Although the White House and representatives of Greenland remain tight-lipped regarding the prospect of a so-called “Compact of Free Association” agreement, it would be politically and legally more palatable compared to another military operation, as Trump comes under criticism from Greenland, Denmark, and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies for both his and his aides’ rhetoric.

The Economist reported this week that the White House is considering proposing a “Compact of Free Association” with Greenland. These agreements, the U.S. has forged in the past with the Pacific Island nations of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, grant the U.S. military use of those territories in exchange for economic and security assistance, in addition to rights for their citizens to live, work, and study in the U.S.

Spokespeople for the Representation of Greenland in Washington, D.C., part of the Embassy of Denmark in the U.S., did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment. 

At the same time, Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen underscored on Tuesday how Greenland has “taken responsibility for security in the North Atlantic and, not least, North America.” 

“Threats, pressure, and talk of annexation have no place between friends,” Nielsen wrote on social media. “We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But they must take place through the proper channels and in respect of international law. And the proper channels are not random and disrespectful posts on social media. Greenland is our home and our territory. And it will remain so.”

Regardless of the reports regarding the possibility of a COFA agreement, the White House noted on Tuesday that Trump has made it “well known” that “acquiring” Greenland is a national security priority of the U.S., and “it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region.”

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Washington Examiner.

To that end, the White House has continued its assertive posture toward Greenland this week, with Denmark and Greenland requesting an urgent meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday in response.   

“Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told CNN on Monday.

Miller’s comments come after Trump told reporters last weekend the U.S. needs “Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and the European Union needs us to have it.”

While Trump has since downplayed the immediacy of his interest in Greenland, he appointed last month Gov. Jeff Landry (R-LA) as special envoy to Greenland, in Landry’s words, a “volunteer position” to “make Greenland a part of the U.S.”

“Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you that,” Trump said on Sunday. “You know what Denmark did recently to boost up security in Greenland? They added one more dog sled.”

American Enterprises Institute senior fellow Heather Conley, another State Department alum, disagreed with the idea of a COFA agreement, reiterating that the U.S. has “confirmed” Denmark’s rights over Greenland “repeatedly,” including in 1916 when the U.S. purchased the Danish West Indies, now the U.S. Virgin Islands, from Denmark and in 1951 and 2004 under the U.S.-Denmark Bilateral Defense Agreement.  

“Beyond this, the Greenlandic government today would not accept a COFA arrangement not only due to the administration’s aggressive behavior toward it, but it would also likely end Danish annual subsidies to Greenland, which exceed $600 million per year,” Conley told the Washington Examiner.   

Council of Foreign Relations president Michael Froman amplified Conley’s point, arguing the U.S. “doesn’t need to invade, buy, run or take over Greenland” because the Danes and the Greenlanders would be “happy” to work with the U.S. to expand U.S. bases and investment “without the U.S. firing a shot or writing a check.”

“If one of the rationales for the action against Venezuela was to generate returns from the oil sector to compensate U.S. firms and provide prosperity for Americans and Venezuelans, Greenland presents a much different profile: Denmark subsidizes Greenland to the tune of 600 million Euros a year,” Froman, a former U.S. trade representative, as well as a top White House and Treasury Department official, told the Washington Examiner. “The prospects for a profitable critical minerals industry are extremely long-term and remote. President Trump should want Denmark to retain sovereignty and the responsibility for subsidizing Greenland’s way of life, not make that a U.S. responsibility. We can get all we need to enhance our Arctic security without taking on that financial burden.”

Greenland has deposits of rare earth minerals, uranium, graphite, nickel, and zinc; however, its natural resources are challenging to extract due to environmental conditions. It also has access to shipping lanes and trade routes that could expand due to its warming climate.

“There is no such thing as rare earth, it’s everywhere,” Trump told reporters last weekend when asked if that is why the president is interested in Greenland.

More generally, Center for a New American Security CEO Richard Fontaine, foreign policy adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and a White House National Security Council and State Department alum, was against the Trump administration’s strategy regarding Greenland.

Instead, Fontaine, a Vandenberg Coalition advisory board member, contended “anything the U.S. needs to do security-wise on Greenland can already be done under the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement,” particularly because of the U.S. Pituffik Space Base in a northwestern part of the territory. 

“We don’t need and should not try to take the island, which we recognize as part of Denmark,” Fontaine told the Washington Examiner. “Amid reckless talk about Greenland, Americans should recall that, not so long ago, Denmark fought for their defense. Among 40-plus allies and partners in Afghanistan, Denmark lost the most soldiers as a percentage of its population. Allies like that deserve thanks, not threats.”

Greenland, as a former Danish colony, has self-governed its domestic policy since 1979 while Denmark manages its foreign policy, defense, and currency, though Denmark has laid claim to the territory since the early 18th century.

TRUMP AND THE WHITE HOUSE GO ON DEFENSE OVER HEALTH CONCERNS

In reaction to Trump’s approach, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned this week that any unilateral U.S. action against Greenland would be the end of NATO and the post-World War II security alliance.

Frederiksen has also used the opportunity to emphasize Denmark’s importance to Greenland, promising in September to increase Danish spending on Greenlandic health and infrastructure by 1.6 billion Danish crowns ($253 million) amid broader tensions.