“Where is Greenland and why is it important to Trump?” The question comes from a recent BBC article—an exemplary “backgrounder,” to use the journalistic jargon—that tried to make sense of the U.S. president’s latest push to seize the island. The text soberly explains that “there has been increased interest in Greenland’s natural resources, including rare earth minerals, uranium and iron.” It goes on to note that seizing those riches probably isn’t the main motive for his obsession. The authors posit that U.S. President Donald Trump is more worried about the “threat he perceives from Russia and China in the region.”
The updated version of the article then summarizes Trump’s speech in Davos, Switzerland, this week, including his assertion that “I don’t have to use force, I don’t want to use force, I won’t use force.” (Listeners don’t seem to have been entirely placated, though, considering the general incoherence of his remarks, which repeatedly confused Greenland and Iceland.)
“Where is Greenland and why is it important to Trump?” The question comes from a recent BBC article—an exemplary “backgrounder,” to use the journalistic jargon—that tried to make sense of the U.S. president’s latest push to seize the island. The text soberly explains that “there has been increased interest in Greenland’s natural resources, including rare earth minerals, uranium and iron.” It goes on to note that seizing those riches probably isn’t the main motive for his obsession. The authors posit that U.S. President Donald Trump is more worried about the “threat he perceives from Russia and China in the region.”
The updated version of the article then summarizes Trump’s speech in Davos, Switzerland, this week, including his assertion that “I don’t have to use force, I don’t want to use force, I won’t use force.” (Listeners don’t seem to have been entirely placated, though, considering the general incoherence of his remarks, which repeatedly confused Greenland and Iceland.)
Nowhere, though, does the BBC article mention that Trump is perfectly capable of exploiting Greenlandic natural resources without stealing the territory from Denmark—or that the entire resource argument is hogwash for a litany of reasons, ranging from the fact that the supposed critical minerals riches are covered in a thick sheet of permanent ice to the fact that the United States already has plenty of these resources, the problem being costly mining and refining, not the access to deposits.
Nor does the BBC deem it necessary to tell its readers that the United States does not need to seize the island in order to defend it against perceived security threats. There were 10,000 U.S. military personnel stationed on the island at various points during the Cold War before Washington chose to pull them out. The Danes have made it clear that the Americans can bring back as many as they want, and there is even a written agreement from 1951 that guarantees U.S. access. Russian threat? Please. If Trump were worried about Russia—for which we have less than zero evidence—then he could weaken it cheaply, effectively, and without the loss of a single American life by supporting Ukraine.
There is, in fact, no rational reason why the United States needs to seize Greenland. The only reason that we are talking about this now is because Trump decided it should. No U.S. politician in living memory broached the idea before Trump arrived on the political scene. Without him, we would have no reason to worry about it—especially considering its potential costs, which could include splitting NATO apart. As so often happens with this president, there is no policy logic here, no planning process, no coherent ideological background—just one man’s whim. The fact that some of us are willing to respond with even a modicum of respect attests to worrisome flaws in our collective psychology.
Here is the eminent Council on Foreign Relations, duly convening an expert panel on “Greenland in the Geopolitical Spotlight.” Or consider the think tanker who solemnly notes that “Trump is right to highlight Greenland’s strategic importance to America’s security,” though a bit less “saber-rattling” might be advisable—all you really need to do, the writer assures us, is to start “improving transit and economic links between the United States and Greenland.” Meanwhile, a USA Today columnist declares that “I can’t think of good reasons why he shouldn’t at least try to annex Greenland via negotiations.” And a former Defense Department advisor pronounces that “Greenland is growing in importance as we find ourselves in a global competition with China and in a new technological revolution with regards to warfare.” Even Wikipedia, the occasional target of Trumpian ire, has created a special page entitled “Proposed United States Acquisition of Greenland,” which dutifully assesses the plan from every conceivable angle.
Have they not been paying attention? Have they not read Trump’s text to the Norwegian prime minister? “Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.” Yeah, sure, absolutely—failing to receive a well-earned peace prize would make any real man reach for his gun.
Then there’s Britain’s plan to hand over the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, home to a crucial U.S. military base, to Mauritius. Trump has described the move as “another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired.” On yet another occasion, Trump has simply said that owning Greenland is “psychologically important” to him. The U.S. president reacts to consistency and coherence like a vampire to garlic.
It is striking that both the Russians and the Chinese, the ostensible triggers for Trump’s Greenland grab, have been watching the latest proceedings with glee. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov opined that Trump would “undoubtedly go down in the history books” if he managed to annex Greenland. When a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman was asked about the ruckus, he responded, “We have no intention of competing for influence with any country, nor would we ever do so”—a remarkably mild comment compared with some of Beijing’s usual rants. Both countries are clearly operating according to the hallowed principle: Never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.
So why, precisely, do so many of us persist in taking Trump’s worst ideas seriously? Journalists, of course, have to report on what the president says, and often end up amplifying nonsense and misinformation in the process. Trump and his aides, who have become virtuosos at “flooding the zone” and diverting attention from inconvenient topics, are well aware of this dynamic. Think tankers, scholars, and politicians all have their reasons for treating Trump’s intellectual burps as topics of earnest discussion. Some are angling for future government jobs. Some fear being typecast as cranks. Some are desperate to look like players by moving into the various Overton windows stretched by Trumpian caprice.
Psychologists have examined some of the cognitive mechanisms in play here. Human beings are deeply uncomfortable with the possibility of randomness; we tend to seek coherent patterns of explanation even amid the chaos (narrative bias). We tend to attribute forethought and purpose to actions even when they may be absent (intentionality bias). We allow our opinions to be unduly influenced by figures in positions of power (authority bias). Commentators may also fear that stating the obvious will mark them as unserious, and so they write up lengthy analyses of a Trump proposal’s pros and cons. Academics in particular have a strong tendency to conjure up complicated explanations (such as Trump’s presumed strategic priorities) when simpler ones might suffice (such as Trump reacting from the gut). Students of the mind call this “complexity bias.”
I doubt that Trump has ever read a psychology textbook. Yet time and again, he has shown a powerful instinct for making other people dance to his tune. His Greenland gambit once again demonstrates his extraordinary capacity for warping reality in ways that gratify his own ego and urge for dominance. This could, indeed, be the real rationale for his seemingly nonsensical Arctic quest. Merely declaring his desire for the island is a demonstration of his power; by taking it seriously, even if we disagree with its substance, we tacitly accept his norm-breaking redefinition of the rules. A psychological line of analysis would likely get us a lot further than the policy debates that project rationality and coherence into Trump’s actions.
One can only hope that the Europeans, who have taken far too long to wake up to the seriousness of Trump’s intentions, will not be overly mollified by his conciliatory talk at Davos. The president’s Greenland obsession is not over. But this latest crisis could yield some value if the boorishness and incompetence Trump has displayed in the international arena serve to break the spell he has cast over at least some Americans.