'Make Greenland Great Again': Trump's House GOP allies unveil bill to authorize country's purchase
By: Yahoo News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Elizabeth ElkindJanuary 13, 2025 at 11:00 AM·3 min read266Link Copied
FIRST ON FOX: President-elect Donald Trump's House GOP allies are clearing the runway for him to make good on his vow to acquire Greenland.
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., is leading a bill to authorize Trump to enter negotiations with Denmark over purchasing Greenland, a territory located in North America but with longstanding cultural and geopolitical ties to Europe.
The bill is titled the "Make Greenland Great Again Act," according to a copy of its text obtained by Fox News Digital.
"Joe Biden took a blowtorch to our reputation these past four years, and before even taking office, President Trump is telling the world that America First is back. American economic and security interests will no longer take a backseat, and House Republicans are ready to help President Trump deliver for the American people," Ogles told Fox News Digital.
Danish Prime Minister Has Blunt Message For Trump: Greenland Is Not For Sale
President-elect Donald Trump first proposed purchasing Greenland in 2019 during his first term.
It would allow the sitting president to enter into talks with Denmark just after noon on Jan. 20, when Trump is due to be sworn in.
"Not later than 5 calendar days after reaching an agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark relating to the acquisition of Greenland by the United States, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees the agreement, including all related materials and annexes," the legislation said.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, meaning the executive branch cannot make any purchases for the federal government without getting the funds first appropriated by the House of Representatives and approved in the Senate.
Ogles' bill is backed by 10 fellow House Republicans, including Reps. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., Michael Rulli, R-Ohio, Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., Neal Dunn, R-Fla., Barry Moore, R-Ala., Randy Weber, R-Texas, and the new incoming House Science Committee Chairman, Brian Babin, R-Texas.
Rep. Andy Ogles introduced the "Make Greenland Great Again" bill.
While he first floated the idea during his first term in the White House, recent weeks have seen Trump ramping up public comments about acquiring Greenland, as well as other entities like the Panama Canal.
Trump suggested last week that he would not rule out taking both by force. He told a reporter who asked if he would rule out using economic or military coercion, "No, I can't assure you on either of those two."
Meanwhile, the idea of buying Greenland has gained traction with Trump's Republican allies, with supporters of the idea noting its strategic location near Russia - one of the U.S.'s top adversaries.
Ogles argued it was "essential to our national security."
Trump Escalates Plans To Acquire Greenland After Resident Pleads: 'Denmark's Using Us'
The president-elect's son, Donald Trump Jr., was in Greenland last week for what was billed as a personal tourism visit.
Ogles' introduction is the latest move by a House Republican to help Trump make good on his foreign policy goals.
Last week, Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., chairman of the pragmatist House GOP Main Street Caucus, introduced a bill to allow Trump to purchase the Panama Canal. An earlier draft of the bill involved buying the canal for $1, but no dollar amount is in the final draft.
That bill nabbed more than a dozen Republican co-sponsors.
Original article source:'Make Greenland Great Again': Trump's House GOP allies unveil bill to authorize country's purchase
View comments
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
130 visitors
This should cause some heads to explode.
All current citizens of Greenland and Denmark.
Question: Is this the first time any American leaders sought to acquire Greenland?
Purchasing Greenland would be an incredible triumph.
Over what, exactly?
Do you need the definition of the word, or can you piece together my meaning?
I asked you to clarify your remark. Do it or don’t. It’s not up to me to guess what you mean. That’s why I asked.
I'm just trying to understand how much help you need. "Triumph" is not a word I think needs explaining. Apparently it does. here's the dictionary definition.
1. a great victory or achievement.
Does that help?
I asked you triumph “over what?” Why is it a triumph? He didn’t even run on this issue. No one asked for it. I’m not opposed to us acquiring any land, much less Greenland. But you tell me why it would be a triumph.
D Day was a great victory, going to the moon was a great achievement, buying Greenland isn’t either but putting us further in debt which we cannot afford. Once we ‘’own’’ it does it become a state or a territory of the US. We will have to support it since it is not self staining, you might want to check with Denmark when it comes to monetary support for Greenland.
