Why Trump is Eying on Greenland?

The United States’ recent aggressive posture toward Greenland, coming right after its intervention in Venezuela reveals a clear pattern. Washington is prioritizing control over untapped or underutilized reserves of critical minerals, especially rare earth elements (REEs), far more than any abstract “China and Russia threat” narrative.

Look at the numbers: The US holds about 1.9 million metric tons of rare earth reserves and produced 45,000 metric tons in 2024. Greenland sits on an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of reserves (per USGS data), ranking it eighth globally among proven reserves—yet it has zero commercial production.

These untapped deposits, concentrated in major sites like Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez, include significant heavy rare earths vital for high-performance magnets, defense systems, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and advanced tech like AI chips (e.g., germanium and gallium).

Some geological estimates even suggest Greenland’s total resources could reach 36–42 million metric tons if fully explored, potentially making it the world’s second-largest after China.This isn’t coincidence. Just as Venezuela’s vast oil reserves (and secondary critical minerals like coltan, nickel, and potential rare earths in the Guayana Shield) became a target for resource dominance after Maduro’s removal, Greenland’s REE wealth is the real prize.

Environmental protections, harsh Arctic infrastructure challenges, and local opposition have kept Greenland’s deposits dormant, but as global supply chain vulnerabilities grow—exacerbated by China’s dominance in processing and occasional export curbs—untapped sources like Greenland become impossible to ignore for US policymakers.

Trump’s renewed push isn’t mere symbolism or bluster about “national security.” It’s driven by the urgent need to diversify away from Chinese-controlled supply chains for materials essential to clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and military hardware.

The administration has already signaled investments (e.g., potential loans for Tanbreez) and framed Greenland as key to countering dependencies that leave the US exposed.

At Davos, Macron described the “endless accumulation of new tariffs” from the United States as “fundamentally unacceptable,” particularly when such tariffs serve as leverage against territorial sovereignty.

The remarks came shortly after Donald Trump announced new tariffs targeting countries opposing his plan to acquire Greenland, while reiterating that there is “no going back” on the initiative because “Greenland is imperative for national and world security.”

Trump also shared what appeared to be a private message from Macron stating, “I do not understand what you are doing on Greenland,” along with a message from NATO’s Secretary General and AI-generated images of himself planting an American flag on the island. These elements combine economic pressure, public messaging, and social media signaling to advance the position.

Geopolitically, Greenland’s allure extends well beyond its untapped rare earth minerals, encompassing a combination of maritime, military, and competitive advantages in an increasingly accessible Arctic region due to climate-driven ice melt.

Strategic Arctic position

Greenland’s location places it at the gateway to emerging northern shipping routes made viable by shrinking sea ice. Key passages include the Northwest Passage, which skirts Greenland’s western coast through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, offering shorter routes from Asia to Europe and North America compared to traditional paths like the Suez or Panama Canals. The Transpolar Sea Route, crossing the central Arctic Ocean, represents a potential future high-seas corridor that could further reduce transit times and costs.

As Arctic shipping traffic grows—driven by commercial interests seeking fuel savings and faster delivery—control over Greenland’s extensive coastline and adjacent waters becomes essential for monitoring, regulating, and securing these lanes against potential disruptions or rival dominance. This positions Greenland as a critical node in reshaping global trade logistics amid warming polar conditions.

Military vantage

The island hosts Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), the northernmost U.S. military installation, operated under long-standing defense agreements with Denmark. This facility serves as a vital sensor node within the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) system, featuring an Upgraded Early Warning Radar for detecting and tracking intercontinental and sea-launched ballistic missiles, providing early warning against threats crossing the Arctic. It also supports space surveillance and domain awareness missions.

Critically, Greenland anchors the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK), a longstanding naval choke point in the North Atlantic that NATO monitors to track Russian (and potentially Chinese) submarines and surface vessels attempting to enter broader Atlantic waters. This gap remains a key defensive line for transatlantic security, with Pituffik enabling persistent oversight in an era of renewed great-power naval competition.

Countering rivals

Russia has sustained and expanded its Arctic military footprint, maintaining around 12 bases, 16 deep-water ports, and the world’s only nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet, while rebuilding former Soviet-era infrastructure to project power and protect its northern interests. This includes capabilities for submarine operations and resource defense in the region.

