Today, Explained - It’s not easy being Greenland

Episode Date: January 23, 2025

Donald Trump says he wants Greenland for America. Greenlandic government minister Naaja Nathanielsen says the country's not for sale but it's open for business. This episode was produced by Avishay Artsy, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Andrea Kristinsdottir and Patrick Boyd, and hosted by Noel King. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast Support Today, Explained by becoming a Vox Member today: http://www.vox.com/members An aircraft allegedly carrying Donald Trump Jr. after it arrived in Nuuk, Greenland earlier this month. Photo by EMIL STACH/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Greenland is a self-governing territory and part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Donald Trump is the president of America. And since 2019, he's been expressing romantic interest in Greenland. Strategically for the United States, it would be nice. And we're a big ally of Denmark and we help Denmark. Since his re-election, Trump has stepped up the rhetoric again. Yesterday, a Danish MP responded. It's an interscarated part of our country.

It is not for sale. Let me put it in words, you might understand. Mr. Trump f*** off. He then got yelled at. Regardless of what we think of Mr. Trump, it is not possible to use such language. But what does Greenland think about all of this? Today on Explained, Greenland Speaks. We have a great many friends in the US, so we are an American ally, but we are not Americans

and do not wish to be Americans. We want to be Greenlanders. Calling all sellers. Salesforce is hiring account executives to join us on the cutting edge of technology. Here, innovation isn't a buzzword. It's a way of life. You'll be solving customer challenges faster with agents, winning with purpose, and showing the world what AI was meant to be. Let's create the agent-first future together. Head to salesforce.com slash careers to learn more. It's Donald Trump's first week in office again,

and it sure feels like it. There is a great deal of, as Heather said, a great deal of anger about oligarchs, about rich people controlling everything. I'm Preet Bharara, and this week I'm joined by Kara Swisher, Estet Herndon, and Heather Cox Richardson for a special Inauguration Week episode of Stay Tuned with Preet. The episode is out now.

Search and follow Stay Tuned with Preet wherever you get your podcasts. This is Today Explained. I'm Noelle King with Josh Keating. Josh writes about foreign policy and national security for Vox. And Josh reminds us that President Trump has been talking about buying Greenland for quite some time now. So this is something that goes back to the end of the first Trump administration. This was an idea I started talking about in 2019 and it seems sort of even more random,

if that's possible, the first time around. This is something that's been discussed for many years. Harry Truman had the idea of Greenland. I had the idea. Other people have had the idea. It goes back into the early 1900s. And this is an idea that was just sort of rejected out of hand by the government of Denmark.

And you know, the prime minister said, you know, she hoped that he was joking. He probably wasn't because he canceled a visit to Denmark and a sort of fit of beak about it. Now Denmark, I looked forward to going, but I thought that the prime minister's statement that it was absurd, that it was an absurd idea, was nasty. I thought it was an inappropriate statement.

But, you know, it is something that he's now revived. Greenland, instead of buying it. Finland? Greenland. Oh, Greenland. Greenland is a wonderful place. We need it for international security. This first came up the second time around when he announced his pick for ambassador to Denmark, which is Ken Howary, who's the co-founder of PayPal.

And basically in that announcement, Trump described Greenland as an absolute necessity for the U.S. We need Greenland very badly. You look at the Russian ships, the China ships, they're all over the place. And since then, it's just sort of doubled down on it. I mean, I think it's sort of a pattern with Trump when he gets sort of these ideas in his head and he sort of floats them and then they get a strong reaction, then he sort of doubles down on it. And things really got a lot more serious at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago where a reporter asked him if he would rule out using military force to take Greenland.

What is the strategy in that? I can't assure you, you're talking about Panama and Greenland, no, I can't assure you either of those two. But I can say this, we need them for economic security. That's, you know, another level when you're effectively threatening to use military force against a US ally, a member of NATO. Has he explained why it's an absolute necessity for our security? Well, there's a couple of things going on here.

