Rep. Buddy Carter Proposes Name Change For Greenland Amidst Acquisition Support
In a surprising move that has generated both intrigue and controversy, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) has publicly supported President Donald Trump’s enduring interest in acquiring Greenland, a vast territory located between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. However, Carter’s ambitious plan includes not only the acquisition but also a significant change to the territory’s name, proposing that Greenland be rebranded as “Red, White, and Blueland.” The Georgia congressman introduced his bill on Tuesday, signaling a bold approach to U.S. expansion.
Revamping National Identity Through Legislative Action
In a press release discussing his proposal, Carter celebrated what he perceives as a potential new chapter in American history. He claimed, “America is back and will soon be bigger than ever” with Greenland added to its portfolio. His bill, titled the “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025,” is designed not only to facilitate a change of ownership but to reflect an American identity through its name.
Carter remarked on President Trump’s perspective, saying, “President Trump has correctly identified the purchase of what is now Greenland as a national security priority, and we will proudly welcome its people to join the freest nation to ever exist when our Negotiator-in-Chief inks this monumental deal.” This endorsement illustrates Carter’s alignment with Trump’s vision of expanding American influence and territory.
The Legislative Details of “Red, White, and Blueland”
The text of Carter’s bill states explicitly: “Greenland shall be known as ‘Red, White, and Blueland.’ Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to Greenland shall be deemed to be a reference to ‘Red, White, and Blueland.'” This sweeping proposal intends to not only change the name in official capacities but also redefine the geographical identity of the territory within the context of U.S. governance.
As of Tuesday evening, Carter’s office confirmed that the bill currently has no co-sponsors, highlighting the controversial and ambitious nature of his proposal. It remains unclear how this legislative effort will be received within both Congress and the broader public sphere.
A Renewed Interest in Greenland
Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new; it dates back to 2019 when he described it as a “large real estate deal.” The former president’s enthusiasm for acquiring the Danish territory was publicly met with skepticism from Denmark, which has repeatedly affirmed that Greenland is “not for sale.” Nevertheless, Trump has maintained that the strategic value of Greenland to U.S. national security is paramount.
In December 2020, Trump posted on Truth Social, stating, “[F]or purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” This sentiment underscores a broader theme of national security that has been integral to Trump’s narrative regarding Greenland’s importance.
Danish Response and Regional Security Considerations
In early February, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated her government’s stance that Greenland is not for sale but did express openness to an increase in U.S. military presence in the Arctic region. During a recent discussion, she acknowledged that the Arctic is becoming increasingly significant in terms of global defense and security, especially in the context of rising activity from China and Russia.
“I totally agree with the Americans that the High North, that the Arctic region is becoming more and more important when we are talking about defense and security and deterrence,” Frederiksen noted. She pointed out the existing U.S. military presence in Greenland and entertained the notion of expanding that presence while suggesting collaborative efforts through NATO to secure this strategically vital region.
Public and Political Reactions
As the news of Carter’s bill spreads, opinions on the proposed name change and the acquisition itself are varied. Supporters argue that incorporating Greenland into the United States would bolster national security and expand American territory in a strategic location. Critics, however, caution against treating such an acquisition lightly, emphasizing the complex realities of international relations and the potential pitfalls of imperialism.
The proposal has sparked discussion around national identity, territorial expansion, and the implications of a significant geopolitical move. As calls for discussions surrounding Arctic security grow louder, the situation amplifies tensions in an already sensitive landscape where resource competition and military presence are at the forefront.
The Future of the “Red, White, and Blueland Act”
The “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025” remains a point of contention within the political landscape. While it may garner support from certain quarters within Congress, a bill of this nature inevitably raises questions about America’s international role, territorial sovereignty, and the long-term consequences of such a significant change. As it stands, the proposal sits in a precarious position, awaiting further discussion and potential legislative action.
In conclusion, Rep. Buddy Carter’s initiative to acquire Greenland and rename it “Red, White, and Blueland” presents a unique intersection of national identity, legislative action, and geopolitical strategy. As the U.S. continues to navigate its interests in the Arctic, the implications of such decisions will resonate far beyond the corridors of Congress, shaping America’s future in the realm of international relations.
Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace contributed to this report.
