Trump wants the oil and minerals but he is perhaps disinclined to pay the Greenlanders who own them.
Posted on 01/14/2026 10:53:48 PM PST by nickcarraway
Greenland’s economy may be small, but its real value is tied to Arctic security and vast mineral reserves. Trump’s interest in it reflects US efforts to counter China’s dominance in sourcing critical raw materials. When Donald Trump once again raised the idea of acquiring Greenland in early 2025, it sounded, at first, like a familiar holdover from his first presidency.
Yet the renewed interest, this time accompanied by reports that Trump’s team had discussed issuing direct payments to Greenlanders, seems to point to a deeper commitment than mere political theatre.
On Wednesday, US vice president JD Vance met with Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s foreign minister Vivian Motzfeldt in Washington.
Speaking to reporters, Rasmussen said the two ministers told their US counterparts that “it is not easy to think innovative[ly] about solutions when you wake up every morning to different threats”.
He explained that the talks were constructive, but added that Trump was insisting on an "unacceptable" proposal to conquer Greenland.
France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway, all NATO members like Denmark, have decided to send troops to Greenland to participate in joint exercises with Denmark.
What had long been treated as provocation is now looking like a serious bid for Arctic dominance. At the expense of NATO ally Denmark, it is possible the US is eyeing up Greenland for its mineral reserves — as well as for national security reasons.
Such a move ushers an Arctic chill into the EU's relationship with the US, particularly at a time when the bloc is struggling to secure raw materials needed to maintain climate goals and digital infrastructure.
Why Trump wants Greenland Greenland is not rich in the conventional sense. Its economy is small, heavily dependent on fisheries, and it survives largely on an annual block grant from Denmark of about DKK 3.9bn (€520mn), equivalent to roughly €9,000 per resident per year.
According to the World Bank, Greenland's gross domestic product is estimated at around $3.5–4bn (€3.2–3.7bn), serving a population of roughly 56,000 people. Around 90% of exports derive from fishery-related products.
While these attributes remain uninteresting for the Trump administration, the US is seemingly attracted by two factors that have little to do with GDP. One is where it sits on the globe, and the other is what lies hidden beneath its ice.
The island occupies a critical position between North America and Europe, and it is already home to Pituffik Space Base, a cornerstone of US missile-warning and space-surveillance systems in the Arctic.
“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland," said Trump. "And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour."
Resources may add another layer to US motivations — although the president has publicly argued that this isn't the case. Washington is painfully aware that China dominates rare earth mining and the downstream processing that turns ore into usable inputs.
'It may be a choice' between NATO and Greenland, Trump says
Greenland currently produces no rare earths, but the US Geological Survey estimates that it holds about 1.5 million tonnes of mineable rare earth reserves. The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), on the other hand, estimates that the nation's rare earth resources amount to around 36.1 million tonnes — a reminder of the gap between what is geologically there and what is commercially mineable.
Research by the GEUS shows that Greenland contains occurrences of 25 of the 34 materials the European Commission classifies as "critical" rare and raw minerals. These materials are used in products ranging from electric vehicle motors to fighter jets. In total, 55 critical-raw-material deposits have been identified in Greenland, yet only one is currently being mined.
The European Union is currently 100% dependent on Chinese imports for heavy rare earths, while the US also relies heavily on foreign supply chains.
China is responsible for around 70% of the rare earth volumes extracted from mines globally, equivalent to 270,000 tonnes in 2024.
Can Greenland replace China in rare earth security? Aside from its rare earth resources, Greenland is also potentially rich in oil and natural gas.
Though exploration was largely frozen following a 2021 moratorium on new oil drilling, legacy estimates by the US Geological Survey suggest Greenland’s offshore basins may contain up to 17.5 billion barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The raw geological value of Greenland’s known mineral resources could, in theory, exceed $4tr (€3.66tr), according to estimates by a study published by the American Action Forum (AAF).
However, only a fraction of that — around $186bn — is considered realistically extractable under current market, regulatory, and technological conditions.
EU troops might be needed to stop a US showdown in Greenland
While the AAF puts Greenland's "price tag" at $186bn, hypothetical estimates from commentators differ widely.
Looking at private sector GDP and potential tax revenue from the island, the Economist puts forward a valuation of $50bn.
Other estimates look at historical US transactions, notably the purchases of Alaska, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands, and adjust these costs to today's purchasing prices.
The Financial Times has suggested that a valuation of $1.1tr would be appropriate based on the island's resources, while the New York Times produced an estimate between $12.5bn and $77bn.
The vast disparities between these sums point to the intangible nature of Greenland's value.
Would cash change Greenlanders’ minds?
