By Erik Suarez.
US President-Elect Donald Trump has expressed interest in purchasing Greenland, as he did during his first tenure. Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede claims “the island is not for sale,” but that glib response does not change the merits of the potential annexation.
Trump is not the first US president who has shown interest in purchasing Greenland, and other territories have been purchased from Denmark in the past. That includes the US Virgin Islands in 1917. As was the case then, the current US interest stems from a sound national security and geopolitical strategy for defense of the mainland.
Greenland is not only the world’s largest island; its strategic location provides critical access to the Arctic. Further, Greeland’s rare minerals and rare earth elements (REE) add to its status as a key asset for any foreign power with military ambitions in the Americas and North Atlantic.
The United States has long benefited from two large oceans and rough terrain, making a direct foreign invasion almost impossible. The main entry points to North America have always been the Caribbean islands, Alaska, and Greenland due to their proximity. In the 1800s, the United States secured strategic locations such as Alaska, Hawaii, and Caribbean territories to make barriers rather than access points.
Since WWII and NATO’s formation, Danish-administered Greenland has been secured by an ally and the whole alliance. Nevertheless, recent developments in Greenland-Denmark politics have shaken that status quo. Since February 2024, the territory has declared full independence as its objective. This opens the possibility of renegotiating deals, including NATO membership and US military bases on the island.
An independent Greenland could not defend itself against a potential major power threat, such as an invasion by Russia or China. That means the United States faces the risk of having a major adversary on its doorstep. Even the opening of military bases by adversarial forces would be a high national security risk, a risk the United States cannot afford to allow.
The traditional US method of addressing such a risk to the region has been possession of the territory by purchase or military action.
Concerns about Greenland being taken over by a major military force are warranted. Consider Russia’s relatively recent militarization of its Arctic zones as the ice caps reduce in size. Major territories that were once inhospitable are becoming suitable for militarization by Russia, many close to Greenland.
Another important strategic incentive is Greenland’s vast REEs, potentially the second largest reserves in the world. These REEs include yttrium, scandium, neodymium, and dysprosium, which are necessary in production for defense and energy industries. Currently, the largest producer of REEs is China with approximately 97 percent of world supply, which has fostered unhealthy dependence. Greenland’s location would allow for easier and safer transport of these elements to the mainland.
The Trump administration has hinted at its stance towards Chinese influence in the region. The announcement of Marco Rubio for secretary of state—weeks after the release of his report, “The World China Made”—shows a clear intent to resist Chinese dominance regionally and globally. A large part of the US foreign-policy agenda will focus on removing Chinese influence from the region while restoring US global economic dominance.
In this context, Greenland represents an opportunity for the United States to retake independence from Chinese REE markets while securing greater access to an extremely profitable and strategic market. This would require long-term planning and industrial development. However, an independent Greenland could provide extraction rights to China or China-dependent economies. This scenario would hardly be in the best interest of the United States facing an economic war with China.
Although we do not have numbers on the table, Greenland presents a key asset not only for the United States; adversaries could benefit militarily and economically from the island. Whatever the debate might be domestically, Greenland’s destiny will affect more than locals. They are at the center of the board in the North Antarctic scene and rightly in the eyes of the United States.
Join us in our mission to foster positive relations between the United States and Latin America through independent journalism.
As we improve our quality and deepen our coverage, we wish to make the Impunity Observer financially sustainable and reader-oriented. In return, we ask that you show your support in the form of subscriptions.
Non-subscribers can read up to six articles per month. Subscribe here.