Sen. Cruz: Discussing U.S. Acquisition of Greenland Is About ...

Cruz says purchase would bring Greenland economic growth while expanding U.S. foothold in the Arctic

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In his opening statement at today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing titled “Nuuk and Cranny: Looking at the Arctic and Greenland’s Geostrategic Importance to U.S. Interests,” Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argued that acquiring Greenland would serve America’s national security and economic interests well due to the island’s location in the Arctic, access to sea routes, and wealth of natural resources.

Sen. Cruz sounded alarms over Russia’s expansive military presence in the Arctic and China’s significant monopoly over the supply chain of critical minerals. To combat the ambitions of these global powers, the U.S. Coast Guard needs to build up a capable and available fleet of heavy polar icebreakers, including Polar Security Cutters, to support scientific research, defend U.S. sovereignty, and ensure the safe and secure flow of maritime commerce.

Here are Sen. Cruz’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

“Good morning.  The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to order.

“Today, we’re here to talk about something that, just a few years ago, was treated as far-fetched but has long been worth serious consideration: the U.S. acquiring Greenland. Back in 2019, President Trump raised the idea of purchasing Greenland and, at the time, it was dismissed as a wild proposal. But given shifting global dynamics, the geopolitical importance of Greenland makes this conversation one we can no longer ignore. It’s a topic of interest to members on both sides of the aisle.  In fact, it was an idea for a hearing the Ranking Member suggested to me earlier this year.

“Greenland has never been some remote island. It holds immense strategic and economic importance. Its location and proximity to critical transatlantic trade routes place it at the center of several global debates. The growing influence of China and Russia in the Arctic region, where Russia has long maintained military assets and China has invested heavily with a clear strategic eye, is a direct challenge to the U.S. and our allies. This deserves serious consideration and a response.

“Greenland sits directly on the shortest flight path for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) traveling from Russia and the Middle East to the U.S., making its positioning crucial to our security. We have maintained a military presence in Greenland since World War II, particularly at Pituffik Space Base, which serves as the northernmost U.S. military installation and provides critical missile warning and space surveillance. The base, along with its deepwater port and airfield, is an integral part of our national security infrastructure.

“Also key to our operational presence and influence in the Arctic is a healthy number of polar icebreakers. The U.S. built its last heavy icebreaker nearly five decades ago. Meanwhile, China has four, and over 40 for Russia, whose warships increasingly appear near Alaska. The only operational U.S. heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, is 20 years beyond its service life.  This is simply unacceptable.

“President Trump has highlighted the urgent need for a new fleet, and as Chairman, I’m committed to ending Russian and Chinese icebreaker dominance. Executing on this quickly—not waiting for years and years on piecemeal, sclerotic annual appropriations—is vital for our national security, the economic productivity of Alaska and the Arctic, and our national shipbuilding capacity at American shipyards like Keppel Amfels and Bollinger.

“But it’s not just about defense. Greenland sits atop vast reserves of rare earth elements—materials crucial for everything from technology to national defense. These elements are vital in the production of smartphones, military equipment, medical technologies and procedures, and much more. If the U.S. were to gain access to Greenland’s resources, it could significantly reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly China, which currently operates a virtual monopoly on the rare earth market.

“Now, some may argue that the U.S. purchasing territory is out of the question. But it isn’t unusual for the U.S. to do so, even from our ally Denmark. The U.S. purchased the Virgin Islands from the Danish crown in 1917 to secure a strategic military position in the Caribbean, especially to protect the newly opened Panama Canal and safeguard maritime routes from Germany at war with Western powers.

“The U.S. - Greenland relationship is well established. It was American explorer Admiral Robert Peary who proved in 1892 that Greenland was an island, and American scientists have continued groundbreaking work—sometimes literally.  U.S. funded researchers have dug deep into the ice sheet to develop survival techniques for servicemembers and have mapped black holes and galaxies from state-of-the-art observatories at Summit Station and from Pituffik Space Base.

“U.S. acquisition of Greenland is not about military force; it’s about diplomacy and shared interests, the same way that we acquired the territories that make us the nation we are.

“And let’s not forget—friends and allies can have tough conversations. The U.S. and Denmark have a strong relationship, and discussions about Greenland’s future don’t have to be adversarial.  If Greenland’s future were to include joining the U.S., that would require the approval of the Greenlandic people, likely through a referendum.  This would be a mutual decision, and it’s one worth discussing.  This is about shared interests, and the potential benefits for all sides are enormous.

“It will take billions in investment to develop Greenland’s natural resource wealth. That kind of investment from the U.S. could drastically improve the standard of living for Greenlanders—better infrastructure, stronger healthcare, improved education. It’s a win-win situation. Greenland’s economy would grow, and the U.S. would gain a stronger, more secure foothold in the Arctic.

“This conversation is not about military aggression or territorial conquest. It’s about strategic interests, mutual benefits, and making sure that we are prepared for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead in the Arctic.

“I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and diving deeper into the practicalities of what such a move could mean for our national security and economic future.”

###