I heard Donald Jr. during his visit there promised the people a better life, since the population of around 60,000 is 80% indigenous, Inuit to be exact what will make it better for them. IHC, BIA, ISS? Or just putting them on a reservation? You know that we have thousands of Inuit US citizens that currently live in Alaska, right?
We have had military bases in Greenland since the 1940s so there is no national security risk present.
Next up the Faroe Islands.
I will put my money on the Norse..
Lol. I forgot the progressive motto, hundreds of billions for illegal aliens, but not one penny to improve America. It's nice to know that progressive will pay lip service to fiscal responsibility after burning through trillions in corporate welfare the last few years. Build Back Rich Progressives Pockets!
ou know that we have thousands of Inuit US citizens that currently live in Alaska, right
So what? I'm not a racialist the racial mix of Greenland's 56,000 citizens doesn't really matter to me. They will be americans and can live how they choose. I'm sure the purchase price will in and of itself make their lives materially much better.
ses in Greenland since the 1940s so there is no national security risk present.
The job of a leader is to plan for the future. If you believe in global warming as something other than a chance to give billions to Democratic donors, than preparing for a more temperate artic over the next century should be a priority. China is focusing it's attention there. It's silly and shortsighted to ignore it. Progressives in California claim to worry over it and and then don't take actual concrete steps to deal with foreseeable consequences. It would be dumb to take that approach nationwide.
So the dictionary didn't help, huh? I'm afraid I can't help you with your struggle over what the word means.
e didn’t even run on this issue.
Lol. What a bizarre claim.
But you tell me why it would be a triumph.
Because the peaceful acquisition of Greenland would be the greatest foreign policy accomplishment since the cold war.
Three paragraphs of deflection and strawman, your inability to stick with facts or at least something that is within spitting distance of the article would be great. Your response was much like the Packers, wandering around, trying to figure out what is going on.
Is it? I freely admit I do not listen to all of Trump’s speeches. Can you give us a few links to him campaigning on the acquisition of Greenland? I did watch the debate, and I don’t remember it coming up then, but again, perhaps you have some evidence that I lack.
Why? We already have a military presence there. I doubt too many Americans are looking to settle there. Explain why it’s the greatest foreign policy accomplishment in that time.
Again, I’m not against the acquisition of Greenland. I want to know why it’s a priority when he didn’t even campaign on it. I want to know why it’s a higher priority than everything he did campaign on.
A serious, straight answer would be nice.
Persdonally I would like to see us buy France.
Why?
For the food of course!
Now that I think of it-- we should also buy Italy!
(Same reason).
Well we are safe from invasion then from you mob...
The French and Italians may have food, we've got Vegemite..
So we are well and truly safe..😁
And the wine.
If we ponder of the causes for invasion, what worries me is the fact that Canada, next door to the USA, has 20% of the world's fresh water, and in many places, fresh water is getting pretty scarce.
I could actually support this. Greenland is very likely resource rich and a very strategic location given the opening of the northwest passage by climate change. I have some caveats though. I do think the price paid should be fair, the Greenlanders need to approve of it, and it should absolutely NOT be taken by force. The Greenlanders have done nothing to deserve being stuck in a war.
Apparently, no one has told the incoming POTUS that the country is broke and shouldn't be purchasing much of anything.
Every time you think you have heard the dumbest idea yet; another one pops up and grabs the prize.
We have had a military presence in Greenland for decades so there is no national security crisis
This is one man's need to be in the spotlight, even if it is without dignity
People said that about purchasing Alaska too.
Have you heard the term apples and oranges?
Different times - I will stand by dumbest idea so far!
True. Greenland is of much, much more immediate importance to country than Seward's folly was.
But if peacefully acquiring a resource laden landmass whose economic and military importance will grow exponentially over the next century is Trump's dumbest idea, he will be the greatest leader in world history.
People have said that about a lot of things.
But why would Denmark ever give it up if it is so valuable.
They have a viable economy with minimal debt compared to the U.S. and would have no reason whatsoever to sell.
Unless you think Trump mught try to just take it away from Denmark
Trump will be lucky if when historians look back o n his administration if the word leader is even used in the description.
Because it's up to the people of Greenland.
p will be lucky if when historians look back o n his administration if the word leader is even used in the description.