There has been an increased emphasis in US national security on the Arctic. As Arctic sea ice melts, there are all these shipping lanes that are newly accessible, allowing more shipping traffic through the Arctic Circle. A lot of natural resources are more accessible than they used to be. Russia has been building military bases in the Arctic for quite a while. China is increasingly, you know, though it's not an Arctic country, it describes itself somewhat implausibly as a near Arctic state. And they've been building up their commercial interests in the Arctic as well. So there is an increased focus on this. The US is already an Arctic nation because of Alaska. but evidently Trump believes

we need even more Arctic coastline. And then, you know, beyond this sort of national security piece, I think there's an economic factor in here as well. Greenland has significant amount of deposits of metals like lithium, which is important for building batteries needed for the green transition and also rare earth elements, which are also important for green technology. But right now, the global supply is almost entirely controlled by China. And so I think there's this idea that, you know, if we could control Greenland, we would have access to these minerals, which are now going to be more accessible because the ice that covers about 80% of Greenland's landmass is

melting and that'll help us reduce dependence on China and Chinese supply chains for these critical minerals. We've covered how China has most of the rare earth minerals. This could prove to be a real problem for the United States. So, all right, Greenland has them, has a lot maybe even. Why does the United States need to control Greenland to get the rare earth minerals? Like is there an argument that the United States could just enter into an agreement with Greenland to buy them?

Yes. I mean, the thing about this is in talking about this idea, I don't want to dismiss the idea that Greenland is strategically important or that we shouldn't be paying attention to Greenland. There are a lot of global issues that we should care about that Greenland is very much a part of. That doesn't mean it has to be part of the United States already. There are already American companies investing in Greenland's minerals. A band of billionaires from Jeff Bezos to Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates is all betting that below the surface of the hills and valleys on Greenland's Disko Island and New Swack

Peninsula there's enough nickel, cobalt and copper to power hundreds of millions of electric vehicles. They are essential for several disruptive innovations including global energy transformation and also vital for some armaments industries and... And if you talk about the strategic importance, the U.S. already has a military base in the country. Ptufik space base, which is formally known as Thule Air Base, is the northernmost the northernmost US military base in the world and it's also an important part of the US missile early warning system. So if Russia were launching ICBMs at the US, God forbid, it might be thanks to this

base in Greenland that we got at least a few minutes of warning about it. And so you know this shows there are already US interests there. Denmark is a close US ally. I mean, a few years ago, a Chinese company wanted to buy a former naval base in Greenland, and Denmark blocked it in part because, you know, they wanted to maintain good relationships with the US. So there's, I would say, an advantage to having these territories that were not responsible for governing, but that are under the control of a close US ally. And there's not really a good reason that I can see why it has to actually be part of US territory.

In his inaugural address, we heard Donald Trump talk provocatively about the Panama Canal also. And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn't give it to China. We gave it to Panama and we're taking it back. Are these of a piece? And what are they telling us? What are they indicating to us about Donald Trump's foreign policy over the next four years? If anything? Well, I think Donald Trump has this sort of different idea

of sovereignty and self-determination and immovability of borders than, you know, maybe the last century of US presidents. I think there's been a real bias among successive US governments dating back to World War I, maybe, that, you know, current borders should be preserved as they are. I mean, in that period, most of the time borders have

changed. It's been a matter of, you know, former colonies becoming independent. The countries don't just trade territory back and forth like they used to. And they used to do it quite a bit. I mean, more than half of the US territory was actually paid for. I mean, if you look at the Louisiana purchase or the Alaska purchase or the sort of treaty that ended the US-Mexican war. So, there's sort of 19th century precedent for this. But in the 20th century, it's certainly been that the US tries to preserve existing borders as they are. Donald Trump has a different idea of this.

During his first term, we saw him recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The state of Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967 to safeguard its security from external threats. Something at the time almost no other country was doing. He recognized the Moroccan claims over Western Sahara. This is also something rejected by most of the international community. So I think he's somebody who sees borders and national sovereignty in a much more transactional way.

