Mike Pence, who served as Vice President during Donald Trump’s administration, has voiced robust support for the controversial proposal to purchase Greenland from Denmark, a plan that has stirred intense geopolitical discussions and diplomatic complications. Pence’s defense notably centers on national security considerations at a critical time when Arctic territories are gaining increased strategic importance due to the competing interests of global powers such as China and Russia.
In an in-depth interview with CNN, Pence articulated his belief that the United States has an <>'absolute national security interest'<> in exerting control over Greenland. He aligned this modern-day initiative with historical U.S. foreign policy precedent by referencing Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, who had once proposed a similar acquisition. This linkage, Pence suggested, reflects a longstanding American intent to secure influence in the Arctic region.
Expanding on the topic, Pence recalled his diplomatic efforts in 2019 when, following President Trump’s initial announcement of interest in Greenland, he traveled to Iceland to advocate for the U.S. position amidst increasing activities by Chinese and Russian actors in the Arctic. He described the Arctic not only as an emerging frontier for geopolitical competition but also as a zone of profound military and strategic value to the United States.
"I really want to support the president’s objective here," Pence stated emphatically. "We have an absolute national security interest in controlling and ultimately owning Greenland." Such control, he contended, would fortify U.S. defenses and influence amid rapidly evolving dynamics in the polar north.
Nonetheless, Pence expressed explicit concern regarding the diplomatic repercussions the plan might generate, especially tensions it could provoke with Denmark and other NATO allies. He voiced reservations about the administration’s approach, cautioning against unilateral punitive measures such as tariffs that could damage the alliance’s cohesiveness.
Instead, Pence recommended that President Trump pursue a strategy rooted in diplomacy and targeted investments to advance the Greenland acquisition, balancing national security priorities with international partnership maintenance.
Concurrently, President Trump remarked that Denmark had failed to adequately counter ongoing Russian threats in the Northeast Atlantic over the previous two decades, signaling his administration’s resolve to supersede these shortcomings. Trump declared unequivocally, "Now it is time, and it will be done!!!" evidencing firm commitment to the acquisition goal.
Geopolitical and Economic Repercussions
The proposition to acquire Greenland has generated substantial controversy among international actors and within U.S. political circles. The European Union has been reported as contemplating retaliatory trade actions in response to U.S. tariff impositions tied to the dispute. Furthermore, concerns about broader geopolitical destabilization have arisen.
For instance, Representative Michael McCaul, a Republican lawmaker from Texas, warned that any military endeavor by the United States to forcibly seize Greenland would amount to an act of war against NATO, potentially fracturing NATO's foundational unity. Such remarks underscore the inherent risks linked to the aggressive execution of the plan without multilateral consensus.
Economic analyses accompanying these geopolitical considerations have also raised red flags. Critics question the financial viability of the Greenland purchase and subsequent development, highlighting an estimated 20-year cumulative cost approaching $1 trillion. These projections encompass not only the acquisition price but also extensive infrastructure investments required to harness the island’s natural resources and strategic value.
While Greenland is rich in critical minerals and hydrocarbon deposits, experts assert that exploitation of these assets might be more economically feasible elsewhere, including on U.S. soil. The White House’s valuation of the purchase price alone stands at approximately $700 billion, with significantly greater expenditure anticipated to establish necessary infrastructural foundations.
The interplay between strategic imperatives and fiscal pragmatism thus constitutes a central theme in ongoing debates about the feasibility and wisdom of securing Greenland under American sovereignty.
Conclusion
Mike Pence’s recent comments reinforce the administration’s framing of the Greenland acquisition as a national security imperative amid the Arctic’s rising prominence on the global stage. However, they also reflect an awareness of the complicated diplomatic and economic landscape that surrounds such an ambitious initiative.
The path forward involves navigating the delicate balance between advancing American strategic interests and preserving critical alliances within NATO and the broader international community. The coming months will likely prove pivotal in determining how these competing considerations are reconciled or whether tensions will further escalate.