Of course he is. He was, and will be in a few days the leader of the free world. It comes with being President.
Because it's up to the people of Greenland.
Greenland is not an independent nation at this point, so it is not quite that simple.
I would assume that it is up to the people of Greenland as much as it is up to the people of Alaska to join Canada. Alaska joining Canada makes more sense to me than Greenland joining the USA.
Your logic is sound
It's not up to the people of Alaska, they don't have the right to Secede from the Union any more than Texas could.
No, it the opposite.
Greenland has the right to independence. Alaska does not.
Glad to see you're capable of making an accurate statement about a nation you've most likely never stepped foot in.
if the Democrats didn't have a free flow of money going to Ukraine then that wouldn't be an issue. Thank god that's stopping next week.
Jeremy
If you think the only debt problem that the U.S. is the money flowing into the Ukraine then you are wildly under-informed on the matter of the national debt and how much it has risen under Trump (first time) and Biden.
Super. Is it attached to a bill outlining our new healthcare plan? Disaster relief? Immigration reform? Cheap energy? A more efficient postal service? Insurance reform? Trade policy? Chinese aggression? Or anything else that serious adults were actually concerned about?
Those are all still in the concepts of a plan phase. Priorities.
Poor Greenland..
Wonder if Denmark might want to purchase Hawaii...
Just a thought..
Ooo, we could make a trade. I mean, just on pure acreage, that’d be a win for us.
If Greenland became part of the U.S.-- and then Canada-- and then Panama-- how many Electorial votes would they get in all?
Putting a little thought into this…
Panama: I assume we would just be reacquiring the Canal Zone and not annexing the whole of Panama. I don’t think the Canal Zone was ever even a territory, so I don’t think there would be any kind of government representation.
Greenland: This, I assume, would just be some kind of insular property of the US. It might be like a freely associated state - think Marshall Islands or something like that. Heck, it might even result in a little more independence for the people who live there.
I kind of doubt it would become a territory, but just for funsies, let’s consider it. As a territory, it would have a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives, but no votes in a presidential election.
I doubt it would become a state unless we had some strategic reason to make it one, kind of like with Alaska and Hawaii. Right now, though, I don’t think it has enough people for that. Minimum, I think, is 60,000. If they did become a state, they’d only have enough people for a single representative, so 3 Electoral votes, total. I have no idea who they’d likely vote for.
Canada: This will definitely not happen, but even if it did, Canada would not come in as a single state. I believe the provinces would mostly remain as they are, though I think there are four or five provinces that would lack the population to be a state. They could be territories. There are some provinces - Quebec, for example - that I believe would rather be an independent country than join the US. As states, they would of course get electoral votes equal to their congressional representation.
The real question is “how would Canadians vote?” I don’t think the standard Left/Right conceptions translate very well from Canada to the US. “Centrist” or slightly conservative in Canada may be downright progressive in the US. Provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Calgary might vote MAGA, but I suspect the rest of them would not.
[✘]
Argentina should've offered to buy the Falkland Islands.
But instead of buying them, they decided to fight a war over that.
Totally stupid and unnecessary!
Morning..Argentina had nothing to buy the Falklands with.. another failed tin pot regime that decided at the time to invade another country...
Argentina was in such a mess to take the people's minds of it plus the riots that we occurring... Decided lets go and invade the Falklands... that will boost morale..
The end result spoke for itself and the Falklands don't even rate a mention now.
Someone had better ask the Green Landers what they would like.. Trumpland doesn't really have a good ring to it...
Make Greenland Great Again? When was it ever great, and if it IS great then why does it need to be MADE great?
I don’t see the point of trying to buy Greenland, it’s 90% ice, to damn cold to live there and and tons of waste that the US left there when we closed numerous bases at the end of the Cold War.
I think that we should make Peru an offer on the Chincha islands, there are 20 of them and they produce the best and most bat guano in the world and as full of shit as republican politicians are it is the prefect fit. Warm climate, full time employment and a highly valuable ‘’product’’, it’s doesn’t explode except if it left in the sun to long and helps things grow, perhaps even help MAGA’s grow out of their diapers.
If Trump fails in that go for the Island nation of Yap, also a huge producer of bat guano. I would love to see our whole political system banished to Yap.