President Donald Trump’s ambition to secure Greenland for its rare-earth mineral deposits, aimed at reducing China’s dominance, is meeting with harsh practical and political realities that experts deem nearly impossible.
The Trump administration has intensified its focus on Greenland, viewing the island’s untapped resources as a strategic asset in the global competition for critical minerals essential for defense and technology. In recent statements, Trump asserted the need to control Greenland “the easy way or the hard way,” sparking concerns over potential military intervention. However, this push is not new; Trump previously expressed interest during his first term, and since returning to office in 2025, he has appointed a special envoy and revived efforts to acquire the territory.
Despite the geopolitical motivations, the feasibility of mining in Greenland is severely limited by the Arctic environment. Approximately 80% of the island is covered by ice, with mineral deposits located in remote areas above the Arctic Circle. Experts like Malte Humpert of The Arctic Institute describe the idea as “completely bonkers,” comparing it to mining on the moon due to extreme costs and logistical challenges. The lack of infrastructure and harsh conditions make extraction five to ten times more expensive than in other regions, deterring private investment without substantial government subsidies.
Greenland, a self-ruling territory of Denmark, is open to foreign investment but firmly rejects any notion of annexation. Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen has dismissed Trump’s threats as “fantasy,” emphasizing that discussions must respect international law. The Greenland Business Association’s Christian Keldsen notes that American rhetoric is damaging relations, with locals viewing U.S. overtures with suspicion. Polls indicate that only 6% of Greenlanders favor becoming part of the United States, while 85% oppose it, highlighting a deep-seated resistance.
The situation has strained U.S. relations with Denmark and NATO allies. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any attempt to take over Greenland could spell the end of NATO, and European leaders have united in support of Denmark’s sovereignty. This backlash complicates Trump’s objectives, as the United States relies on these alliances for broader security interests. The upcoming talks between U.S. and Danish officials on January 14 will be a critical test of diplomacy.
Trump’s interest is partly driven by parallels with recent actions in Venezuela, where the U.S. seized control of oil resources. However, Greenland differs significantly as a stable territory of a NATO ally, making aggressive tactics counterproductive. Analysts like Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute argue that using taxpayer dollars to incentivize mining is not a sound basis for territorial acquisition, echoing skepticism about the economic rationale.
Environmental factors add another layer of complexity. While climate change is melting Greenland’s ice, opening some shipping routes, it also destabilizes the ground and increases risks like landslides. Strict local environmental regulations reflect the population’s desire to preserve their pristine landscape, and bypassing these rules could provoke hostility. Thus, even if technological barriers were overcome, social and political acceptance remains a major hurdle.
Looking ahead, the standoff over Greenland underscores broader tensions in Arctic geopolitics, with Russia and China also eyeing the region’s resources. Trump’s approach risks alienating key allies and undermining U.S. leadership, potentially pushing Greenland closer to other powers. As experts caution, the dream of transforming Greenland into a rare-earth hub may remain just that—a dream—unless pursued through cooperative and respectful engagement with its people and their Danish partners.
