I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Today's read: 13 minutes.
A special shoutout.
As many of you know, toward the end of last year we launched a redesign of our website. I'm so happy with how it came out. One of the guys behind that design was Matthew Smith, who also runs the decaf coffee company Wimp. Matthew was incredible to work with, and as part of my "thank you" to him for the extra love he put into our project I asked if I could shout out Wimp in the newsletter — and tell some of our readers to go buy his great tasting coffee. He agreed, of course, and also threw on a 20% discount for Tangle readers.
We don't normally show ads to everyone, but in this case I just want to thank him by promoting his company. Personally, I never thought I could get into decaf coffee, as I can be a caffeine fiend. But the product is genuinely full of flavor, delicious, and has become part of my afternoon routine (when I'm trying to keep my heart rate in check).
You can buy give it a shot here and get 20% off Wimp Coffee with code TANGLESANITYCHECK.
What should we track?
This Friday, we are going to take stock of the state of the country as Donald Trump takes office. Our goal is to create a list of metrics and some of Trump's promises that we can check on in two and four years. What metrics do you think we should take note of? And what promises from Trump do you want to see us track? What bold predictions from journalists or politicians do you think we should earmark? Reply to this email with your ideas and we'll consider them for publication!
Quick hits.
- Confirmation hearings for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees begin this week, with hearings on Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Veterans Affairs nominee Doug Collins, and Secretary of the Interior nominee Doug Burgum starting Tuesday. (The hearings)
- The National Weather Service issued a “particularly dangerous situation” warning for parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, citing hazardous fire weather conditions created by wind gusts. The Palisades and Eaton fires continue to burn with 17% and 35% containment respectively. (The warning)
- Qatar delivered a finalized draft of a ceasefire and hostage release deal to Israel and Hamas negotiators, raising the prospect of an agreement to pause the fighting in Gaza as early as this week. (The negotiations)
- The U.S. government extended the deadline for Nippon Steel to cancel its planned acquisition of U.S. Steel, giving the company until June to potentially advance a different version of the deal that President Joe Biden blocked. (The extension)
- Global oil prices surged following new sanctions on Russia’s energy sector unveiled by the Biden administration last week. (The increase)
Today's topic.
Trump’s comments on Greenland. In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has reiterated his desire to acquire Greenland in an effort to expand U.S. territory and influence, calling its acquisition an “absolute necessity.” In response to questions from the press last week, Trump said he would not rule out using military or economic pressure to acquire the territory after he takes office, drawing strong rebukes from Democrats and European allies.
Back up: Greenland, the world's largest island, is currently an autonomous territory of Denmark, though its population of 56,000 citizens has recently shown support for full independence. Roughly 80% of the island is covered by ice and snow, and the majority of its population lives in five towns.
Erik the Red became the first European to discover Greenland in 982 after being banished from Iceland. The island was populated by Vikings for centuries, though by the 17th century the Norse settlements had disappeared and only sparse Inuit communities remained. Denmark began colonizing the island in 1721, then granted the territory home rule in 1979. Though it now has its own government and prime minister (currently Múte Egede), Greenland remains part of Denmark.
What just happened: Trump floated the possibility of acquiring Greenland in his first term, and has now returned to the idea. His desire is not without precedent. The U.S. first attempted to buy Greenland in 1868, and Harry S. Truman pursued a deal in 1946. The U.S. even took "protective custody" over Greenland during World War II. Trump reportedly views the issue as a potential legacy-defining achievement, comparable to Alaska and Hawaii becoming U.S. states in 1949 under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Greenland is appealing for both military and economic reasons. The island is rich in “critical minerals” key to wind farms, magnets, tanks, chipmaking, artificial intelligence, and more. Geographically, it is placed near burgeoning trade routes becoming available due to arctic ice melt, and is already home to one U.S. military base. Finally, U.S. trade rivals like China have already pursued mining and economic partnerships with the island.
Trump’s comments received stiff criticism from European allies like France and Germany, who warned of destabilizing territorial disputes at a time when Russia and China are pursuing Ukraine and Taiwan. Prime Minister Egede, meanwhile, has insisted the island is not for sale and it will decide its own future on its own terms. However, Egede also said on Monday the country is looking to strengthen its defense and mining ties with the U.S.
