There seems to be little that President Trump and one of his first-term national security advisers, John Bolton, agree on publicly these days — but one issue may be whether the U.S. should acquire Greenland from Denmark.

Making Greenland an American territory or commonwealth, in Bolton’s view, could help with security interests of “critical importance” to the U.S. and allies in fending off potential threats from adversaries like Russia and China.

Trump fired Bolton, who had previously served as his U.S. ambassador to the U.N., in 2019 — the same year the president first spoke about his ambitions for Greenland. And Bolton told NPR that he thinks the president ruined the country’s chances of negotiating to acquire the semiautonomous territory by failing to speak privately with Danish leaders about the possibility first.

While Bolton maintains there are other paths to allowing the U.S. and allies to fend off geopolitical threats in the Arctic region, he accused Trump of acting like a “playground bully” in his approach — noting Trump’s refusal to rule out military force to take Greenland.

In response to Bolton’s remarks, White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes told NPR:

“President Trump’s America First Policy is already paying dividends – especially in the Western Hemisphere. Both Mexico & Canada have agreed to send troops and personnel to our borders to stop the flow of fentanyl from China, Panama is ending its Belt & Road deal with China, Maduro has released six American hostages from Venezuela, and Colombia agreed to take repatriation flights for their citizens in the U.S. illegally. We’re sorry John Bolton can’t comprehend the President’s many successes in just three weeks.”

All Things Considered host Juana Summers spoke to Bolton about his views on Trump’s policy toward Greenland and Denmark.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

Juana Summers: Obviously, a possible acquisition of Greenland is a sensitive topic for many. You’ve talked in the past about President Trump’s plans to negotiate with Denmark to buy Greenland during his first term. And you’ve said that he effectively blew up any possibility of that happening by airing those plans publicly before privately raising them with Danish leaders. So to achieve the kinds of strategic security goals that exist in the region now, what kind of path forward do you think there is?

John Bolton: Well, I’d be happy if everybody started to just put it behind them and not discuss it publicly. It’s obviously sensitive both for the government of Denmark and for the local government in Greenland. And by making outrageous statements, including refusing to rule out the use of force, Trump is getting in his own way. He’s making it harder to reach a solution that everybody might agree on, because in a democratic society, when you act like you’re a playground bully, you put other democratic leaders in a difficult position — you’re driving them into a corner. It’s making it much harder for them to think about ways that we can find something that’s mutually acceptable. So this was true in 2019. And, you know, we’ve lost almost six years, and he’s come close to doing it again. I think reasonable people can put it back together. But all of this discussion has been a waste of time.

Summers: So Greenland, as you know, would have to, in all likelihood, vote for independence from Denmark first in order to become a U.S. territory. And as you know, Greenland’s prime minister has repeatedly said Greenlanders do not want to be Danish and they don’t want to be American either. So I’d like to ask you, ambassador, in your diplomatic expertise, how could the U.S. best make the case to Greenlandic citizens and leaders who clearly have strong feelings about their own autonomy, their own independence?

Bolton: Well, there are arrangements, even with U.S. sovereignty, that would give them considerable independence in all local matters. They could become a commonwealth of the United States like Puerto Rico is. And beyond that, there are other things that exist, like the 1951 Defense of Greenland treaty, which is a bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Denmark. We could work on that. And even if Greenland became independent, I certainly hope they would be a NATO member if they decided on that. It’s hard to talk about all these publicly with so much at stake, but there are a range of options. And I do think if we could just get back on an even keel here and stop thinking about Trump casinos in the capital of Greenland, it would be a lot easier to get things accomplished.

Summers: You mentioned the casino, so I do want to ask you about that. You’ve mentioned that Trump wants to potentially put a casino in Greenland’s capital. And back in 2019, he posted a tweet that promised not to put up a Trump property there. To your own knowledge, has he said on record that he might want to put a casino in Nuuk?

Bolton: Well, it was just this sort of juvenile thing that put out a picture of a casino there and [say], “But I’m not going to do it.” I don’t think it was well received in Greenland, let’s put it that way. And this is a very serious matter. It’s another indication on issues that have enormous national security implications. Trump doesn’t see the gravity of what he’s dealing with and the harm that can be caused by these kinds of playground-level statements.

Summers: Regardless of what we can tell about the president’s motivations, a lot of people who are watching him in his first few weeks in office think that the current rhetoric on Greenland, when you take it alongside what he has had to say about Canada or the Panama Canal as well as Gaza, that it signals a shift to a new era of American imperialism and trying to take over other sovereign places. So, I’m curious what you would say to that part of the discourse and whether you think that concerns about security should outweigh concerns about independence and colonialism?

Bolton: Well, I think the U.S. is about the least imperialist major power in human history. I think our record is not entirely clear on that, but it is much different from almost every other great power over the course of recorded history. And I think that to say that Trump has created a new doctrine or he has a new policy is the most inaccurate thing of all, because Trump doesn’t have a philosophy, he doesn’t have a national security grand strategy, doesn’t do policy in the way we conventionally understand that. And so I think all of these things, although he mentioned them, that at one point, all in one statement, do not form a coherent strategy. And in fact, simply the way he presents them makes it more difficult for him and the United States to achieve the objectives that he says he wants. You know, people say, well, that’s the way he negotiates in business. And I just ask most businesspeople, do you with respect to your customers and suppliers, do you slap them around publicly, frequently? Does that help your business or hurt it? Trump doesn’t seem to get the point there.

Copyright 2025 NPR