Mark Landler

It's simply about expanding the footprint of the country while he is president.

Right.

But there's also a more strategic argument here.

And that argument is that Greenland sits in a very contested part of the world in the Arctic.

It sits atop these very valuable minerals known as rare earth minerals.

For that reason, other countries are going to become increasingly interested in Greenland, the Russians, the Chinese.

And Trump's argument, in short, is we need Greenland.

We need Greenland as a frontline place to protect U.S.

national security.

We need Greenland because we want to exploit its mineral riches.

And we can't do any of that alone.

unless we actually own it.

It's not just enough to have a military base there, which the United States does have.

We need to be the owners in order to get the full advantage of the protection of Greenland to be able to exploit it economically.

Well, the point is the U.S.

could already obtain virtually all of these benefits under the existing arrangement between the United States and Denmark.

A 1951 treaty gives the U.S.

a great deal of flexibility to expand its military facilities on the island.

So, President Trump's argument is, you're never going to defend something if it's a license agreement, which is the way he characterizes our current arrangement in Greenland.

But the truth is, we could build up our military footprint on Greenland