Today, we are going to explore some arguments about Trump’s pursuit of Greenland from the left and right, and then my take.
What the left is saying.
- The left is critical of Trump’s proposal, with many suggesting his rhetoric alone could destabilize U.S. alliances.
- Some say the U.S. should expand its relationship with Greenland even if buying it is off the table.
- Others criticize Trump’s openness to using military force for territorial gains.
In Vox, Joshua Keating wrote about “the real danger of Trump’s Greenland gambit.”
“Trump first publicly discussed the idea of the United States purchasing the world’s largest island back in 2019, during his first term. The idea was rejected out of hand by the government of Denmark at the time,” Keating said. “How serious Trump is now is known to him alone, but he has not let the idea go as he prepares to return to the White House… The Greenland proposal comes alongside Trump repeated is-he-joking-or-isn’t-he suggestions that Canada be made the ‘51st state’ and demands that Panama return control of the Panama Canal — altogether, an agenda for territorial expansion on a level not seen since the James K. Polk administration in the mid-19th century.”
“None of the reasons why Greenland is strategically important for the United States explain why it needs to be part of the United States. American companies, including a new mining venture backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, are already investing in Greenland’s minerals. The US also already has a military base in the country,” Keating wrote. “The US benefits from Greenland being under the jurisdiction of a friendly NATO ally: In 2017, the Danish government blocked an effort by a Chinese mining company to acquire an abandoned military base in Greenland, in part out of a desire to maintain good relations with the US. These are the sort of relations that are potentially threatened by publicly musing about annexing territory by force.”
In Bloomberg, James Stavridis suggested “Trump is right: Greenland is vital to US national security.”
“In 2019, the prime minister of Greenland had an excellent response: ‘Greenland is not for sale, but we are open for business.’ We ought to take his point. Because Trump is right about one thing: Greenland, with just 56,000 people in an expanse larger than Mexico, is an immensely valuable piece of real estate,” Stavridis wrote. “There are three principal reasons for the island’s geopolitical importance. First, it is a vital element of the Greenland-Iceland-UK ‘gap’ that guards the northern approaches to the Atlantic Ocean from Russian naval forces… Second, Greenland has important natural resources, including likely deposits of heavy and light rare-earth minerals including neodymium and dysprosium, both vital for computing and green energy.”
“Finally, climate change will make vast areas of Greenland more temperate. Over time, there may be significant agrarian potential. Eco-tourism is already providing a significant economic benefit and could grow exponentially,” Stavridis said. “Given that no sale or military annexation is in the offing, the best approach for Washington is furthering the military, diplomatic and economic ties that it already has with Greenland and Denmark. This would not only benefit all parties, but would box out China and Russia.”
In MSNBC, Zeeshan Aleem said “any way you look at it, Trump's threats of war expose the scam of America First.”
“Trump has recently floated far-fetched proposals to buy Greenland and wrest back control of the Panama Canal. In response to a question from a reporter at the news conference about what he’d be willing to do to secure them, Trump said something that sounded more dire. He refused to rule out military or economic coercion to obtain Greenland or the Panama Canal,” Aleem wrote. “The United States is the richest and the most powerful country in the world, dominating trade routes, institutions and agreements around the globe. The idea that it needs ownership of the mostly frozen island of Greenland for economic security is ludicrous.”
“One can only conclude that, by floating the idea of possible wars, Trump is in some sense defrauding the public. If he’s not being serious about being willing to take military action, then his language is the kind of false bravado that depletes the United States’ credibility and makes him look like a witless cowboy. And if Trump is serious — which I believe is unlikely — then he’s undermining all his talk about how America First means opposing endless war. Trump has no mandate for arbitrarily returning the United States to a new era of old-school colonialism and annexation.”
What the right is saying.
- The right is mixed on the proposal, though many say Trump’s ambitions are rooted in countering China.
- Some argue the U.S. should be looking to shrink — not grow — its territorial holdings.
- Others suggest alternate ways to foster deeper economic and military ties with Greenland without needing to own it.