The Trump administration is considering direct payments — between $10,000 and $100,000 per Greenland resident — as a way to nudge public sentiment in Greenland toward a US realignment.
Yet polling data strongly suggests such overtures are politically tone-deaf. A January 2025 Verian Group's poll found 85% of Greenlanders oppose leaving Denmark to join the United States, while just 6% support the idea.
In the US, the idea is equally unpopular. A YouGov poll in January 2026 showed only 8% support for using military force to take Greenland, with 73% opposed.
According to 22V Research economist Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, Copenhagen has shifted from quietly absorbing Donald Trump’s remarks to actively constraining them through law, institutions, and alliances.
The aim is not to win an argument with the White House, but to narrow the space in which it can act.
Congress to the rescue?
Kirkegaard argues that the US Congress is currently more sensitive to presidential overreach after recent events in Venezuela. Last week, the US Senate advanced a war powers measure to curb further military action against the South American country without explicit congressional authorisation.
Any attempt to change Greenland's status would require congressional consent. Even rhetorical threats against the territory of a NATO ally also risk undermining the alliance itself, a red line for many US lawmakers.
At the same time, Kirkegaard notes, Denmark has room to offer Trump something tangible without touching sovereignty.
Expanded defence cooperation and greater scope for US investment in Greenland’s mineral sector would allow Washington to strengthen its strategic position while staying within existing agreements.
"Trump can therefore put thousands of US troops in Greenland to protect American national security with the full political blessing of Denmark and Greenland, and go on to declare that he has addressed this issue," Kirkegaard told Euronews.
The expert indicated that under the 1951 US–Denmark defence agreement, Washington has broad latitude to expand its military presence in Greenland without altering its sovereignty.
On the other hand, Kirkegaard is sceptical that an offer "to buy" Greenland would advance.
Any serious financial offer to Greenlanders, Kirkegaard notes, would almost certainly require congressional funding, a hard sell in an election year, given US public opposition and domestic cost-of-living pressures.
Denmark's current approach, he suggests, intends to allow institutional limits, congressional oversight, and electoral timelines do the work, steadily draining the issue of urgency and turning it into background noise rather than a diplomatic crisis.
Viewed through that lens, Greenland’s value is not about a purchase price. It is about symbolism, strategy and the balance between cooperation and control in an increasingly contested world.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Dream on!
Europeans trying to steal America;s money again?
Yep.
If you owned Greenland how would you evaluate it’s sale price?
Trump wants the oil and minerals but he is perhaps disinclined to pay the Greenlanders who own them.
Trump is right and it’s in our national interests to do what he is doing.
But the glaring and obvious contradictions, as well as the true motivations, become obvious with him.
Trump is a rhinoceros.
There is nothing subtle about this man.
I sort of appreciate that though.
I don’t like to get BS’d. I think there are a lot of people that (((WANT))) to be lied to. Deep down most know it’s a lie, but they want to at least keep up a facade as if there is some moral cause, the corney democracy, human rights, terrorism, or WMD narratives to rationalize what are in truth power and economic motivated plays.
The Trump half hearted cartel and drug argument regarding Venezuela wasn’t even a real effort anymore.
He was just going through the motions unlike Syria (2014), Iraq (2003), etc. where we really sold our intervention hard: EVERY senior US official on TV making statements, running to the UN to have them make some statement or declaration, etc.
We need to more importantly go after Cuba.
If we can clear that up, it would be the last nation threat and where outside influence is in our hemisphere.
We would still have potential regional threat groups, but all the nation players that truly oppose us, would be gone.
“while the New York Times produced an estimate between $12.5bn and $77bn.”
So a difference of over $900 Billion in price?
How's that possible?
Europeans will usually try and rob America given half a chance, especially the Financial Times.
The problem is reconciling naked aggression, albeit in furtherance of national security against tyrannical regimes with the rationale that is in keeping with Trump's long-stated aversion to wars and regime change. Additionally, these wars, done without credible moral justification, are inherently repugnant to a rules-based world order.
If we are to abandon morality as one of the guiding principles of American foreign policy, we must also be prepared to shed the image of America as a protector of international order. However misplaced our efforts might have been in the past, we at least could claim good intentions and, perhaps hypocritically, we sought approval from some international body for our use of force.
In Greenland and in Ukraine we court the opprobrium of international bodies.
Greenland is the obvious example in which we would be violating the very principles that we have preached. The fact that we abandoned Ukraine stands for the proposition that we will not oppose naked aggression if we change administrations to one that wants trade relations with the aggressor. In doing so we lowered ourselves to the level of Vladimir Putin and lost every moral claim to resist Chinese aggression.
Interesting that NATO moochers are suddenly forced to increase defense expenditures.
