\n\u201cCongress would still have to choose to make it a state, but this would simply authorize the president to do what he’s doing and say the Congress stands behind him. And then it would expedite it into becoming a state, but it would still be up to Congress about whether to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The renewed push comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed last week that he would be meeting with Danish officials to discuss Greenland, signaling that the issue has moved beyond rhetoric and into serious diplomatic engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
President Trump first floated the idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland during his initial term, drawing criticism from Democrats and European elites but sparking quiet agreement among national security experts. Greenland\u2019s strategic location in the Arctic places it along key military and shipping routes near Russia and China, and the island is believed to hold vast reserves of critical minerals essential for advanced technology, defense systems, and energy production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Republicans argue that as global competition intensifies, especially with adversaries like China and Russia aggressively expanding their Arctic presence, U.S. leadership in the region is no longer optional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fine echoed those arguments while also emphasizing what he sees as Denmark\u2019s failure to adequately govern and protect Greenland\u2019s population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cTheir poverty rate is high. Denmark hasn’t treated them well,\u201d Fine said. \u201cWhen war came to town, Denmark couldn’t protect them. Guess who protected Greenland during World War II? We did.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
During World War II, the United States assumed responsibility for Greenland\u2019s defense after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, a historical point Republicans frequently cite as evidence of America\u2019s longstanding role in safeguarding the island.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Still, some GOP lawmakers were caught off guard earlier this month when White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to rule out the use of military force if negotiations were to fail. While many Republicans agree with the strategic rationale behind U.S. ownership, there is broad consensus that any acquisition should be peaceful and voluntary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Asked directly whether he would support military action, Fine emphasized diplomacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cI think the best way to acquire Greenland is voluntarily.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
He also criticized Greenland\u2019s current governance structure, framing the issue as both a strategic and ideological concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cThe poverty rate in Greenland is much, much higher than it is in Denmark. The country is run by socialists, and it is not in America’s interests to have a territory that large between the United States and Russia run by socialists,\u201d Fine said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the power to admit new states into the Union. The process typically involves Congress passing legislation authorizing statehood, followed by the drafting of a state constitution by the territory\u2019s residents. That constitution must be approved locally before Congress votes again to formally admit the state, with final approval coming from the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Supporters of the Greenland proposal argue that while statehood would be a lengthy process, securing U.S. sovereignty now would strengthen national security, protect American economic interests, and offer Greenland\u2019s residents greater opportunity and stability under U.S. governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Read:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n