And another concern a lot of people have brought up in the past few weeks is, does this sort of legitimate Russia's territorial claims that if Russia claims that Ukraine is within its legitimate sphere of interests or China says the same thing about Taiwan, does threatening to use military force to back up these claims, does that just sort of give those countries a pass? Hmm. these claims, does that just sort of give those countries a pass? We also heard Donald Trump talk about changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. And it brings up an interesting point, right?

So Senator Elizabeth Warren comes out and she says, this is nonsense. This gentleman is trying to distract us from, for example, his controversial cabinet picks. Why is Donald Trump doing this? And I think the answer is, let's have a big distraction and several more questions. So we don't spend more time on Pete Hegseth, the nominee to be the head of the Department of Defense. Is there something to the idea that as Trump is want to do, he is just spouting nonsense? He often sort of floats these ideas and engages the reaction to them.

He seems to be serious about it. I don't know if he started off as serious about it, but he seems to be now. So I'm not really treating it as a joke. You know, it's sort of funny. It's this sort of like a monkey's paw situation where like for years we've been hearing experts in Washington say the US should pay more attention to the Western hemisphere, devote more resources to its backyard rather than getting embroiled in these conflicts overseas.

And Trump seems to be doing that. He seems to have a pretty strong interest from Panama to Greenland, even Canada. So probably not what a lot of those experts had in mind. But I think that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a real kind of shock to the international system. If just because like borders don't change by force very often anymore. I mean, that's one thing you can say had gone by the wayside. I mean, not that there haven't been wars over the last 20, 30 years, but countries actually trying to conquer their neighbors is something much more rare, doing it successfully even rarer.

And so, you know, when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, John Kerry was the Secretary of State at the time, you know, accused them of acting in a 19th century fashion. And so I think that now, some of those 19th century ideas seem to be coming back in a bit. And I think, I still think it's a very long shot that this actually happens, if only because Greenland is not really Denmark's property to give away. If we want to take over Greenland, the people we should be negotiating with, it's not Denmark, it's the people of Greenland.

And, you know, I suppose the US has bought territory in the past. Ironically, the last significant time the US bought territory was from Denmark. We bought what was then the Danish West Indies, which is now the US Virgin Islands. But things are different today. We live in a world not of territorial empires. We live in a world where national sovereignty is based on popular legitimacy and the people who live in a place should have some control over who governs them. If Donald Trump is really serious about this and wants to put a package together that the

people of Greenland can actually decide on, then I don't really see why he couldn't do that. But from the way he's talking about it, it's less like that and he sort of discusses it like a real estate deal. He said things like, if I'm developing a property and somebody else controls a corner on that property, I want to even it out. So I don't think he's really been thinking through the sort of full implications that this isn't just buying a piece of land that there are people who live here of some say and who governs them. Josh Keating, you can read him at Vox.com.

Coming up, Greenland tries to keep calm and carry on. Support for Today Explained comes from Shopify, as it has before, as it does again. 2025, new year, new opportunities, Shopify says. Maybe this is the year you finally start that business, that one you've been dreaming of since you were a kid, but every time you thought of it, you got overwhelmed with questions. How do I come up with a brand? You said to yourself. How do I sell stuff to people?

You wondered. And wait, what am I even going to sell? Well, that last one you're on your own, says Shopify, but for the rest, they want to help you. Shopify says they make it simple to create your brand, get it open for business, and get your first sale. The best time to start your business could be right now. Established in 2025 has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash explained. You can go to Shopify.com slash explained to start selling with Shopify today. shopify.com slash explain. Support for Today Explained comes from Mint Mobile, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, the whole crew. A lot of New Year's resolutions are pretty optimistic.

