ANALYSIS: Trump Wants Greenland — What Lies Beneath the Ice Is Worth More Than His Entire Empire

When Beijing Plays Chess While America Plays Poker

If Trump wants Greenland so urgently, it’s because he knows—or because he’s been shown the classified memos—that China hasn’t been sitting idly by. Since the early 2010s, Chinese companies have sought to invest in Greenland’s mines, finance port infrastructure, and propose the construction of airports. In 2018, a Chinese offer to build two international airports in Greenland set off such alarm bells that Denmark decided to finance the projects itself in order to block Beijing.

China’s strategy in Greenland is a perfect mirror image of what Beijing has been doing in Africa for the past twenty years: infrastructure in exchange for access to resources, patience in the face of Western impatience, and discreet investment rather than loud rhetoric.

The Northern Sea Route and the New Center of the World

And then there is the Northern Sea Route. As Arctic ice melts, new shipping lanes are opening up—routes that reduce transit time between Asia and Europe by 40% compared to the Suez Canal. Greenland lies right at the heart of this transformation. Whoever possesses bases, ports, or a military presence in Greenland controls the passage.

Russia has long understood this. It has reopened dozens of Arctic military bases that had been abandoned since the end of the Cold War. China, which has proclaimed itself a “near-Arctic state”—a geographical absurdity, but a perfectly clear declaration of intent—is investing heavily in nuclear-powered icebreakers and polar research infrastructure. And yet, the United States has only two operational icebreakers, compared to Russia’s fleet of more than forty vessels. Two against forty. That figure alone explains the panic.

The Radar That Protects a Continent

What most commentators overlook in the debate over Greenland is that the United States is already there. Pituffik Space Base—formerly Thule Air Base—is the northernmost U.S. military base in the world. Located 1,200 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle, it houses a ballistic missile detection radar that serves as the first line of defense in North America’s missile defense system.

If an intercontinental ballistic missile were launched from Russia toward the United States, Thule would be the first to detect it. This base is not a luxury. It is a vital asset. And Trump knows this: as long as Greenland remains under Danish sovereignty, U.S. access to Thule depends on a bilateral agreement that Denmark could theoretically revoke.

Greenlandic Autonomy as a Strategic Vulnerability

And yet, the situation is more fragile than it seems. Greenland has enjoyed expanded autonomy since 2009, including the right to control its own natural resources. Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede has publicly raised the possibility of a referendum on independence. If Greenland were to become independent—with a population of only 56,000 and a GDP that is 50% dependent on Danish subsidies—the question would become: who would fill the financial void? Washington? Beijing? Moscow?

It is precisely this window of vulnerability that Trump seeks to exploit—or to close, depending on one’s point of view.

When a U.S. President Redraws the Map

Trump’s focus on Greenland is part of a broader pattern that the press has been slow to recognize. The Panama Canal, Greenland, the Gulf of Mexico renamed the “Gulf of America”—these claims are not isolated whims. They outline a “Monroe Doctrine 2.0”: the assertion of an expanded American sphere of influence, this time extending to the Arctic.

In 1823, James Monroe declared that the Western Hemisphere was the exclusive domain of the United States. Two centuries later, Trump is applying the same logic to the poles. And this time, the goal is not to push back against declining European colonial empires. It is to block China and Russia before they lock down the Arctic.

What the Pentagon Says Behind Closed Doors

The U.S. Department of Defense’s strategic documents are explicit. The “Arctic Strategy 2024” report identifies Greenland as a “critical strategic terrain” for the defense of the North American continent. U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and NORAD view the region as a potential launch corridor for Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles—weapons against which current defense systems remain largely powerless.

In military terms, Greenland is not an island. It is a shield. And Trump does not want to buy an island. He wants to ensure that the shield remains American.

A kingdom that can neither yield nor resist

Denmark’s position is a diplomatic balancing act that borders on the impossible. On the one hand, the United States is Denmark’s primary security ally within NATO. On the other, ceding Greenland—even in the form of a “strengthened defense agreement”—would amount to abandoning sovereign territory under pressure from an ally. The precedent would be devastating for international law.

Copenhagen has responded by massively increasing its Arctic defense spending. In December 2024, the Danish government announced a 14.6 billion Danish kroner (approximately $2 billion) plan to strengthen surveillance and military capabilities in Greenland. Patrol ships, drones, surveillance systems—everything Denmark can deploy to prove it is capable of defending what it refuses to sell.

Greenland Caught in the Crossfire

And yet, the Greenlanders themselves are divided. Some see U.S. interest as an opportunity to gain leverage—a way to renegotiate their relationship with Denmark, to secure more autonomy, more funding, perhaps even independence. Others fear becoming a pawn on a chessboard where they have no say in the matter.

Greenlandic MP Aaja Chemnitz Larsen summed up the dilemma with biting clarity: “We are not for sale to anyone. But neither are we the property of Denmark.” This single sentence encapsulates the tragedy of a people of 56,000 souls caught between the ambitions of three superpowers.