China, self-identifying as a “near-Arctic state” since its 2018 Arctic policy, has pursued commercial and infrastructural inroads, including investments in mining, energy projects along Russia’s northern coast, and attempts at Greenland-specific ventures like airport developments or stakes in rare earth sites (e.g., partnerships or offtake agreements at projects like Kvanefjeld).

Many Chinese proposals have faced blocks due to security concerns from Denmark, Greenland, and U.S. lobbying, but China’s dominance in rare earth processing positions it as a potential alternative partner if Western investment lags.

U.S. influence or control over Greenland would help deny adversaries strategic footholds, prevent dual-use infrastructure (e.g., ports or airports with military applications), curb rival access to resources, and ensure development aligns with Western security priorities rather than those of competitors.In short, Greenland isn’t about symbolic acquisition or mere posturing—its combination of geographic leverage, existing military assets, and role in denying rivals Arctic advantages makes it a linchpin for U.S. and allied interests in an era of intensifying competition over emerging routes, resources, and defense perimeters.

However, I have mixed feelings about the United States’ recent maneuvers toward smaller nations like Venezuela and now Greenland. On one hand, I can understand the strategic rationale behind these actions—securing resources and influence in a multipolar world where competition over critical minerals and geopolitical chokepoints is intensifying.

But on the other, I worry deeply about the precedents they set, potentially unraveling the fragile norms that have kept international relations somewhat stable since World War II. Let’s acknowledge the motivations driving the US. From my vantage point, these aren’t just acts of naked imperialism but responses to genuine vulnerabilities. Rare earth elements, as we’ve seen in Greenland’s untapped reserves, are the lifeblood of modern technology and defense.

With China controlling over 80% of global processing, any disruption—whether through export bans or trade wars—could cripple US industries and military capabilities. Similarly, Venezuela’s oil and mineral wealth represent energy security in an era of volatile global markets. In a balanced view, this isn’t entirely unfounded; great powers have always sought to protect their supply chains, much like how European colonial powers once vied for spices or rubber.

If the US doesn’t act, rivals like China or Russia might fill the void, as they’ve already attempted with investments in Greenland’s mining projects or alliances in Latin America. Proponents argue this is “defensive realism”—not aggression, but safeguarding national interests to prevent worse outcomes, like economic coercion from adversaries.

That said, I can’t ignore the downsides, which strike me as profoundly risky for global stability. When a superpower like the US targets less powerful nations under the guise of security or resource needs, it normalizes a might-makes-right approach that could cascade uncontrollably. We’ve seen echoes of this before: the US interventions in Iraq or Libya, often justified by threats or resources, led to power vacuums, regional instability, and resentment that fueled extremism.

Applying this to Greenland, a Danish territory with autonomous governance or post-intervention Venezuela could erode sovereignty norms enshrined in the UN Charter. Smaller nations might increasingly band together in defensive alliances, perhaps under Chinese or Russian umbrellas, accelerating a new Cold War divide.

Imagine a world where mid-sized powers like India or Brazil feel compelled to occupy neighbors for their own mineral security, or where Arctic nations like Canada face similar pressures.

These actions often disproportionately affect indigenous populations—think Greenland’s Inuit communities, who’ve long opposed mining due to environmental concerns, or Venezuela’s citizens already reeling from economic turmoil.

While US involvement might bring infrastructure and jobs, it risks cultural erosion and ecological damage in fragile ecosystems like the Arctic. Balanced against this, though, is the potential for responsible development: if handled with international oversight, such as through partnerships with the EU or UN, it could lead to sustainable extraction that benefits locals without outright domination.

Ultimately, I believe this shift could indeed transform world geopolitics, but not inevitably for the worse if countered with diplomacy. It might push for stronger multilateral institutions, like reformed trade agreements on critical minerals or Arctic governance treaties, to prevent a free-for-all.

However, if left unchecked, it could lead to a fragmented, conflict-prone world where smaller nations are pawns in great-power games, perpetuating instability rather than peace.

I hope for restraint and dialogue—because history teaches that empires overreach at their peril, and true security comes from cooperation, not conquest.

Naorem Mohen

Naorem Mohen is the Editor of Signpost News. Explore his views and opinion on X: @laimacha.