I'm all about setting the bar high. Is that optimistic. I'm all about setting the bar high. Is that true? Am I all about setting the bar? Sure, let's say I'm all about setting the bar high, but you're probably not actually going to stick with that plan to meditate for two hours. Wow, they do not have a lot of faith in you guys. Wouldn't it be awesome to find a resolution

you could actually accomplish and one that might save you money? This is where Mint Mobile comes in. Mint Mobile is starting the new year off with some major savings. Offering any three month plan for just $15 a month, they offer unlimited talk and text, high speed data and more, delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can switch to Mint and new customers can get half off an unlimited plan until February 2nd to get your new wireless

plan for just 15 bucks a month and get that plan shipped to your door for free. Go to mintmobile.com slash explain that's mintmobile.com slash explain $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 a month new customers on first three month plan only speed slow with about 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan additional taxes fees and restrictions apply see MintMobile for details. Support for the show today comes from Vanta. Trust isn't just earned, Vanta says, it's demanded. Have you demanded someone's trust lately? Whether you're a startup founder navigating

your first audit or a seasoned security professional scaling your governance, risk and compliance program, proving your commitment to security is critical and complex. And that's where Vanta comes in. You know the deal. Vanta says they can help businesses establish trust by automating compliance needs across 35 frameworks like SOC 2 and ISO 27001.

They say they can also centralize security workflows, complete questionnaires up to five times faster, and proactively manage vendor risk. You can join over 9,000 global companies like Atlassian, like Cora, and Factory who use Vanta to manage risk and prove security in real time for a limited time. Our audience can get $1,000 off Vanta at vanta.com slash explained.

That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash explained for $1,000 off. And you, friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless, today explained, do you want me to send you back to where you were, unemployed in Greenland? My name is Naya Houghten-Erthanielsen. I'm a minister for, amongst other things, natural resources and trade in Greenland. So that's my job. I also have gender equality and justice under my portfolio. Wow.

So you're doing a lot. I am imagining that many of our listeners will not have ever been to Greenland. Can you tell me a bit about what it's like? Well, I think many people who come here are surprised of two things. One thing is, of course course the beauty of the nature. Everything is vast and huge, the mountains, the fjords and all that. But another thing I think that struck a lot of people is it's quite modern really. I think oftentimes you think of Greenland as something maybe where a few people live and there's not a lot of

activity but our cities look like many others. It will be recognizable for many people. And what kind of people are Greenlanders? Well, we are Inuit, we are indigenous people. So we consist of, I think, 90% of the population. So most people here are Greenlanders with Inuit roots. We do have a lot of people from the Nordic countries and from Asia as well, but primarily the population is made up by Inuit.

Okay, so we have a beautiful country with very modern cities. If someone were planning a visit and wanted to know what was really important, what should they know? Well, they should know that Greenland is a modern democracy, that we have our own government, our own parliament. We have a mineral sector, we have tourism,

we have a fishing industry. So this is our primary revenues of income. And also you should know that the Greenlandic culture is very vibrant and rich, even though we're only 55,000 people. So there's a lot of music, a lot of plays, a lot of cultural activity, which is quite impressive for such a small population. We were reminded in the first half of our show that Donald Trump has actually been talking about Greenland in provocative ways since 2019. Can I ask what you thought when you first heard him single your country out?

Well, in the beginning, I think we were kind of surprised about the offer to buy Greenland, and has of course been trying to figure out what is that about? What is the story behind that? And what do you understand is the story behind that? We understand that it is a measure of national security for the Americans. To some extent, we understand very much that Greenland is part of the interest sphere of the US when it comes to national security. That is why we have a military base in Greenland and we do understand that this is important for the monitoring of the Arctic as well. So we do agree with the military presence in Greenland.

We do agree with the ideas of expanding the monitoring of the Arctic. So to some extent, we agree to what is being said, but that does not follow that we want to be Americans. It just follows that we understand that Greenland has an importance for the US in terms of national security. You are a government minister, and I understand that diplomacy is something that is very important here. But I sort of put the shoe on the other foot and I think as an American, if another country was talking about buying the United States, I personally would be a bit offended, to be perfectly honest with you. Yes, but we are offended and I think what you also need to understand as Inuits, we take things calmly.

