland.

kromannreumert.com

Investment screening

The EU framework for investment screening is part of the European Commission's commitment to a Europe that protects its companies, workers and citizens.

policy.trade.ec.europa.eu

You're wrong in regards to Greenland, FDI is seen as an economic issue not something under the purview of Denmark. You're also wrong regarding the proposed regulation since it doesn't give veto power to the EU over the member states. It's an obligation to inform the EU Commission.

"Greenland decides over it's own FDI

Greenland has yet to adopt a general investment screening regime, and neither the Danish FDI Act nor the EU FDI Regulation apply in Greenland.

However, the Government of Greenland (Naalakkersuisut) presented a bill on 28 October 2025 suggesting the introduc-tion of a Greenlandic FDI regime."

So are you suggesting that the EU parliament website is wrong about this?
Moreover, the European Parliament successfully advocated for a broader minimum scope of the national screening mechanisms, ensuring that investments in particularly critical sectors must be screened by all Member States."

Noting that the kinds of mining we'd be looking to do is within something considered a critical sector.

Hence the reason why there was pressure on them pausing what little mining China was doing.

Stopped_lurking · Dec 24, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
So are you suggesting that the EU parliament website is wrong about this?
Moreover, the European Parliament successfully advocated for a broader minimum scope of the national screening mechanisms, ensuring that investments in particularly critical sectors must be screened by all Member States."

Noting that the kinds of mining we'd be looking to do is within something considered a critical sector.

Hence the reason why there was pressure on them pausing what little mining China was doing.

No, but perhaps your understanding of the word screening and who does it to whom is mistaken in this context.
Screened by all member states does not in a plain reading mean that the member states screen each other but that each member state must screen those who want to invest.

The wording in your quote says "national screening mechanism". It pertains to a "The revised framework introduces a common minimum level of harmonisation across the EU." from my earlier link (it includes a paragraph on the revision) but that wouldn't apply to Greenland. Also there is no veto power, when it comes to these decisions the final say is in the hands of national governments and their laws.

Regardless it doesn't apply to Greenland. Hence why they introduced their own legislation.

I don't know where you got the idea that it requires a unanimous decision in Brussels.

The EU haven't threatened legal action over chinese investments in Greenland from what I can remember. It has been Greenland that have used China to try to get more investments from the EU and the US, there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm not a lawyer, so I may have misunderstood some things, but I read national danish news regularly.

essentialsaltes · Jan 6, 2026

White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table

“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.

“The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday.

During a speech to a joint session of Congress early last year, Trump lobbed a threat at Greenland: “I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”

Republican Rep. Don Bacon, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has urged the administration to “stop the stupid ‘we want Greenland [baloney]’” and called on other Republicans to “universally oppose” any military action toward Greenland.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Jan 6, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.

“The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday.

During a speech to a joint session of Congress early last year, Trump lobbed a threat at Greenland: “I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”

Republican Rep. Don Bacon, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has urged the administration to “stop the stupid ‘we want Greenland [baloney]’” and called on other Republicans to “universally oppose” any military action toward Greenland.

So, he basically trying to steal countries land.Their heritage . And using the army to do it.

Pommer · Jan 6, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.

“The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday.

During a speech to a joint session of Congress early last year, Trump lobbed a threat at Greenland: “I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”

Republican Rep. Don Bacon, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has urged the administration to “stop the stupid ‘we want Greenland [baloney]’” and called on other Republicans to “universally oppose” any military action toward Greenland.

Imperialism seems a step backward, no?

loveofourlord · Jan 6, 2026

In response, parts of Nato and Canada have defended Denmark and their right to greenland and made it clear, that no the US will not be allowed to take over.

essentialsaltes · Jan 6, 2026

Greenland to Iceland.
Kamchatka to Japan.

Nithavela · Jan 6, 2026

If you guys attack Greenland we'll send the Finns over there.

High Fidelity · Wednesday at 2:41 AM

I agree with the claim of geographical importance, but the minerals aspect is an issue, especially when you float the use of military force against a NATO ally, an ally which responded, supported and died alongside US troops when the US activated Article 5 in the past.

Sadly I think Greenland is going to have its future dictated to it and no one will do anything to stop it.

There could easily have been discussions to allow the US a larger military presence for defensive measures, but clearly it's more about minerals.

FireDragon76 · Wednesday at 2:12 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
The article makes mention of them "demanding respect for territorial integrity" and "national borders are rooted in international law" and "Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders"

What do you think that means? (in practical terms)

Because very similar types of rhetoric pertaining the US have been labelled as something much more nefarious.

How this reads to me is "nationalism is not only okay, but preferable as long as it's westernized white people you're trying to keep out"

Sort of similar to that whole situation where there's a fair amount of self-contradiction in those conversations people have about gentrification.

The issue is not nationalism. The issue is anti-colonialism.

Aryeh Jay · Wednesday at 2:46 PM

Nithavela said:
If you guys attack Greenland we'll send the Finns over there.

Bah! What do the Finns know about fighting in the artic?

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 2:59 PM

FireDragon76 said:
The issue is not nationalism. The issue is anti-colonialism.

In many ways it's a distinction without a difference.

Nationalism = "I don't want people with different culture and values coming here and changing the place"
Anti-Colonialism = "I don't want people with different culture and values coming here and changing the place, oh and did I mention they're White and/or Capitalist and/or Judeo-Christian"

As noted before, it's no different than the conversations people have about neighborhood demographic changes. Depending on the dynamics it either gets labelled as integration (good) or gentrification (bad).

BCP1928 · Wednesday at 4:09 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
In many ways it's a distinction without a difference.

Nationalism = "I don't want people with different culture and values coming here and changing the place"
Anti-Colonialism = "I don't want people with different culture and values coming here and changing the place, oh and did I mention they're White and/or Capitalist and/or Judeo-Christian"

As noted before, it's no different than the conversations people have about neighborhood demographic changes. Depending on the dynamics it either gets labelled as integration (good) or gentrification (bad).

Immigration is not the subject of this thread. Your culture war hangups are not relevant.

wing2000 · Wednesday at 6:01 PM

High Fidelity said:
I agree with the claim of geographical importance, but the minerals aspect is an issue, especially when you float the use of military force against a NATO ally, an ally which responded, supported and died alongside US troops when the US activated Article 5 in the past.

Sadly I think Greenland is going to have its future dictated to it and no one will do anything to stop it.

There could easily have been discussions to allow the US a larger military presence for defensive measures, but clearly it's more about minerals.

....or Trump simply wants to take credit for expanding the United States map.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 10:18 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
In many ways it's a distinction without a difference.

Nationalism = "I don't want people with different culture and values coming here and changing the place"
Anti-Colonialism = "I don't want people with different culture and values coming here and changing the place, oh and did I mention they're White and/or Capitalist and/or Judeo-Christian"

As noted before, it's no different than the conversations people have about neighborhood demographic changes. Depending on the dynamics it either gets labelled as integration (good) or gentrification (bad).

Oh good grief Rob.

Anti-colonialism is about opposing foreigners coming and TAKING CONTROL of your country. Did you not read about colonies in HS? Did you confuse colonies in general with the 13 colonies where much of the native population had died of disease before "settlers" came?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

‘To make Greenland a part of the U.S.’: Trump appoints new special envoy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table​

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table​

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table​

Newbie

Fact-Based Lifeform

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stuck on a ship.

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Area Meathead

Similar threads

White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table

White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table

White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table