Publication Details

21 January 2025

In a recent news conference, president-elect Donald Trump reignited controversy by reiterating the United States’ interest in purchasing Greenland[i], citing its strategic location and vast rare earth reserves. This move has renewed debates over the island’s geopolitical significance, resource potential, and the legal and diplomatic challenges such a proposal entails.

The legal and political feasibility of the U.S. purchasing Greenland is highly dubious. Greenland is an autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark, with self-governance rights established in 2009. Any attempt to alter its status would require consent from both the Greenlandic and Danish governments.[ii] Historically, the U.S. has made similar overtures, such as the Harry Truman administration’s 1946 offer of $100 million for Greenland, which Denmark rejected.[iii]

As Trump prepares to return to the presidency in early 2025, his renewed focus on Greenland could be driven by various interests. Russia and China have intensified their Arctic activities, seeking to expand their influence and secure access to valuable resources, and Trump might be trying to pre-empt their foothold in Greenland, reinforcing the U.S.’s strategic presence in the Arctic.

Second Time a Charm? Why Trump is Reviving his Proposal

Trump initially proposed to purchase Greenland in 2019, but was met with ridicule and swift rejection by both Denmark and Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed the idea as “absurd,” emphasizing that Greenland was not for sale. Trump’s approach, framed as a transactional “real estate deal,” ignored the complexities of Greenland’s autonomous status and its people’s aspirations for independence. Greenlandic leaders, including Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede, unequivocally rejected the notion of a sale, asserting that Greenland’s future lay in self-determination.[iv] The proposal sparked nationalist sentiments and strengthened calls for Greenland’s independence from Denmark.

The “tech boys,” a cohort of Silicon Valley magnates and defense technology entrepreneurs, are said to have played a pivotal role in shaping Trump’s understanding of Greenland’s value. Their lobbying underscored the urgency of countering China’s near-monopoly on global rare earth production, as Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to restrict exports of critical materials as a geopolitical weapon.[v]

Accessing Greenland’s resources would provide the U.S. with a secure, domestic supply chain for rare earth minerals such as neodymium, dysprosium, and terbium, which are are essential for manufacturing advanced military technologies, renewable energy components, and key consumer electronics. This would reduce the country’s vulnerability to supply disruptions and bolster its technological and military capabilities as these minerals are critical for the development of precision-guided munitions, fighter jets, and satellite systems.[vi]

Greenland’s importance in global geopolitics has grown substantially due to its location, natural resources, and the effects of climate change. Situated between the Arctic and North Atlantic, Greenland serves as a crucial strategic asset for monitoring missile threats and ensuring Arctic security. The U.S. already operates a significant military presence on the island, including the Thule Air Base, which bolsters its missile defense systems and Arctic surveillance capabilities. Greenland also provides a strategic vantage point for monitoring Arctic sea lanes, especially the Northwest Passage and the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap. These routes are expected to become more navigable as Arctic ice melts due to climate change, presenting lucrative shipping opportunities. The melting ice is also revealing new mineral deposits, increasing Greenland’s strategic importance as global demand for these resources surges in the context of the green energy transition.[vii]

Reviving the Greenland issue positions Trump as a leader prioritizing U.S. security interests and independence from foreign supply chains. This aligns with his broader “America First” agenda, appealing to his political base and framing him as a decisive actor in countering global threats. The renewed focus on Greenland aligns with Trump’s pattern of viewing international relations through a transactional lens, treating territories as commodities. His administration’s interest in Greenland not only reflects strategic ambitions but also reveals a disregard for diplomatic norms, as evidenced by his threats of tariffs on Denmark and his son’s high-profile visit to the island.

Trump’s refusal to rule out the use of military force[viii] to gain control of Greenland adds a provocative and potentially destabilizing dimension to the discussion. Such a stance could risk escalating tensions not only with Denmark and Greenland but also within the broader international community. The mere suggestion of using coercive measures undermines diplomatic norms and could strain relations with North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, who might view such rhetoric as a threat to the principles of sovereignty and mutual respect that underpin the alliance. Additionally, the specter of military action could embolden rival powers like Russia and China to justify their own aggressive postures in contested regions, further destabilizing the Arctic.

