Acquisition of Greenland is ‘Win-Win Situation’ Says Sen. Cruz During Expansive Hearing on Arctic Security

U.S. Senators doubled down on the importance of Greenland for U.S. security during a hearing on the Arctic.

During a two-hour session of the Senate’s Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee lawmakers across the aisle and expert witnesses stressed the importance of Greenland, including its possible acquisition, for U.S. security considerations. 

The need to procure additional icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy also found support across both parties, with several Senators expressing support for President Trump’s claim that his administration “is going to order about 40 icebreakers.”

“I’m committed to ending Russian and Chinese icebreaker dominance,” Committee Chairman Texas Sen. Cruz stated.

With respect to a possible acquisition of Greenland, brought up by President Trump again recently, Cruz continued. “Some may argue that the U.S. purchasing territory is out of the question. But it isn’t unusual for the U.S. to do so, even from our ally Denmark. The U.S. purchased the Virgin Islands from the Danish crown in 1917 […] The U.S. acquisition of Greenland is not about military force; it’s about diplomacy and shared interests.”

“It’s a win-win situation. Greenland’s economy would grow, and the U.S. would gain a stronger, more secure foothold in the Arctic,” he concluded. 

Democratic lawmakers agreed on the importance of Greenland for U.S. national security, but called the discussion of purchasing Greenland a distraction.

“If we stop talking about buying Greenland, and instead [can] work quickly to reestablish U.S. interests. Since 1951 many updated agreements between Greenland and the United States, the one most recently, from 2018,” highlighted ranking member Sen. Cantwell of Washington.

Cantwell also highlighted the short-sightedness of dramatic cuts and layoffs at the National Science Foundation, at a time when a better understanding of climate change in the Arctic is crucial to U.S. security.

“So, I hope this committee can work together to explain the massive NSF layoffs and budget cuts. This seems particularly short sighted when we need to understand Greenland better than ever before,” Cantwell questioned.

On the matter of the critical shortage of icebreakers Cantwell highlighted that much work remains to be done.

“The Coast Guard will soon operate a third icebreaker, but additional investments are desperately needed, the Chairman mentioned this, to make even this one additional ship operational. Congress has authorized six more icebreakers, but that is still only a fraction of what is required.” she stated.

Both Senators Sheehy and Schmitt warned of the dangers of letting Greenland “fall into the hands” of Russia and China.

“What’s the best approach to achieve what we think the best outcome can be, so that we do not allow Greenland to become a territory of our adversaries in the very near future?” said Sen. Sheehy.

“The Arctic is a key frontier in global competition, and Greenland is central to U.S. security. Whether we acquire Greenland, increase military presence, economic investment, or formalize security arrangements, we must ensure Greenland’s future aligns with U.S. interests,” Sen. Schmitt confirmed.

Witness testimony came from security, resource mining, and Arctic experts. 

“The United States is running out of time to develop a coherent strategic response to an independent Greenland,” warned Alexander Gray, a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington. 

“I would say Denmark has failed, unfortunately, to provide the type of security that the alliance that NATO, that we all need in the Greenland region in the Arctic, for a long time […] we have a pattern of decades of neglect,” he continued.

Others pointed to the progress the U.S. has already achieved in re-establishing presence in Greenland.

“I would point to the reopening of our consulate in Nuuk as a landmark accomplishment that has done tremendous good for the U.S.-Greenland relationship. That was a direct result of [Trump’s] intervention in his first term,” highlighted Rebecca Pincus, Director of Polar Institute at the Wilson Center.

Unlock Exclusive Insights Today!

Join the gCaptain Club for curated content, insider opinions, and vibrant community discussions.

Sign Up