The outrage surrounding Donald Trumps expressed interest in acquiring Greenland has always been curiousnot because skepticism is unwarranted, but because the loudest criticisms so often rest on intellectually unserious foundations. Much of the backlash, particularly from the progressive left, frames the idea as an expression of white supremacy, imperialism, and colonial entitlement. These accusations are rhetorically potent, but analytically hollow. They substitute moral signaling for historical understanding and emotional reflex for geopolitical literacy.
There are legitimate grounds on which to criticize Trumps proposal. A unilateral attempt by any U.S. president to purchase Greenland would raise serious questions about diplomatic norms, alliance cohesion, and the stability of the postWorld War II international order. NATO is not merely a military alliance; it is a trust-based system dependent on predictability and restraint among its members. Disrupting that equilibrium for the sake of transactional deal-making would be reckless. These are sober, defensible critiques.
What is not defensible is the reflexive invocation of imperialism and colonialism as if they are self-evident disqualifiersparticularly when applied selectively and ahistorically.
Greenland is not an independent nation being targeted for conquest. It is, by every legal and political definition, a colony of Denmarkalbeit one that has gradually achieved significant autonomy over the last several decades. Denmarks presence in Greenland dates back to Norse settlements in the 10th century and was formalized as colonial rule in the 18th century. While Greenland has made meaningful strides toward self-governance since the mid-20th century, including control over many domestic affairs, it remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Foreign policy, defense, and monetary authority still reside in Copenhagen.
To denounce Trumps interest in Greenland as colonialist while remaining conspicuously silent about Denmarks ongoing sovereignty over the island is not principled oppositionit is ideological hypocrisy.
If the moral objection is truly about colonial domination, then that critique must be applied consistently. Yet the same voices decrying American imperial ambition rarely call for Denmark to relinquish control or demand immediate Greenlandic independence. Nor do they object to the longstanding U.S. military presence on the island, including Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), which has been operational for decades with Danish consent. The United States already exercises strategic influence over Greenland because its location is indispensable to Arctic security, missile defense, and emerging great-power competition.
This selective outrage reveals the underlying animus is not colonialismit is Trump.
Trump Derangement Syndrome may be an overused phrase, but it remains an accurate descriptor of a political pathology in which opposition becomes so reflexive that it abandons coherence. Under this mindset, the same action is moral or immoral depending solely on who proposes it. When strategic interests are advanced quietly through bureaucratic consensus, they are deemed prudent statecraft. When articulated bluntly by Trump, they are recast as moral abominations.
It is also worth noting that acquiring territory through negotiation and compensationhowever improbable or ill-advisedis not historically equivalent to imperial conquest. The United States has a long record of territorial expansion through purchase rather than war, including the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska. One may argue that such transactions are outdated or inappropriate in the modern era, but conflating them with racialized imperial domination is intellectually lazy.
None of this is to suggest that Greenland should be sold or that its peoples aspirations should be subordinated to great-power interests. On the contrary, any serious discussion about Greenlands future must center on Greenlanders themselves. Self-determination is not a slogan; it is a principle. But invoking that principle selectivelyonly when it can be weaponized against a political adversaryundermines its credibility.
The more serious conversation we should be having is about how Arctic geopolitics, climate change, resource competition, and security imperatives are reshaping global power dynamics. Russia and China understand this well. Pretending that interest in Greenland emerged from Trumps ego rather than structural realities is a convenient fiction.
Criticize Trump if you mustbut do so honestly. Ground the argument in alliance stability, diplomatic norms, and international law. Abandon the theatrics. When imperialism becomes a rhetorical bludgeon rather than an analytical tool, it ceases to illuminate and instead obscures the very realities we claim to care about.