Glenn: Trump's focus on Greenland is a strategic imperative

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

The Arctic is the new frontier, and Greenland is the gateway. President Trump’s focus on Greenland isn’t some outlandish idea — it’s a strategic imperative.

When President Trump recently announced on Truth Social that “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” critics immediately jumped to conclusions. Democrats and media outlets spun wild narratives, suggesting this would somehow give Russia and China carte blanche to annex territories of their own. The Guardian went so far as to accuse Donald Trump Jr. of inviting homeless people and drug dealers off the street in Greenland and giving them a free lunch to make it look like there are a bunch of native Trump fans. The hysteria is as predictable as it is ridiculous.

Let’s set the record straight: America is not going to invade Greenland. But if we’re serious about securing our national interests in the Arctic — and the world — then we cannot afford to ignore Greenland any longer.If Greenland becomes independent, its need for economic and military partnerships will be greater than ever. The United States should be at the front of that line.

Greenland has been a strategic partner to the U.S. for over 80 years. During World War II, Nazi Germany’s occupation of Denmark prompted the United States to establish a presence in Greenland to prevent the island from falling into enemy hands.

That presence solidified in 1951 when the Pentagon built Pituffik Space Base, a critical military position in the Arctic. This air base, located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, remains vital for deterring Russian aggression and detecting potential missile threats. Even as recently as 2017, the U.S. invested millions in upgrading its radar systems there to deter Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold bullion to buy Greenland, recognizing its immense strategic value. Denmark declined, but the geopolitical importance of Greenland has only grown. The Arctic is no longer considered a “frozen wasteland” on the map — it’s a battleground for influence, resources, and security.

The stakes in the Arctic

Why does Greenland matter so much? The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13% of its undiscovered oil. Additionally, Greenland’s vast deposits of rare earth minerals — essential for technology, vehicles, and national defense — are virtually untapped. These are the resources that will power the 21st-century economy, and right now, China has a stranglehold on them. The U.S. imports 72% of its rare earth minerals from China. That is not just unsustainable; it’s dangerous.

China and Russia understand Greenland’s importance. Beijing has already attempted to secure mining rights and infrastructure projects on the island. Moscow, too, has been eyeing the Arctic as it ramps up its military activities in the region. If Greenland were to become independent without U.S. involvement, it’s easy to imagine these two adversaries stepping in to fill the void.

A path forward?

Critics have mocked Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland, likening it to a real estate scheme. But this isn’t about buying beachfront property. It’s about securing America’s future.

Greenland’s push for independence from Denmark is gaining momentum. Its prime minister recently called for creating a framework for full independence, citing the “colonial era” treatment by Denmark. If Greenland becomes independent, its need for economic and military partnerships will be greater than ever. The United States should be at the front of that line, ensuring Greenland’s security while building a mutually beneficial economic relationship.

This doesn’t necessarily mean a direct purchase of Greenland, as Truman proposed. Instead, we could forge a comprehensive partnership that strengthens Greenland’s autonomy while aligning its future with American interests. Expanding trade, investing in infrastructure, and collaborating on resource development are all ways to deepen our ties with Greenland without stepping on Denmark’s toes.

A linchpin for Arctic security

Acquiring or partnering with strategic foreign lands like Greenland isn’t just a Trump idea; it’s a commonsense principle that has been adopted by presidents over the past 100 years.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson — hardly a conservative hero — purchased the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) to protect American interests in the Caribbean. That purchase, made for $25 million, was driven by fears that Germany might use the islands as a naval base during World War I.

The same logic applies to Greenland today. Its strategic location makes it a linchpin for Arctic security, and its resources are vital to America’s energy independence and technological future.

By prioritizing Greenland, President Trump is thinking beyond short-term political wins. He’s positioning America to lead in the Arctic while countering the growing influence of China and Russia. This is the kind of bold, visionary leadership that America needs — and it’s why the left hates it so much. The left would rather focus on short-term optics and partisan squabbles than confront the real challenges facing our nation.

The Arctic is the new frontier, and Greenland is the gateway. President Trump’s focus on Greenland isn’t some outlandish idea — it’s a strategic imperative. Whether through a purchase, a partnership, or a deeper alliance, America must act now to secure its interests in this critical region. This is about more than politics or headlines. It’s about ensuring that America remains strong, secure, and free for generations to come.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.

PHOTOS: Inside Glenn's private White House tour

Image courtesy of the White House

In honor of Trump's 100th day in office, Glenn was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Naturally, Glenn's visit wasn't solely confined to the interview, and before long, Glenn and Trump were strolling through the majestic halls of the White House, trading interesting historical anecdotes while touring the iconic home. Glenn was blown away by the renovations that Trump and his team have made to the presidential residence and enthralled by the history that practically oozed out of the gleaming walls.

Want to join Glenn on this magical tour? Fortunately, Trump's gracious White House staff was kind enough to provide Glenn with photos of his journey through the historic residence so that he might share the experience with you.

So join Glenn for a stroll through 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the photo gallery below:

The Oval Office

Image courtesy of the White House

The Roosevelt Room

Image courtesy of the White House

The White House

Image courtesy of the White House

Trump branded a tyrant, but did Obama outdo him on deportations?

Genaro Molina / Contributor | Getty Images

MSNBC and CNN want you to think the president is a new Hitler launching another Holocaust. But the actual deportation numbers are nowhere near what they claim.

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.

The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.

Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.

Numbers don’t lie

The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.

So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.

The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.

Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.

It’s not about immigration

This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.

If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.

But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.