By June Peers

Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20, becoming the 47th United States president. A day after his inauguration, he withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement, as part of his “America First” policy. America First is rooted in populism, characterized by its focus on national sovereignty over multilateralism. With Trump championing unorthodox policies, many Americans are wondering whether his plans are feasible for the country.

A major feat he wants to accomplish in his presidential term is the annexation of Greenland, a current Danish territory. He began advocating for the annexation as early as August 2019, drawn to its proximity between North America and Europe. This way, Trump can assert geopolitical power in the Arctic while forming a buffer zone against adversaries like China and Russia. 

Additionally, Greenland’s abundant rare earth metals are key to both bolstering trade and gradually transitioning into a green economy. However, it is important to note that Trump is a known advocate for oil drilling, stating that the U.S. ought to “drill, baby, drill.” With his support for fossil fuel extraction, Trump views the Arctic as a hub of untapped oil and gas resources. Thus, obtaining rare earth minerals could be counterproductive if Trump still plans on deepening our reliance on fossil fuels.

The debate over whether the U.S. should buy Greenland isn’t unique to Trump’s presidency. In fact, the idea has a much earlier origin with the U.S. negotiating with Denmark all throughout the 19th century. The most significant negotiation occurred in 1946 when President Harry S. Truman offered $100 million for Greenland, which would be $1.6 billion today, adjusted for inflation. Denmark rejected this offer.

Ultimately, skeptics are concerned that the purchase and maintenance of Greenland outweigh the possible benefits of cementing the U.S. as the leader in natural resources. According to the American Action Forum, if Trump were to annex Greenland, the estimated purchase price would be upward of $200 billion with annual maintenance costs of $2.4 million. Furthermore, isolating ourselves from our European allies who have protested against the annexation, including Denmark, France, and Germany, would render our strategic position in the Arctic obsolete. Greenland has expressed that they wish to exercise full autonomy with Prime Minister Egede stating in a press conference, “The Greenlandic people must make it clear what they want to be. We do not want to be Danes. We do not want to be Americans.”

With Denmark’s unwillingness to give up Greenland, combined with exorbitant costs and fractured international relations, Greenland may remain a pipe dream of the Trump administration. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect Greenland to become an American colony anytime soon.

Along with Greenland, another country Trump has his eyes on is Mexico. He claims that he will rename the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.” Even if Trump follows through with the renaming, other countries will be unlikely to adopt the name, merely viewing this policy as a symbolic act. In the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), a committee that supervises maritime affairs, countries refer to the same body of water by different names. For instance, Japan uses the term “Sea of Japan” in its documentation while South Korea uses “East Sea.” Similarly, since the U.S. and Mexico are both parties to the IHO, it is likely that only the U.S. would recognize the renaming while other members would continue to refer to it as the Gulf of Mexico. Trump may superficially achieve his goal of renaming the Gulf, but it would have practically no bearing on the global stage.

When analyzing the future of our nation, it’s important to revisit history and remind ourselves of the events of Trump’s first presidential term. His most noteworthy, and arguably most controversial, act as president was building a wall across the Mexican border. Trump constructed 47 miles of primary barriers, costing a whopping $15 billion. Today, the wall has been termed the “Great Wall of Failure,” as he was unable to secure his “great, beautiful wall” across 1,954 miles. 

It is natural for Americans to anticipate that our presidents’ propositions are built on a foundation of legitimacy. After all, Trump started his presidency off on an awkward footing by withdrawing the U.S. from international organizations and treaties. However, if we approach the next four years with an understanding that not all proposals manifest into reality, it will be much easier for Americans to navigate our future.