Written by Matthew Caldwell.
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) has introduced a bill to rename Greenland as “Red, White, and Blueland.” This move comes as former President Donald Trump seeks to acquire the Arctic territory from Denmark, reviving discussions about expanding U.S. borders. Carter’s proposal, titled the “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025,” directs Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to implement the change, ensuring all official records, maps, and documents reflect the new name.
The bill does more than just suggest a name change. It also formally authorizes Trump to negotiate with Denmark for the acquisition of Greenland, whether by purchase or another means. According to Carter, this effort is part of a broader strategy to strengthen national security and reinforce America’s position as the dominant global power.
Why Trump Wants Greenland
Trump has long expressed interest in buying Greenland, citing national security concerns and economic opportunities. The Arctic island is rich in resources and sits in a geopolitically strategic location. Owning it could provide the U.S. with better access to Arctic shipping lanes and prevent rival nations like China and Russia from increasing their influence in the region.
During his inauguration speech, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to growing America’s territorial reach. He even floated the idea of retaking the Panama Canal and annexing Canada. While these comments were met with skepticism, they highlight his broader vision of American expansionism.
Denmark and Greenland Push Back
Not everyone is on board with this plan. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede has made it clear that the islanders do not want to be part of the U.S. or Denmark. He emphasized that Greenlanders value their own identity and self-determination.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has also strongly opposed the idea, insisting that Greenland is not for sale. She has reiterated that any decision about Greenland’s future should be made by its people, not by foreign leaders pushing their own agendas.
The Political and Economic Stakes
Renaming Greenland may seem like a minor issue, but it carries deeper political and economic consequences. For conservatives, the proposal aligns with a vision of a stronger, more assertive America. The ability to acquire and develop Greenland would secure vital resources and reinforce the U.S.’s standing in the Arctic.
At the same time, the move is likely to face opposition from Denmark, the European Union, and other international players who see it as an aggressive expansionist tactic. Even within the U.S., opinions are divided. Some believe it’s a strategic opportunity, while others see it as an unnecessary political stunt.
Our Take
This proposal reflects a broader conservative push for American strength and independence. Securing Greenland would offer undeniable benefits, from military positioning to resource acquisition. Yet, the resistance from Greenlanders themselves cannot be ignored. Forcing a sale or annexation against the will of its people would undermine the principles of self-governance and national sovereignty—values that conservatives hold dear.
Additionally, renaming Greenland as “Red, White, and Blueland” feels more like a political statement than a practical necessity. While patriotism is important, such a move risks alienating allies and creating unnecessary international tensions. If the goal is strategic dominance, the approach should be more measured and diplomatic.
