The recent rhetoric from President-elect Donald Trump about potentially acquiring Greenland through a Compact of Free Association has sparked renewed debate about the island’s future. However, pursuing such an arrangement would be a costly and unnecessary mistake for the United States. While free association may seem like a more pragmatic alternative to outright purchase, it would lead to significant economic and diplomatic consequences that far outweigh its supposed benefits.
Currently, the United States is achieving its geostrategic goals in Greenland without needing such an arrangement. U.S. military presence at the Pittufik Space Base is already well-established, providing vital deterrence and surveillance capabilities. Furthermore, American firms have existing agreements with Greenland to access critical mineral resources, and Greenland has expressed a willingness to deepen economic cooperation with the U.S. through mining ventures.
Attempts to bring China’s influence to the island have already been thwarted through existing diplomatic and economic efforts led by the U.S. and Denmark. Free association would add little to the current situation and could strain relations with Denmark, a crucial NATO ally. By shifting away from Denmark’s financial support, Greenland would demand a staggering amount—at least $700 million annually—from the U.S., making this approach economically unfeasible.
Instead, Washington should stick to its current engagement strategy. Investing in smaller, targeted initiatives—like tourism, education, and mining—would achieve greater benefits without the need for free association. Strengthening ties with Greenland through cost-effective measures will help secure American interests in the region, while avoiding unnecessary tensions with Denmark. Free association is not the solution; it would only serve to alienate allies and drain valuable resources.
