Former national security adviser John Bolton regards Greenland as a matter of “critical importance” to U.S. security. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

While there seems to be minimal common ground between President Trump and his former national security adviser, John Bolton, one area of agreement concerns the potential acquisition of Greenland from Denmark.

In Bolton’s perspective, making Greenland a U.S. territory could significantly enhance national security interests for the United States and its allies, especially against strategic threats posed by adversaries like Russia and China.

In 2019, Trump dismissed Bolton, who had served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., the same year Trump first voiced interest in acquiring Greenland. Bolton remarked to NPR that he believes Trump’s public comments hindered any possibility of negotiating with Denmark regarding the territory.

While Bolton insists there are alternative methods for the U.S. and its allies to counter geopolitical risks in the Arctic, he criticized Trump for behaving like a “playground bully,” particularly highlighting Trump’s lack of clarity in ruling out military options for Greenland’s acquisition.

In response to Bolton’s criticisms, Brian Hughes, spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, told NPR:

“President Trump’s America First Policy is yielding results – especially in the Western Hemisphere. Both Mexico and Canada are committing troops and resources to our borders to curb the influx of fentanyl from China, Panama is severing its Belt and Road agreement with China, Maduro has released six American hostages from Venezuela, and Colombia has agreed to facilitate repatriation flights for their citizens illegally present in the U.S. We regret that John Bolton fails to recognize the President’s swift achievements within just three weeks.”

A breathtaking aerial view of mountains north of Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, a territory more expansive than Mexico with a meager population of approximately 56,000. Claire Harbage/NPR

Claire Harbage/NPR

All Things Considered host Juana Summers engaged Bolton in a discussion about his perspectives on Trump’s Greenland policies and Denmark relationships.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Interview Insights

Juana Summers: The subject of possibly acquiring Greenland tends to evoke strong reactions. You’ve previously mentioned that President Trump’s approach to negotiating with Denmark for Greenland’s acquisition effectively sabotaged any potential talks by making those plans public before speaking privately with Danish officials. What pathways do you envision for addressing current strategic security objectives in the region?

John Bolton: I believe it would be productive for everyone involved to move on from this public discussion. It’s a sensitive issue for both the Danish government and the local government of Greenland. Trump’s outrageous comments, including his insistence on not ruling out the use of military force, complicate reaching an agreeable solution. Engaging with democratic leaders is challenging when one adopts a “playground bully” approach, essentially cornering them. We’ve lost nearly six years on this topic, and I think rational discussions can still reconstruct what’s been lost, but continuing this dialogue as it stands has been largely unproductive.

Summers: Greenland would likely need to declare independence from Denmark to transition into a U.S. territory. The prime minister of Greenland has repeatedly indicated that the local populace desires neither Danish nor American control. How can the United States effectively appeal to the Greenlandic people who have strong feelings about their sovereignty and autonomy?

Bolton: There are frameworks, similar to U.S. commonwealths like Puerto Rico, that can ensure robust local governance and independence even under U.S. sovereignty. Additionally, we could enhance collaborations through existing treaties, such as the 1951 Defense of Greenland agreement between the U.S. and Denmark. If Greenland were to pursue independence, I’d hope they would still seek NATO membership. It’s crucial to have these discussions thoughtfully and discretely, given the serious implications at play. A concerted effort to dismiss frivolous notions, like casinos in Greenland, would significantly facilitate the process.

Summers: You’ve raised the topic of Trump’s casino ambitions for Greenland’s capital. Back in 2019, he tweeted about avoiding a Trump property in Nuuk. To your knowledge, has he expressed any intention of establishing a casino there?

Bolton: This subject of a casino embodies a childish notion, especially when speculative images circulate with Trump stating, “But I’m not going to do it.” It was unwelcome in Greenland, to say the least. The issues on the table are substantial, inherently connected to national security. Trump’s failures to recognize the implications of his statements only exacerbate the situation.

Summers: Regardless of his motives, many observers suspect that Trump’s statements about Greenland, combined with his rhetoric about Canada and the Panama Canal, indicate a new chapter of American imperialism. What is your perspective on the balance between security concerns and issues of independence and colonialism?

Bolton: The United States historically stands as one of the least imperialistic major powers. While our record may not be spotless, it’s markedly different from that of other significant powers throughout history. Claiming that Trump has initiated a new doctrine or policy is misleading; he lacks a coherent philosophy or grand strategy on national security. His chaotic presentation of these matters complicates the pursuit of the objectives he professes to value. One must ask: do successful business individuals publicly berate their partners to achieve goals? This is not a strategy; it’s detrimental.