In The New York Post, Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet said “Trump’s Greenland push is about growing China threat.”
“It’s about China, stupid. President-elect Trump’s answer to an ‘I gotcha’ question is capturing all of the headlines – his refusal to rule out military force in the Panama Canal – but many in the media are missing its intended messaging,” Toth and Sweet wrote. “Trump and his incoming national security team are putting Chinese President Xi Jinping on notice. They are essentially telling him and the rest of the world – we see what Beijing is aiming to economically and militarily achieve in the Western hemisphere. Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal and even the Drake Passage at the End of the World are all interconnected. China is their common denominator.
“It is the 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine – and it is coming at a time when China is increasingly asserting itself on the global stage. Beijing is working to strangle economically and militarily U.S. maritime and naval sea routes by controlling key choke points and naval transit routes,” Toth and Sweet said. “As is his custom, Trump is arguing the case against Beijing in largely economic terms. However, the impetus for his argument is primarily driven by China and its dual track approach to building a global military projection force… Greenland may appear to most Americans to be an isolated concern; yet the Danish territory will play an increasingly vital role in U.S. national security in the decades ahead.”
In Cato, Doug Bandow called Trump’s proposal “nonsense.”
“Tempting as it might be to use Washington’s undoubted hard power to acquire more territory, Making America Great Again would be better achieved by shrinking rather than expanding the nation’s borders. When it comes to countries, bigger is not always better,” Bandow wrote. “There are legitimate security issues at play in Panama, Canada, and Greenland, but none require US control. The Panama Canal functioned even during the Noriega dictatorship. Today the country is democratic and stable… Diplomatic suasion and economic aid should be enough to avoid future hostile management of the facility.”
“Washington need not occupy the island. It already hosts America’s northernmost military facility, Pituffik Space Base. Neither a Chinese nor a Russian invasion is likely, and most threats can be confronted from afar,” Bandow said. “Donald Trump was reelected by challenging an ever-aggrandizing Washington elite which views bigger government as always better government. He shouldn’t fall into a similar trap of wanting the US to ever expand… Trump should focus on cutting Washington down to size, in both domestic and foreign affairs.”
In National Review, Henry Olsen wrote about “an alternative to buying Greenland that could actually work.”
“America is not buying Greenland from Denmark. There is, nevertheless, another way to secure our vital security interests in the vast island nation that is much more realistic: signing a Compact of Free Association (COFA),” Olsen said. “The United States has three such treaties with the Republic of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. The U.S. supplies each with economic aid and access to many government programs such as Medicaid. Imports from these countries are largely tariff-free, and citizens of these nations can live and work in the United States.
“In exchange, the U.S. handles all defense obligations. It can exclude other nations’ militaries, has certain rights to station troops and establish bases, and can operate its military forces within these nations’ boundaries,” Olsen wrote. “This would meet the American desire to keep China and, to a lesser extent, Russia out of its backyard. The Arctic Ocean ice is rapidly melting, making the Arctic Sea lanes viable for shipping. China has shown a keen interest in the region, establishing a Polar Silk Road program to encourage its dominance in this increasingly important part of the world.”
My take.
Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.
- Deepening our ties with Greenland, or even acquiring it as a territory, would be well within our national interests.
- I think Trump is right to bring this up, but his methods could backfire by alienating allies.
- Greenland should be the ones deciding their future — I think we should try to convince them to align more with us.
Well, I sort of spoiled my view on this with a rant on our podcast last week, but writing the "My take" section is always the space where I get to articulate my views in a more organized manner, so here goes:
I think Trump is right to be thinking about Greenland.
Before I explain why, let me say from the jump that this story is a great example of how frustrating Trump can be for someone with moderate politics like me. He is broaching an important subject (U.S. influence in Greenland), and his instincts are right (we should have a stronger relationship with them). He is also approaching it in a way that very few buttoned-up politicians would (making it a front-page story), and his approach is just novel enough to work (Greenland is, after all, already playing nice).
