Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands detailed President Donald Trump’s longstanding concerns about Greenland’s security and strategic importance during an on-air exchange with Fox Business host Stuart Varney, outlining why Trump has viewed Denmark as unable to adequately defend or develop the territory.

Speaking about discussions that took place during Trump’s first administration, Sands said the issue dates back to 2019, when Trump raised concerns directly with Denmark’s leadership about Greenland’s vulnerability and limited military presence.

“In 2019 President Trump. He talked to the current prime minister in his first administration, and said, Look, Greenland’s not secure. You need to be doing more, because they only had, when I was ambassador, about 30 guys in Greenland and two dog sled teams,” Sands said.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

According to Sands, Denmark responded at the time by pledging to invest significantly in Greenland’s security, but she said that commitment was not fulfilled.

“So we she said, Okay, Mr. President, we’re going to invest 200 million, $200 million into Greenland security. Flash forward, she invested 1% of that 2 million only, and it wasn’t even into Greenland security,” Sands said.

Sands argued that Denmark’s failure to follow through has shaped Trump’s approach to Greenland, particularly given its importance to U.S. and NATO defense.

“So you can’t take the Danes at their word they’re going to re trade whatever deal he tries to do to get that island, the world’s largest island, secure, and because it’s so important for our nation’s security and the golden dome that he’s building to Alaska and Greenland that are key to this, and especially Greenland’s early warning radar system,” she said.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Sands said she initially believed Trump might pursue a Compact of Free Association arrangement but now believes the president favors outright ownership.

“Because of the RE trading and the unreliability of agreements that can be struck. I think he’s right. I thought he might do a COFA. It looks like he wants an outright purchase, and now it’s just debating, what is the price?” Sands said.

Varney then asked about Greenland’s economic dependence on Denmark, particularly whether the island’s population relies on Danish financial support.

“I’m also told that the Greenlanders themselves, 50 odd, 60,000 of them, they rely heavily on welfare from Denmark. Is that accurate?” Varney asked.

Sands confirmed that assessment, citing annual financial transfers from Denmark to Greenland.

“It is. So every year Denmark sends them around $600 million it’s about 20% of their budget, but they rely on that,” Sands said.

She added that Denmark’s limited resources have prevented meaningful development or defense of Greenland, despite local interest.

“And what it does, because Denmark is such a small country with limited resources, is they’ve never developed Greenland. They don’t even have one road between two towns, for instance, even though people in Greenland want this,” Sands said.

Sands compared Denmark’s situation to owning property without being able to maintain it, arguing that the inability to defend Greenland has broader implications for NATO obligations.

“So Denmark can’t afford to develop Greenland. They can’t afford to defend it. It’s like Stuart. If you own a house or a building and you can’t afford to take care of it, upkeep. You have to sell it,” she said.

She went further, stating that Denmark’s position places it in violation of NATO treaty requirements.

“And as a matter of fact, because of this issue that Denmark can’t afford to develop or defend Greenland, they’re actually in violation of article three of the NATO Treaty. Article Three says that every NATO ally has the ability to defend their own territory. Denmark has never been able to defend Greenland,” Sands said.

Varney pressed Sands on whether ownership of Greenland is necessary or whether alternative arrangements, such as leases or base agreements, would suffice.

“Do we have to own Greenland? I mean, possess it, as opposed to just lease it or get an agreement to put some bases there? Is ownership the key to this really?” Varney asked.

Sands responded by citing historical precedent and recent shifts in Denmark’s posture toward the United States.

“Well, we have a base there. We used to occupy Greenland during World, World War Two, but Stuart, because it’s so uncertain. Look at how Denmark has changed toward us,” she said.

She also raised concerns about foreign influence operations and Greenland’s small population.

“You never know what foreign adversary. Look at the CCP, kind of you know influence operations around the world. How hard would it be to influence 57,000 people?” Sands said.

Sands concluded by expressing confidence in Trump’s negotiating approach.

“I don’t know what the end result will look like, but I do know that President Trump, who wrote the book The Art of the Deal, is going to get a good deal for all Americans and our allies,” she said.

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.