A Game-Changing Strategic Inventory

Let’s lay out the numbers, because numbers don’t lie—even when politicians do.

Estimated rare earth reserves in Greenland: The Kvanefjeld deposit alone is believed to contain approximately 1 billion metric tons of high-grade rare earth ore—enough to significantly reduce the West’s dependence on China. The Kringlerne deposit in the south contains some of the highest concentrations of zirconium and heavy rare earth elements ever measured outside of China.

Oil and gas: The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Greenland and its territorial waters could contain up to 52 billion barrels of oil and significant reserves of natural gas. By comparison, Norway’s proven reserves are approximately 8 billion barrels.

Freshwater: The Greenland ice sheet contains about 10% of the world’s freshwater. In a century when water wars are no longer the stuff of science fiction, this figure alone would justify any power’s interest.

Total value: literally incalculable

No serious economist has been able to quantify the total value of Greenland’s resources, because the calculation depends on variables that no one can control: the rate of glacial melt, fluctuations in rare-earth prices, and the geopolitical landscape over the next twenty years. But even partial estimates are staggering. The Kvanefjeld project alone has been valued at over $1.5 billion—and that’s just one deposit among dozens.

Trump, a man who thinks in terms of deals, looks at these figures and sees the biggest real estate deal in human history. And he’s not entirely wrong.

A People Forgotten in the Calculations of the Powerful

Amid all this geostrategic frenzy, one reality is systematically overlooked: Greenland is inhabited. And its inhabitants—mostly Inuit—have a history, a culture, and a connection to the land that cannot be measured in barrels or metric tons of ore.

The Greenlandic Inuit have already paid the price of the Cold War. In 1953, the United States forced the relocation of the Inuit community of Uummannaq (then Dundas) to expand Thule Air Base. Entire families were relocated with only a few days’ notice, under conditions that historians now describe as colonial. Denmark was condemned by its own Supreme Court in 2003 for this forced displacement—but the compensation was deemed derisory.

Mining and Sacred Land

And yet, there is talk of doing it again. Large-scale mining in Greenland would threaten traditional hunting grounds, fragile ecosystems, and sites of irreplaceable cultural importance to Inuit communities. The Kvanefjeld project was, in fact, blocked in 2021 by the Greenlandic parliament, largely due to opposition from local communities concerned about contamination from uranium and radioactive elements.

There is something obscene about the spectacle of world powers squabbling over a territory while talking about its resources as if no one lived there. The Inuit are not a logistical footnote. They are the guardians of a territory they have inhabited for more than 4,500 years—long before anyone in Washington, Beijing, or Moscow could even point to Greenland on a map.

Russia, China, the United States—the Arctic Triangle

What is at stake in Greenland extends far beyond Greenland itself. This is the new Great Game—a reference to the 19th century, when Russia and Great Britain vied for control of Central Asia. Except this time, the chessboard is the Arctic, the pawns are nuclear icebreakers and hypersonic missiles, and the stakes are existential.

Russia has militarized the Arctic on a scale not seen since the Cold War. It has reopened bases, conducted massive military exercises, and expanded its territorial claims through the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Moscow considers the Northern Sea Route its sovereign property and requires all passing ships to request authorization.

China is investing in polar research, infrastructure, and partnerships with the Arctic states—even though it is as geographically distant from the Arctic as Brazil is from Antarctica. Its self-proclaimed status as a “near-Arctic state” is a legal fiction, but its presence is very real.

America Is Falling Behind—and It Knows It

Faced with this two-pronged push, the United States is embarrassingly behind. Two icebreakers versus Russia’s forty. No coherent Arctic strategy until 2024. Aging bases. A patchy surveillance network. America won the Cold War in the Arctic, then turned its back—and its rivals filled the void.

Trump, with his transactional instinct, identified the problem faster than the foreign policy establishment. His solution—buying Greenland—is typically Trumpian: blunt, simplistic, politically impossible, and yet strangely lucid in its diagnosis. America needs Greenland. The method is absurd. The assessment is not.

When Disaster Creates Opportunity

Here is the cruelest paradox of this story: climate change—which Trump has denied for years, continues to downplay, and for which he withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement—is precisely the phenomenon that makes Greenland so valuable. Without global warming, there would be no melting. Without melting, there would be no access to minerals. Without access to minerals, there would be no rush to the Arctic.

Trump wants to profit from the consequences of a catastrophe he refuses to acknowledge. There is such perfect irony in this contradiction that it becomes dizzying.

Chilling Projections

IPCC climate models project that the Arctic could experience its first ice-free summers as early as the 2030s or 2040s. If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely—a scenario that would take centuries but is no longer considered impossible—it would raise sea levels by 7.4 meters. Enough to submerge Miami, New York, Amsterdam, Shanghai, and Mumbai.

