However, there are no guideposts for a chief executive who seems eager to annex Greenland by any means necessary. 

Trump’s interest in the Danish territory is not inherently unusual — a generation of foreign policy wonks has mused about the strategic implications of Greenland’s reservoirs of rare earth minerals and its location amid key Arctic waterways, with the frigid island now even more valuable since global warming has reshaped sea routes.

Yet Trump’s incessant musings on acquiring Greenland are unusual.

It’s bubbling up long after the idea of Manifest Destiny was relegated to the history books. It’s happening nearly 80 years after World War II’s end, during a period when one of the most fundamental keystones of U.S. foreign policy is to prevent international borders from changing through force.

Unlike almost any other matter, there is no polling on annexing Greenland. Pollsters have measured almost everything else, but Democratic and Republican operatives agree that there are no signposts to gauge voters’ feelings on the topic.

There aren’t even hints — after all, isolationist attitudes about aiding Ukraine are not much of an analog for isolationist attitudes about invading Greenland. Further, while there is ample polling about the U.S. public’s views of countries such as China or Russia, there isn’t much to measure the public’s perception of Denmark. 

As a political matter, elected officials are at sea. Some don’t particularly take the concept seriously. Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) bristled at even being asked about it.

“This is an effort to get you guys talking about Greenland so that you don’t pay attention to the theft that is about to occur as they pass a massive new round of tax cuts for billionaires and corporations, paid for by deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. It’s brilliant,” Murphy recently said when asked by the Washington Examiner. “They’re going to try to distract the press and the public and the information ecosystem away from the thievery that is going to happen with this massive tax cut.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) was more bemused by the Greenland chatter.

“It seems wacky to me and kind of a diversion from issues that we ought to be paying attention to,“ said Kaine, who just won reelection to a new six-year term for a seat he first captured in the 2012 elections.

“I just got off the trail after campaigning in Virginia for two years. I know what Virginians are concerned with,” he said. “They’re not concerned about whether the U.S. should have Greenland or the Panama Canal. Nobody ever raises issues like that with me.”

Some Republicans weren’t even ready to take the matter seriously. Rep Kat Cammack (R-FL) joked when asked about Greenland, “I hear it’s cold this time of year,” and said she was focused on “domestic policy.”

Others were dead earnest about it.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) told the Washington Examiner, “I think it’s wonderful. I think it’s a great idea. We already have a lot invested there with our military base.”

He added, “If you were a Greenlander, wouldn’t you want to be an American citizen?” 

Burlison further called a possible U.S. acquisition of Greenland “a wonderful opportunity to be able to join the greatest country in the world.”

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN), who introduced a bill to give Trump congressional authority to purchase Greenland from Denmark, thought it was a necessary response to China.

“We can’t just sit idly by and wake up 10 years from now and realize that China has essentially commandeered Greenland, which is full of resources, and so it’s literally in our backyard or front yard,” he said, adding that Greenland would make a “great U.S. territory.”

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), who was a co-sponsor of Ogles’s Greenland legislation, noted that the U.S. has a history of buying territories (although no major purchase has happened since 1917 when Denmark sold the Virgin Islands to the United States).

“The U.S. purchasing land is nothing new. This isn’t a new concept,” Lawler said. “So, I don’t know why everybody’s shocked beyond belief that this would be something we might consider or try to engage in discussion about.”

He added a caveat.

“We’re not just going to seize the land. But the reality is that there’s a vital national security interest,” Lawler said. “This is a conversation to be had and a discussion to be had, and if there’s a pathway by which to make progress on it, then we should.”

Perhaps the median reaction came from Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO), who wasn’t entirely sure what to make of Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland. However, Hickenlooper — a geologist by background — seemed open, albeit perplexed, by Trump’s sudden interest in the mineral-rich Danish territory.

“He throws a lot of these things out. Sometimes, he’s right. Sometimes he makes a real point,” he said. “I don’t get this one in terms of what our benefit would be to antagonizing one of our oldest allies.” 

The Colorado Democrat added of Trump, “He’s the one who won the election, and he’s the one who gets to decide what he wants to talk about. He might have ideas out there that we haven’t thought of.”