Fresh from the successful capture of Venezuelan dictator and wanted drug smuggler Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has ramped up rhetoric hinting at a possible takeover of Greenland, which is raising alarm among conservatives and NATO allies. Experts say that the U.S. can continue to take advantage of the vast autonomous territory’s natural resources and strategic military locations without wresting away ownership from Denmark.

On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the Trump administration is exploring a range of options to acquire Greenland, going so far as to say that “utilizing the U.S. military is always an option.” President Trump also contended that “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” The president’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller added that the U.S. “should have Greenland as part of the United States,” but declined to say if it should be acquired through military force.

Republican leaders on Capitol Hill were quick to throw cold water on the idea of a military operation to obtain the territory. “No, I don’t think that’s appropriate,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) remarked. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) bluntly dismissed the idea, stating, “This is a topic that should be dropped.”

A number of the U.S.’s NATO allies, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the U.K. quickly issued a statement in response to the idea of a military takeover, stating, “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen urged the U.S. to proceed with a “respectful dialogue” on the matter.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, has long been considered to be of great strategic importance to the U.S. from a military perspective due to its relative proximity in the Arctic region, missile defense, the ability to control naval shipping routes and chokepoints, and to counter the growing presence of Russia and China in the region. It is also home to vast amounts of untapped rare earth mineral deposits and oil underneath its ice sheet.

Military experts like Brigadier General (Ret.) John Teichert, who formerly served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for the Air Force for International Affairs, argue that existing agreements between the U.S. and Denmark already give the U.S. broad leeway in how to utilize the island.

“[W]e get all or almost all of the benefits from Greenland by the partnership we currently have with Greenland and Denmark,” he explained during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Wednesday. “There are economic benefits, there are security benefits, there are diplomatic benefits. And we have a very robust series of mechanisms to allow for collaboration in Greenland, including a U.S. Air Force or Space Force base that we utilize regularly. And I don't know why now we are threatening, implicitly or explicitly, our friend and our partner in Denmark and Greenland to try to bargain better and get those benefits that were already receiving from that territory.”

As Teichert went on to detail, the partnership is rooted in a Cold War agreement the U.S. signed with Denmark in 1951, which allows America to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases virtually anywhere on the island, including the ability to “house personnel” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.”

“[T]hose mechanisms for collaboration can allow us mutual benefit from the territory by working alongside of our Danish and our Greenlander partners,” the general pointed out. “I reflect back on the U.S. Space Force base that’s already there, the agreement that allows space situational awareness, missile defense, Arctic defense. And I have no doubt that if we ask Denmark and Greenland for an economic collaboration on critical minerals or oil or another base or a series of bases, then we could easily get to yes on that without again threatening our friends and our partners.”

Greenland’s immense mineral and metal deposits will almost certainly prove to be vitally important to the U.S. going forward, since they are used extensively in everything from military fighter jets and electric motors to rechargeable batteries and magnets for electronic devices and vehicles. As highlighted by National Review, harnessing more mineral production will be critical if the U.S. hopes to compete with China. “China now has 70 percent of global rare-earth mining inside its borders, 85 to 90 percent of mineral refining, and more than 90 percent of magnet production,” the outlet noted.

“[T]here are a lot of critical minerals, rare earth metals, and oil that [are] there in the territory,” Teichert observed. “But we have economic agreements with Greenland and Denmark that can allow us the benefit of exploring and exploiting those minerals, metals, and that oil. And there’s no reason why we need to own it to benefit from it. And I think that we could very easily, without threats, pursue opportunities for added collaboration to benefit economically like we already are, but maybe even a larger extent without the threats that we’ve seen in the last few days.”

As Teichert went on to postulate, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s planned meeting with Danish officials next week could go a long way in smoothing things over with America’s European allies.

“I really hope … that they come to some conclusions about the mutual benefit of how we can work together to use Greenland alongside of Denmark and our NATO partners,” he emphasized. “… [T]he president loves the negotiating tactic of keeping all options on the table. And in general, when working against adversaries, that’s wise. You don’t want the adversary to know what you’re not going to do because it simplifies their strategic calculus.”

“But the trust that’s ingrained in this large network of allies and partners allows us to benefit massively and mutually,” he insisted. “And the problem with threats is that we can’t explore the benefits, because now you don’t have the trust that cements the nations together. And I fear that [the] comment[s] from the [administration] [could have] a chilling effect on … the benefits that we get from a close relationship with NATO and allies and partners.”