Amazing how the Democrats were so thoroughly humiliated by “Seward’s Folly”, and yet they are putting themselves in the exact same position once again.
SmokingJoe - any ‘money’ that the US COULD pay would go to the Greenlanders alone, not to any other country in Europe.
Greenland is a constituent country within the CROWN of Denmark - the relationship between Greenland and Denmark is the same as the relationship between Palau and the USA —> Greenland outsourced defense and currency to Copenhagen, but it can decide its own foreign policy.
The country of Denmark has no “ownership” over Greenland and by Danish law cannot oppose if the Greenlanders have a referendum and say they want to join Botswana.
the crown of Denmark has “ownership” over Greenland in the same way the crown of Windsor has “ownership” over Canada i.e. no ownership. They have to agree to any decision by the native Greenlanders.
If the USA wants Greenland it needs to negotiate with the native Greenlanders - it can be nice to Denmark, but it doesn’t need to negotiate with Denmark
As to what could entice the Greenlanders - look at why they haven’t opted for independence so far:
1. 50% of their budget comes as money from Copenhagen
2. They have full control over their mineral and fishing rights
3. They have their Greenlandish/Inuit language as the formal official language of Greenland
4. They have 2 seats in the Danish parliament (even though the Danish parliament has only advisory rights to the Greenlandish parliament)
5. They have full universal healthcare - in case of any operation that can’t be done in Greenland, they are flown to Copenhagen under the healthcare costs - they do NOT pay separately.
if the USA wants Greenland it would need to offer
1. offering to pay 50% of more of the Greenland budget
2. Give the greenland parliament full control over their mineral rights etc (no “federal land”)
3. Recognize greenlandish as the official language
4. Give them 2 seats in Congress
5. give them full universal healthcare at the same level as Danish.
For #4 - then Puerto Rico would also need to be made a state
“Amazing how the Democrats were so thoroughly humiliated by “Seward’s Folly”
How do you figure that democrats were embarrassed by it ?? The Alaska purchase was not a partisan issue. It was a Republican Senate that approved the Treaty and A Republican House that held up the funding for almost a year. The democrats were basically non issues.
In the 1950’s it was democrats who wanted Alaska admitted as a state, the Republicans only wanted Hawaii statehood.
The Louisiana Purchase cost the United States $15 million in 1803, which is roughly equivalent to $340 million today.
That’s about four cents per acre for the vast 828,000-square-mile territory acquired from France, making it one of history’s most significant land deals.
Greenland has a very small population, estimated at around 56,000 to 57,000 people.
Greenland is the least densely populated territory in the world.
Most inhabitants are Greenlandic-Inuit living along the ice-free coasts, particularly in the capital, Nuuk.
Key Population Details: Total Population: Around 56,000 - 57,000.
Demographics: Roughly 88% are Inuit or mixed Inuit/Danish, with the remainder of European descent, mostly Danish.
Distribution: Sparsely scattered in coastal towns, with the capital city, Nuuk, housing about 19,600 people.
Greenland is a mouse and Trump is a cat who has it cornered.
We can either expect President Trump follow some perceived precedent or we can watch as he sets a new precedent. I’m confident that he’ll be bold enough to make it happen...Like never before!
I have and the two things you learn about this world are that:
1. They are wonderful, delightful people with unique cultures and viewpoints and.
2. In a heartbeat they can and will turn on you and it would be a nightmare to have them in charge of you.
3. We are open from the top: our nation is vulnerable to hypersonic missiles from across the Arctic and we need the ability to take them out before they get here. We are also vulnerable to submarine warfare through the G-I-UK Gap.
We are a world power. We have a magnificent economy and a social system like no other - but we have managed to keep our enemies at arm's length through military expertise and through some inspired leadership. If we think that world is peaceful and that international comity is at a good state and relax, we will need to learn the enemy's language so we can be efficient slaves for them.
Trump is doing all he can to keep us safe and the world off balance - after decades of Democrat stupidity and lassitude. If Denmark wasn't such a quaint little throwback - which adds close to nothing to the NATO alliance - they'd realize the US taking charge of Greenland finally rids them of all the time and expense it has taken to support that bunch of igloos/socialist theme park and throws them into our lap.
Trump wants the oil and minerals but he is perhaps disinclined to pay the Greenlanders who own them.
—
Oddly enough, all those claims are owned by expat Danes ... 8% of the population decides the destiny of the other 92%
So a difference of over $900 Billion in price?
How’s that possible?
—
NYT politics
“perceived precedent”
We should expect him to follow the Constitution and the law. If you don’t demand that from any President, then you certainly can’t call yourself a Conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.