And yet, he can't do a basic thing like bring this debate into the public sphere without ruling out the possibility of using our military (an absurd prospect) or riffing on scratching out the border between us and Canada (an obvious troll of Justin Trudeau, if you ask me), which gives his opponents easy ammunition to shoot down the entire notion. So now Trump has championed what I think is a worthwhile cause, but in a way that immediately creates division.
Here's the reality: Greenland’s geography alone makes it strategically important, which would be true even in calmer times, for its potential shipping routes and proximity to Russia’s Siberian waters. It's even more important now, with Russia on the march in Europe and China already working for inroads in Greenland, among other places. It is home to 30 of the 50 minerals the U.S. government has defined as critical for developing future technologies, minerals that we mostly rely on adversaries to acquire today. While I have no interest in seeing us plunder Greenland — a preposterously beautiful and wild place — for minerals, I'm also realistic enough to know that China and Russia are already headed in that direction. I'd rather we have control over the environmental process than them.
Do I think we will, or even should, buy Greenland? No. But I also don't think it is all that harebrained to imagine Greenlanders wanting to have more formal ties to the U.S., or even being open to becoming a U.S. territory. Yes, the current prime minister and the current population is moving toward independence. Yes, Greenlanders should be the ones deciding their future. Yes, it is unlikely that their future is as a U.S. state or territory. But also, we could fit the entire population of Greenland into a mid-sized football stadium; a charm offensive could easily move a majority of 56,000 people toward wanting to become a U.S. state or territory down the line.
This does not have to be colonialism or imperialism or any other bad-sounding word. Greenland is an autonomous territory with democratically elected leaders who, if they believe it is good for their country, might favor selling all or part of their territory to the United States. Or, as Henry Olsen suggested (under “What the right is saying”), they could simply want to develop deeper economic and military ties with us, like what we have with some Pacific Island nations today. Just as Eisenhower wasn't insane for seeing the value of Alaska and Hawaii, Trump is not insane for seeing the value of Greenland. He's just crazy enough to actually try it, which is part of his appeal.
Obviously, making a play for Greenland has enormous risks. For one, Trump's language about "artificially drawn lines" among nations and his simple insistence that we must take another country is precisely the kind of thing Putin says about Ukraine and Xi Jinping says about Taiwan. The differences should be obvious: Ukraine and Taiwan are very purposefully resisting becoming a part of Russia and China, and Putin has already killed tens of thousands of people while Xi would potentially have to kill an order of magnitude more to take Taiwan. Yet, an American president's words echoing leaders like Xi and Putin does have an impact globally, and his critics are right that this matters.
Also, the effectiveness of the "madman theory" of Trump is often exaggerated. As Fareed Zakaria put it, the idea is that the president appearing unpredictable or even irrational throws off our adversaries (an idea I sometimes subscribe to), but it does not always hold true. In Trump's first term he attempted to intimidate Kim Jong Un with threats of nuclear war; then the two seemingly became pals while North Korea's nuclear arsenal and missile tests continued and advanced.
However, those critics mostly focus on how Trump is going about this and don’t address the main point: Greenland is a large and sparsely inhabited island in a critically important region where U.S. adversaries are making inroads. It's currently transitioning away from its longstanding relationship with Denmark, a European country and a U.S. ally, and its prime minister at the very least seems open to playing ball. If we could flip a switch and simply make it a U.S. territory, it would obviously be smart to do so; any country in the world would say yes to that.
Short of such simplicity, though, it seems genuinely worth investing some political capital in deepening our relationship with Greenland’s government, increasing our presence there, or pursuing some kind of grand acquisition — and I don't think everyone's knee-jerk reaction should be that "Trump is an idiot" for suggesting it, even if I think his approach here is self-defeating.
Take the survey: What do you think Greenland’s relationship with the United States should be? Let us know!
Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.
Help share Tangle.
I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!
- Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.
Your questions, answered.
Q: Do you think there's a chance a Trump administration would try to push something like Canada's Bill C-24, which created a two-tiered citizenship system? Do you know if they've expressed any interest in doing something like that?