Stoking the Fire: Media Attention Gives Independence Movement a Spark

The case of Greenland highlights the intricate interplay between energy security, mineral security, and sovereignty. The island’s vast reserves of rare earth elements are critical for advancing renewable energy technologies and sustaining military innovation. Securing these resources is a strategic priority for the U.S., which seeks to reduce its reliance on Chinese rare earth exports. Greenland’s sovereignty, however, complicates direct U.S. access to these resources. The global race for Arctic dominance highlights the challenges smaller states or territories face in safeguarding their sovereignty amid competing superpower interests. 

Trump’s overtures to purchase Greenland inadvertently highlighted the island’s burgeoning independence movement. While many Greenlanders support the idea of eventual independence from Denmark, the economic challenges associated with such a transition remain formidable. Greenland relies heavily on Danish subsidies, which account for nearly one-third of its GDP.[ix] Achieving financial self-sufficiency, particularly through the development of its resource sectors, is seen as a prerequisite for independence. Trump’s proposition and the subsequent geopolitical attention have invigorated discussions around Greenland’s economic potential and the viability of independence. However, the prospect of aligning with a new geopolitical power like the U.S. raises concerns about replacing one form of dependency with another.[x]

This episode also showcases how modern media cycles amplify strategic issues by rapidly transforming speculative ideas into major political narratives. In the case of Donald Trump’s rhetoric on purchasing Greenland, the story gained momentum through a combination of traditional media reports, social media posts, and off-the-cuff remarks, creating a whirlwind of public and diplomatic reactions.[xi] This serves as a strategic diversion from domestic controversies and legal challenges facing Trump and allows him to leverage public support for a bold, albeit controversial, national security policy initiative. The rapid spread of the story exemplifies how media can shape international discourse, turning casual remarks into significant political events with far-reaching implications.

Dr Kristian Alexander is a Senior Fellow and Lead Researcher at the Rabdan Security and Defense Institute (RSDI)

[i] Paddison, Laura, ‘Trump wants to buy Greenland again. Here’s why he’s so interested in the world’s largest island’, CNN, January 08, 2025, Trump wants to buy Greenland again. Here’s why he’s so interested in the world’s largest island | CNN

[ii] Starcevic, Seb and Jakob Weizman, ‘Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,’ says Danish PM as Donald Trump Jr. arrives’, Politico, January 07, 2025, ‘Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,’ says Danish PM as Donald Trump Jr. arrives – POLITICO

[iii] Borring Olesen, Thorsten, ‘Buying Greenland? Trump, Truman and the 'Pearl of the Mediterranean'’, Aarhus University, Nordics Info, September 10, 2019, Buying Greenland? Trump, Truman and the 'Pearl of the Mediterranean'

[iv] Wass, Sanne, Christian Wienberg, and Sara Sjolin, ‘Denmark Backs US Investment in Greenland While Refusing Sale’, BNN Bloomberg, January 07, 2025, Denmark Backs US Investment in Greenland While Refusing Sale

[v] Kim, Minho, ‘Why Does Trump Want Greenland?’, New York Times, January 07, 2025, Why Does Trump Want Greenland? - The New York Times

[vi] Newdick, Thomas, ‘Why Greenland Is Of Growing Strategic Significance’, The Warzone, January 09, 2025, Why Greenland Is Of Growing Strategic Significance

[vii] Gronholt-Pedersen, Jacob, Louise Rasmussen and Stine Jacobsen, ‘Explainer: Why does Trump want Greenland and could he get it?’, Reuters, January 09, 2025, Explainer: Why does Trump want Greenland and could he get it? | Reuters

[viii] Ott, Haley, Ibrahim Aksoy and Kathryn Watson, ‘Trump won't rule out military action to take control of Greenland as son visits’, CBS News, January 7, 2025, Trump won't rule out military action to take control of Greenland as son visits - CBS News

[ix] Wass, Sanne, Sara Sjolin and Kati Pohjanpalo, ‘Donald Trump's relentless Greenland fixation puts Denmark in spotlight’ Business Standard, January 08, 2025, Donald Trump's relentless Greenland fixation puts Denmark in spotlight | World News - Business Standard

[x] Laura Gozzi and Robert Greenall, ‘Trump wants to take Greenland: Four ways this saga could go’, BBC News, January 11, 2025, Trump wants to take Greenland: Four ways this saga could go 

[xi] Hayward, Philip and Juno Berthelsen, ‘Donald Trump’s aspiration to acquire Greenland: Understanding ‘issue-attention’ cycles in news coverage and their relevance to small states and territories’, Small States & Territories, 7(1), 2024, pp. 107-122