In an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker, Scott Bessent, a top advisor on Arctic and national security matters, defended President Trump’s push to acquire Greenland, framing it as a necessary measure for U.S. strength and security in the Arctic.
“Well, Kristen, that’s obviously a false choice,” Bessent said when asked whether Greenland or NATO was more critical to U.S. national security. “Of course we’re going to remain part of NATO. Greenland can only be defended if it is part of the United States. We are not going to outsource our national security. President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security. Because, let me tell you what will happen—and it might not be next year, might not be in five years, but down the road—this fight for the Arctic is real.”
Bessent repeatedly emphasized the contrast between the United States and its European allies, arguing that America projects strength while Europe projects weakness. “Better now—peace through strength—make it part of the United States, and there will not be a conflict. Right now, the United States is the strongest country in the world. Europeans project weakness, US Projects Strength” he said.
The advisor framed the Greenland acquisition as a strategic and long-term move, rooted in over a century of U.S. interest in the Arctic island. “President Trump is being strategic. He’s looking beyond this year… to what could happen for a battle in the Arctic. We are not going to outsource national security.”
Bessent also dismissed concerns about transatlantic fallout and potential harm to NATO, insisting that European leaders will eventually understand the necessity of being under the U.S. security umbrella. “The European leaders will come around. Denmark has a terrible history with Greenlanders—there were forced sterilizations up until the ’80s or ’90s. Greenlanders deserve better. And again, this enhances U.S. security. We’re building things like the Golden Dome. America has to be in control here.”
He further framed the move as preventive, aimed at keeping Greenland out of the hands of potential adversaries. “The national emergency is avoiding the national emergency. It is a strategic decision by the president—he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war. The Europeans are unable to push back against Russia. This war in Ukraine never would have started if we had projected strength earlier. What President Trump is trying to do is prevent a taking of Greenland by Russia and China in the future.”
Bessent’s remarks underscore the administration’s messaging that the Greenland initiative is not just about territorial acquisition, but about maintaining global U.S. primacy and projecting power in a region increasingly viewed as strategically critical.
