By Christine Schwöbel-Patel
NEW YORK: What drives Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland? Back in 2019, Trump’s ambition to purchase the Arctic island from Denmark shocked many, turning heads with talk of a real estate transaction.
His proposal was met with widespread derision, particularly after he posted a photoshopped image of a gaudy Trump Tower amidst Greenland’s stunning landscape, declaring, “I promise not to do this to Greenland.” Given that a staggering 80% of Greenland is ice-covered, and its economy (with a GDP of US$3.24 billion in 2021) largely depends on fishing and Danish subsidies, many considered Trump’s fixation an exhibition of megalomania.
Interestingly, as he approaches his new term, Trump has reiterated his desire for U.S. control over Greenland, insisting it’s crucial for “national security.” During a press conference, he hinted at the possibility of using military or economic pressure to achieve his goal, indicating a shift from viewing this as a mere land deal with Denmark.
The Arctic region holds significant strategic value for the U.S. military, serving as a launch point for nuclear submarines that can operate covertly beneath the ice. Historically, the U.S. has stored nuclear missiles in Greenland, notably under Cold War initiatives like Project Iceworm and its associated “cover project,” Camp Century.
From the Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland, which has been under U.S. control since WWII, military personnel manage early warning systems and oversee space surveillance efforts. The proximity of U.S. missile installations to Russia adds another layer of tension.
Given that the U.S. already maintains a presence in Greenland without direct ownership, it seems perplexing that Trump would seek further control, especially amid escalating global tensions with Russia and China.
One potential reason for this ambition could be the untapped mineral wealth believed to lie beneath the melting ice, combined with Greenland’s occasionally hesitant stance on issuing mining licenses. Over the last four decades, the Arctic has warmed significantly faster than the rest of the world, particularly impacting Greenland’s ice sheets and prompting alarms over rising sea levels and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
While some view Greenland’s transformation due to climate change as alarming, others see it as an opportunity. The retreating ice is opening up shipping lanes, land, and access to minerals long thought inaccessible, including resources deemed “critical” for green technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels.
A bold claim from an Australian mining firm, Energy Transition Minerals (ETM), suggests that Greenland could emerge as the leading Western producer of vital rare earth minerals. Currently, China dominates this market, controlling 60% of rare earth ore extraction and 90% of its refinement. The West has been keen on breaking this monopoly, focusing efforts on securing critical global supply chains as emphasized by Thea Riofrancos in the context of the “security-sustainability nexus.”
ETM is engaged in investment arbitration against Greenland, seeking either an astonishing US$11.5 billion in compensation or a mining license. A new government in Greenland, led by the left-wing party Inuit Ataqatigiit, which has garnered support from the Indigenous Inuit population seeking independence, revoked ETM’s licenses due to concerns over uranium pollution risks.
ETM’s arbitration initiative is fueled by investment from a London-based litigation financier, which may align with the legal-economic coercion Trump referenced. Such initiatives underscore why responses from global powers regarding the green transition have been notably intensified. Greenland is emerging as a new frontier for extractivism.
Denmark plays a pivotal role in this geopolitical ballet. “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated in response to Trump’s comments. However, this is somewhat misleading as Greenland operates as an autonomous territory within the Danish Realm. Despite some devolved powers since the 1950s, relations with Denmark are fraught, marked by a legacy of settler colonialism, historical abuses against Indigenous populations, and continued Danish linguistic dominance among political and cultural elites.
Danish governance still holds significant sway over Greenland’s foreign and security policy, which provides context for Trump’s interest in “purchasing” the territory. International law recognizes this situation as a denial of the right to self-determination.
This isn’t the first instance of the U.S. seeking to acquire Greenland, as Denmark previously rejected a similar offer in 1946. In a symbolic gesture, Donald Trump Jr. shared a photo of himself visiting Nuuk’s statue of Hans Egede during a trip, portraying Egede—a Norse missionary and colonizer—as Greenland’s “founder.” This statue had been vandalized in 2021 with the word “decolonize,” coinciding with canceled celebrations of Egede’s arrival due to the history of colonial impact.
Legally, Denmark cannot “sell” Greenland under international law. Yet, as recent occupation and annexation cases globally illustrate—such as in Gaza and Ukraine—imperial powers often deny self-determination rights, typically accompanied by racialized and dehumanizing narratives about Indigenous populations.
If Denmark leads this complex geopolitical dance, the EU, Russia, China, and various billionaires are also vying for influence. For example, in 2024, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited Nuuk to inaugurate an EU office focused on facilitating collaboration between Greenland and the EU, emphasizing investment in education and skills in exchange for resource access. This proactive stance by the EU likely influenced swift warnings from Germany and France regarding border sovereignty.
The competition for Greenland is underscored by a Danish intelligence report from December 2024, indicating heightened Russian activity in the Arctic and potential collaborations with China on regional investments, raising concerns for Western interests.
Additionally, prominent billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates made headlines in 2022 for their investments into resource exploration in Greenland, showcasing the scramble for control while sidelining Indigenous voices and aspirations.
Meanwhile, Greenland’s Prime Minister continues to advocate for independence amid growing pressure for economic self-sufficiency from Denmark, which presents itself as a benevolent benefactor through financial support.
The debate over whether to exploit Greenland’s mineral resources remains highly contentious. It’s crucial to note that the term “rare” in rare earth elements is somewhat misleading; these resources are not particularly scarce. Rather, what’s rare is the community consent needed for extraction, which often brings with it environmental degradation and health risks associated with uranium and other pollutants.
Ultimately, the quest for economic autonomy within an imperial framework risks positioning Greenland as a new energy sacrifice zone, caught in the rush for resources at the forefront of the green transition. (IPA Service)