But before these cities are submerged, the resources released by the melting ice will be worth trillions. And it is this window—between the start of the melt and the final catastrophe—that the world’s powers are vying for. Greenland is the vault of a world on fire.

Brussels Sleeps While the Arctic Melts

The European Union is conspicuously absent from this high-stakes game. No Arctic strategy worthy of the name. No military icebreakers. No policy to secure rare earths that doesn’t depend on Beijing’s goodwill. The Critical Raw Materials Act of 2023 is a first step, but it’s a tiny step in a race of giants.

And yet, Greenland is technically European. It is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, an EU member state (even though Greenland itself left the EEC in 1985 following a referendum on fishing rights). If the United States gains greater control over Greenland—whether through purchase, a defense agreement, or economic pressure—it is Europe that loses a major strategic lever without even having fought to keep it.

European Sovereignty Put to the Test by Geology

The real scandal isn’t that Trump wants Greenland. The real scandal is that Europe didn’t develop Greenland itself. Decades of investment could have transformed the island into a hub for rare-earth production that would have freed Europe from its dependence on China. Instead, Europeans have left Greenland in a state of chronic underdevelopment—subsidized by Copenhagen, ignored by Brussels, and now coveted by everyone except those who should have taken care of it.

It is a textbook case of strategic neglect. And like all forms of neglect, it comes back to haunt us at the most inopportune moment.

The Questions the Media Isn’t Asking

The media debate on Greenland is hopelessly superficial. People are discussing whether Trump is “serious” or “crazy.” They’re commenting on Denmark’s diplomatic embarrassment. They’re being sarcastic about the idea of buying a territory in the 21st century. But the real questions remain unanswered.

Question 1: If the United States gains control of Greenland, who will operate the mines? American companies subject to environmental standards? Chinese subcontractors, as in Africa? Companies that will employ Greenlanders or import their own workforce?

Question 2: What will be the environmental impact of large-scale mining in an already fragile Arctic ecosystem? Will caribou, polar bears, and narwhals survive the rush for rare earth minerals?

Question 3: Will the profits go to the 56,000 Greenlanders, or will they be siphoned off by multinational corporations and distant governments, as has been the case in every extractive industry story for the past five centuries?

Colonization in Disguise

There is a word to describe a power that covets an Indigenous people’s territory for its natural resources, that proposes to buy it without the consent of its inhabitants, and that uses military and economic pressure to get what it wants. History textbooks know this word well. American editorialists prefer not to use it.

Greenland is the ultimate test of the West’s claim to defend peoples’ right to self-determination. Either this principle applies even when it is inconvenient for Washington—or it means nothing.

An Independent Greenland—and One That’s Being Courted

The most likely scenario is neither a U.S. purchase nor the Danish status quo. It is Greenland’s independence within the next ten to twenty years—a sovereign state, tiny in population, vast in territory, and immensely rich in natural resources. An Arctic Qatar, so to speak.

An independent Greenland would instantly become the most courted country on the planet. The United States would offer defense agreements. China would offer investments. Europe would offer integration. Russia would offer… Russia would offer what Russia always offers: the choice between cooperation and consequences.

56,000 People Facing Three Empires

Imagine being a people of 56,000 souls—fewer than a small French town—sitting on a treasure trove worth trillions, courted by the world’s three greatest military powers, with no army, no navy, no air force, not even a seat on the UN Security Council.

This is the situation of the Greenlanders. And it should terrify us as much as it should inspire our respect. Because despite everything—despite the pressure, despite the offers, despite the condescension of the great powers—the Greenlanders continue to say, “This land is ours.”

In a world where sovereignty is negotiated through barrels of oil and missiles, this assertion is an act of radical courage.

Geology’s Verdict

Trump wants Greenland for the same reasons that every power has always wanted what belongs to others: resources, location, and control. The rhetoric has changed—we no longer speak of “manifest destiny” but of “national security”—but the mechanism is the same. What lies beneath Greenland’s ice is not just ore. It is the fuel of the century. And whoever controls it will dictate the rules.

Greenland’s rare earth minerals could break China’s monopoly. Its shipping routes could reshape global trade. Its geographic location could neutralize the Russian hypersonic threat. Its hydrocarbon reserves could fuel decades of energy transition—or decades of fossil fuel dependence, depending on who exploits them.

What Lies Beneath the Ice, Deep Down

What lies beneath Greenland’s ice is not just minerals. It is a reflection of who we truly are: beings capable of exploring the atom and mapping the genome, yet incapable of resisting the world’s oldest temptation—to take what does not belong to us, simply because we have the power to do so.

Trump didn’t invent this impulse. He embodies it with a candor that traditional diplomacy takes care to mask. And that is perhaps the only thing we can give him credit for in this whole story: at least, with him, greed doesn’t masquerade as altruism.

Greenland will not be bought. But it will be contested, courted, exploited, and potentially plundered—with or without the consent of those who live there. The ice is melting. So are the masks.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost