When Donald Trump revived the idea of acquiring Greenland in early 2025, it initially seemed like a throwback to his first presidency. But this time, reports that his team had explored direct payments to Greenlanders suggested a deeper intent than mere political theatre.
On Wednesday, US Vice President JD Vance met in Washington with Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s foreign minister Vivian Motzfeldt. Rasmussen later told reporters that while the talks were constructive, Trump’s insistence on what he called an “unacceptable” proposal to seize Greenland underscored the gravity of the situation.
France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway — all NATO allies — have since committed troops to Greenland for joint exercises with Denmark. What once seemed like provocation now appears to be a serious bid for Arctic dominance. At stake are both national security and Greenland’s untapped mineral wealth, raising tensions between the US and the EU at a time when Europe is struggling to secure raw materials vital for climate goals and digital infrastructure.
Why Greenland Matters
Greenland’s economy is modest, heavily reliant on fisheries and sustained by Denmark’s annual block grant of DKK 3.9bn (€520mn), or about €9,000 per resident. Its GDP, estimated at $3.5–4bn, serves a population of just 56,000, with 90% of exports tied to fish products.
For Washington, the attraction lies elsewhere: Greenland’s strategic location and its hidden resources. The island hosts Pituffik Space Base, a cornerstone of US missile-warning and space-surveillance systems. Trump has argued, “If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland. And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour.”
Rare earths add another layer of interest. While Greenland currently produces none, the US Geological Survey estimates 1.5 million tonnes of mineable reserves, while Denmark’s GEUS places the figure at 36.1 million tonnes. Research shows Greenland contains 25 of the EU’s 34 “critical” minerals, with 55 deposits identified but only one currently mined.
Globally, China dominates rare earths, accounting for 70% of extraction in 2024 — around 270,000 tonnes. Both the US and EU remain heavily dependent on Chinese supply chains.
Beyond Rare Earths
Greenland may also hold vast oil and gas reserves. Legacy USGS estimates suggest up to 17.5 billion barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore, though exploration has been frozen since a 2021 moratorium.
The geological value of Greenland’s resources could exceed $4tr (€3.66tr), though only about $186bn is considered realistically extractable under current conditions. Valuations vary wildly: The Economist puts the figure at $50bn, the Financial Times at $1.1tr, and the New York Times between $12.5bn and $77bn. These disparities highlight Greenland’s intangible worth — more symbolic than strictly economic.
Public Opinion and Political Limits
Trump’s floated idea of paying Greenlanders $10,000–$100,000 each has met resistance. A January 2025 Verian Group poll found 85% of Greenlanders opposed leaving Denmark, while only 6% supported it. In the US, a January 2026 YouGov poll showed just 8% backing military action to take Greenland, with 73% opposed.
Economist Jacob Funk Kirkegaard notes that Copenhagen has shifted from quietly dismissing Trump’s remarks to actively constraining them through law, institutions, and alliances. The goal is not to win arguments but to limit the White House’s room for manoeuvre.
Congress also plays a role. After recent events in Venezuela, lawmakers are more sensitive to presidential overreach. Any attempt to alter Greenland’s status would require congressional approval, and even rhetorical threats against a NATO ally risk undermining the alliance.
Denmark’s Strategy
Denmark may still offer Trump symbolic wins without touching sovereignty. Expanded defence cooperation and greater US investment in Greenland’s mineral sector could strengthen Washington’s position within existing agreements. Under the 1951 US–Denmark defence pact, the US already has broad latitude to expand its military presence in Greenland.
Yet Kirkegaard doubts any purchase offer would advance. Congressional funding would be required, a tough sell in an election year given public opposition and domestic economic pressures.
Denmark’s approach, he argues, is to let institutional limits, congressional oversight, and electoral timelines drain urgency from the issue — turning it into background noise rather than a diplomatic crisis.
The Bigger Picture
Greenland’s value lies less in a price tag than in symbolism, strategy, and the balance between cooperation and control. For the US, it represents Arctic dominance and supply chain security. For Denmark and the EU, it is about sovereignty, alliance cohesion, and access to critical raw materials. For Greenlanders, it is about resisting external pressure and preserving autonomy in an increasingly contested world.