—Ileana from Plano, TX
Tangle: Let’s start with what Bill C-24 is. In 2014, during then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s term, Canada passed Bill C-24 — the snappily named “Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.” This bill introduced several reforms to the immigration system, such as strengthening residency requirements for anyone asking for Canadian citizenship, but one change in particular received the most scrutiny: allowing the state to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who were convicted of fraud, treason, spying, serving in an armed force in conflict with Canada, or terrorism in Canada or abroad.
The new law was the target of a lot of debate. Supporters said it would prevent “Canadians of convenience” from claiming Canadian dual citizenship without having any ties or desire to be a part of Canada; opponents said it created two classes of citizenship and provided the government a flimsy excuse to revoke the citizenship of recent immigrants. I think describing the law as creating “two-tiered citizenship” is an enormous overstatement, but the law’s targeted repeal shortly after Justin Trudeau’s election mostly relegated that debate to the dustbin of history.
Could Donald Trump enact a similar law here? I doubt it. For starters, C-24 targeted people convicted of “treason” or “other national security offenses,” which would complicate the process for political asylees and refugees who come here after being falsely accused of crimes in their homeland. Second, while the exact number of dual citizens in the U.S. is unknown, it’s estimated to be several million, so any law targeting them would be a charged political issue. And third, Donald Trump’s wife Melania and son Barron are dual citizens of Slovenia, and Trump hasn’t proposed any plans targeting dual citizens. Instead, his immigration reform focus has been almost entirely on unauthorized migrants and residents who have committed crimes — I’d expect that focus to continue.
Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.
Under the radar.
Last week, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) proposed legislation that would require federal agencies to move 30% of their Washington, D.C.-based workers out of the region within one year of the bill becoming law. The law would apply to all federal agencies except those dealing with national security, and employees who are relocated would not be eligible for remote work. Ernst also proposed a second bill that would require agencies to closely monitor employees’ computer activity while they are working remotely. While roughly 85% of the federal workforce already lives and works outside of the D.C. area, Ernst says her bills aim to target waste and abuse in federal agencies. Government Executive has the story.
Numbers.
- 7%. The approximate percentage of the world’s fresh water contained in Greenland’s ice sheet.
- 20%. The approximate percentage of Greenland that is not covered by ice and snow.
- 76%. The approximate percentage of Greenlanders who voted in favor of self-governance in a 2008 non-binding referendum.
- $100 million. The amount (in gold) that the Truman administration offered Denmark to purchase Greenland in 1946.
- 25 of 34. The number of minerals deemed "critical raw materials" by the European Commission found in Greenland, according to a 2023 survey.
- $500–700 billion. The estimated value of Greenland’s rare earth mineral deposits, according to a 2019 report by Alphaville.
- $300–400 billion. The estimated value of Greenland’s other natural resources.
- $12.5 billion–$77 billion. The estimated range in the cost to purchase Greenland, according to a recent estimate by economist David Barker.
The extras.
- One year ago today we had just covered Lloyd Austin’s disappearance.
- The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was Belgium telling its citizens not to eat Christmas trees.
- Nothing to do with politics: Dunkin’, which dropped the “Donuts” from their name in 2019, is having a donut shortage.
- What's all the controversy? As Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing begins, Tangle staffer Aidan Gorman explores the controversies surrounding his nomination to Secretary of Defense in this 90 second video.
- Yesterday’s survey: 2,531 readers responded to our survey on the Los Angeles wildfires, and a majority ranked climate change as the most responsible factor. “Climates always change, we the people need to adapt. Keep forests controlled, keep things in place to take care of people. Sometimes that means watching where and how we build,” one respondent said.
Have a nice day.
The invasive species water hyacinth has been taking over Lake Naivasha in Kenya, leaving the water unnavigable and killing many of the lake’s fish. It’s not just Lake Naivasha that faces problems due to water hyacinth, and issues caused by the plant cost the global economy $700 million annually. Joseph Nguthiru wanted to do something about it. He founded a company, HyaPak Ecotech Limited, that uses the pesky plant to create a biodegradable form of plastic. In one use case, seedling bags made from the bioplastic can be used to plant new trees. Nguthiru says “it’s a win-win situation” for all involved. CNN has the story.
Don't forget...
📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.
🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.
🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here
💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.
🎉 Want to reach 300,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.
📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).
🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!
