Experts in foreign policy agree that President-elect Donald Trump’s intention to buy Greenland is ill-advised. They see it as foolish, outdated, and harmful to international relations.

However, could there be a possibility that Trump’s approach regarding Greenland is more strategic than it seems? Yes, and for two key reasons:

Firstly, Trump stands to lose very little if, after his term, Greenland continues to be part of Denmark.

Secondly, his seemingly ridiculous plan might actually … succeed.

Trump’s Greenland Strategy Could Work in His Favor

One of Trump’s unique advantages over contemporary politicians is his ability to backtrack with phrases like “I was just joking” or “I was just negotiating” any time he makes a controversial or outlandish statement.

Previous presidents wouldn’t have had the same luxury; maintaining the dignity of the office was too important. Yet due to the polarized media landscape that Trump has fostered, his supporters can find comfort in networks, podcasts, and websites that insist his comments were merely a joke meant to upset liberals.

Or it could have been a strategic distraction, pulling attention away from his actual agenda, such as tax reforms, while Democrats focused their energy on Greenland.

Trump seems willing to accept that there is a likelihood, however slim, of the U.S. gaining some sort of stake in Greenland, estimating the chances at 1% to 15%. Some might argue that 15% is optimistic, but what do we really know about public sentiment in Greenland? Personally, I know very little.

Do you think the island’s 57,000 residents could be charmed by grand promises from Trump and Elon Musk? I believe it could be possible, especially if they feel overlooked and exploited by Denmark.

Why would they want to partner with a larger nation like the U.S.? Perhaps for better funding? More visibility?

I’m not claiming that such a scenario is likely. I’m merely suggesting it’s not out of the realm of possibility, and Trump has the capability to increase its odds a bit.

What could Musk do for Greenland with his vast fortune of over $400 billion? Could he and Trump outbid Denmark with improvements like heliports, satellite internet, infrastructure, trade deals, and more? It’s a possibility.

There may be some residents in Greenland with low education or limited information, and this demographic often gravitates toward leaders like Trump and other populist figures globally. Their feelings of neglect could play to this advantage.

Is Greenland really much different from a deep-red state like West Virginia? We might find out. I suspect that a majority wouldn’t prefer to shift from the peaceful Danes to the American embrace, particularly reflecting on the historical experiences of Indigenous people in America and the added language barriers.

It’s worth noting, the likelihood of Greenland becoming a U.S. state is very slim.

However, if Trump were to forge substantially improved relations, negotiate new treaties, secure mineral rights, or expand military bases in Greenland, or if he becomes pivotal in their long-awaited independence, do you think he could spin any of those outcomes into a success story? I think he could: “This is even better than outright ownership, and only I, Trump, could have made it happen. Everyone said it was unattainable!”

Trump’s Greenland Discussion Might Backfire on Democrats

As Democrats continue to mock Trump for his ambitious proposal concerning Greenland, they risk feeling embarrassed if he successfully achieves something, even if it’s not an outright acquisition.

If Trump faces minimal risks in discussing Greenland, and the potential for high rewards, doesn’t that make it a clever strategy? What does he actually lose, aside from alienating the left, some Native Americans, and the people of Denmark and Greenland?

To many foreign policy analysts, seeking new territories feels stuck in a 19th-century mindset in a 21st-century world of advanced technology and soft power. However, for Trump, this aligns with the expansionist sentiments echoed by other right-wing leaders, like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Inevitably, it’s hard to overlook how detrimental this could be to global institutions, democracy, our NATO alliances, and America’s reputation abroad. If America starts acting like a country seeking to claim territories, such as Greenland, Canada, or the Panama Canal, how can we advocate against Russian incursions or territorial disputes like those in the West Bank?

These are issues for the long term. Trump has consistently focused on immediate results through his hotels, casinos, and political endeavors and relies on future consequences to manage themselves.

The seemingly most uninformed president in history might once again outsmart the intellectual elite. Even if this plan doesn’t pan out, he still gains a little in the process.

For those of us among the intellectuals, that prospect could be quite maddening.

Jeremy Mayer is an associate professor at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government, where he directs political science master’s and Ph.D. programs.