I mean, it doesn't help the situation by panicking. So we're not panicking, but we're trying to understand what this is about and trying to work with it. The US is a very big country compared to Greenland. We only very few thousand people. So of course, when the US says something, we need to take it seriously. We understand that sometimes politicians talk big game and has to maybe deliver a message that is maybe more

meant for an audience within the country. So I'm just saying, well, we are in the receiving end and we do not like the rhetoric, we don't appreciate it, but we want to work with the message being sent. We want to figure out how can we talk about this in a sensible manner. Sure, and being important in a strategic sense, in an economic sense, is never really a bad thing. Often it's a very, very good thing for a country. Which other countries have... Or depending.

Fair enough. Which other countries have expressed interest in acquiring Greenland? I think no other country has decided interest in in Greenland, but we do feel that there's more emphasis on the Greenlandic minerals, for instance, these past couple of years, on a very sad backdrop because due to the climate crisis and the war in Ukraine and the pandemic that showed probably to some extent faulty supply chains, well, there's been a focus on where can we find minerals and mine them in a country that is responsible in terms of environment and governance and greenland is a good fit in that way.

So we have been seeing a spur of interest that's not the same as that has really yet shown itself in a lot of investments from outside. We are still lacking investments into the mineral sector, for instance. Hmm. So perhaps the message to President Trump is, we would actually welcome American investment. We would welcome American investment. We actually made a deal with the former Trump administration in 2019, where we together explored some of our potentials and had some projects together. And we have been trying for some time to get the Biden administration to prolong or expand that agreement. So we are interested in doing business with the states.

Of course, that doesn't mean we want to be Americans, but we do want to work with the states in a business sense. Donald Trump has said a handful of provocative things about Greenland, but perhaps one of the most provocative, at least from where I sit in the United States, is that he wouldn't rule out military force in trying to acquire Greenland. First, I guess, does that kind of talk make you nervous? And second, how is the nation responding to something like that? Well, of course this makes people nervous.

We have kids as well that listen to the media and they say, what is going on? Is the state going to come and occupy us? It's a very unfortunate rhetoric. So this has caused my government to really try to convey to the public, do not panic. We're trying to work through this and figure out what is it about. Because no, I don't think that our ally would occupy us. Of course not. I don't expect that from an ally. We are part of the Western Alliance.

We are part of NATO. We are a friend of the US. We are democracy. And so is the US. So we do expect that that won't be the case. What we're trying to do is look beyond that sort of rhetoric and see how can we work together after such a statement. I do hear you saying something that I think is very important, which is Donald Trump does

talk a lot. And we learned in his first four years in office that sometimes he's very serious and sometimes he's actually just talking. He is talking at times to distract from other things that he's doing. Sometimes he's just sort of speaking extemporaneously and things slip out. I think it's fair and factual to say both of those things. Is there any sense that you have in your capacity that perhaps this is not all that serious? It's just talk. I think there has been a genuine interest in Greenland for some time in America.

So I think it's a fair assessment that he should be taking serious about his desire to expand cooperation with Greenland in some form or other. I think that is to be taken quite seriously. It's not only one person, as I understand it. As I see it, it's a couple of people, a group of people who have an interest in Greenland. And you can see that also there has been a bill proposed about acquiring Greenland. It's important for the United States to assert itself and say, look, this is our doorstep. This is our area of operation.

And we are quite frankly, the dominant predator, cop, if you will. But it's important that we fight back against China and send them back to their own hemisphere. So I think this is not just one person saying something. Of course, you always need to take your president serious when he says something, and we do too. That's the name of the game. But I get a sense that there is something more than that, than just talk. Naya Nathanaelson, she's Greenland's Minister of Business, Trade, Mineral Resources, Justice and Gender Equality.

Avishai Artsy produced today's show, Amina El-Sadi edited. Andrea Christensdottir and Patrick Boyd are our engineers and Laura Bullard is our Minister of Research. I'm Noelle King. It's Today Explained.