Days after invading Venezuela to capture President Nicolas Maduro, Trump doubled down on his proposed plans for the small arctic nation, declaring yesterday that \u201cwe need Greenland from a national security situation.\u201d Accomplishing this goal, the White House now says, could include using the U.S. military.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Fortune<\/em> contacted the White House for comment.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople need to understand that he is serious. He wants Greenland to be a part of the United States,\u201d Alexander Gray, who served in Trump\u2019s first administration and testified before the Senate on Greenland acquisition mechanisms, told Fortune<\/em>. \u201cHow that happens is subject to discussion, but the overall aim is not changing.\u201d<\/p>\n The Venezuela operation that saw U.S. forces capture Maduro last week has \u201cgalvanized\u201d the administration\u2019s focus on the western hemisphere. \u201cIt has given new impetus for people in government, at the very senior level, to say the President\u2019s reiterated that the hemisphere is our number one priority. Greenland is very important to him. Let\u2019s actually go about coming up with a realistic plan for making that happen,\u201d Gray said.\u00a0<\/p>\n But as experts parse Trump\u2019s motivations and examine the feasibility of his territorial ambitions, a murky reality emerges: the economic case weak, the security rationale is questionable, and the geopolitical costs could be catastrophic.<\/p>\n Trump officials have repeatedly pointed to Greenland\u2019s mineral wealth as justification for U.S. control. The island is estimated to hold 36-42 million metric tons of rare earth oxides\u2014potentially the world\u2019s second-largest reserve after China. With the global rare earth elements market projected to reach $7.6 billion in 2026, and China controlling 69% of production, securing alternative sources seems like a strategically sound idea.<\/p>\n Administration officials told Reuters<\/em> in May that the U.S. was assisting Greenland diversify its economy to achieve greater economic independence from Denmark. They pointed to the Tanbreez Project, which seeks to extract rare earths on the island to be processed in the U.S. as part of this plan.\u00a0<\/p>\n But Anthony Marchese, chairman of Texas Mineral Resources Corporation who also testified before Congress, gave Fortune<\/em> a sobering assessment of the mining reality in Greenland: \u201cIf you\u2019re going to go to Greenland for its minerals, you\u2019re talking billions upon billions upon billions of dollars and extremely long time before anything ever comes of it.\u201d<\/p>\n The obstacles are formidable. According to Marchese, the northern part of Greenland is only mineable six months out of the year, due to the harsh climate. Mining equipment and fuel, he said, would have to be stored outside in the harsh winter elements for months.\u00a0<\/p>\n Infrastructure costs compound the challenge. Greenland has virtually no roads connecting its settlements, which are often located on small islands or remote coastal spits of land. It has a limited number of ports. Greenland does not produce enough energy, nor does it have the energy infrastructure to support industrial-scale mining.\u00a0<\/p>\n CARSTEN SNEJBJERG\u2014Bloomberg\/Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n The nation has a population of roughly 56,000 people, most of whom live in southern coastal settlements, including the capital Nuuk. In terms of mining specifically, only one mine in the country is fully operational and the practice itself is widely unpopular among locals and environmental groups. Greenland\u2019s mineral industry generates close to zero revenues. Most operations are still in the exploratory stage. Environmental concerns have made getting mining projects approved in the country especially difficult, Marchese says. And even if a mining operation were to be approved, there is no guarantee it would be lucrative.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re going to have hundreds of millions of dollars of drilling to do in order to determine first, is this a deposit that\u2019s worth mining?\u201d Marchese says. \u201cEven if I had all the money in the world, it\u2019s not like I\u2019m just going to go into Greenland next month and start drilling.\u201d<\/p>\n More fundamentally, the minerals identified so far are largely uncharacterized. Mineral sampling maps of the island, he says, are almost certainly very lightly sampled, Marchese said. \u201cSampling means I go in, I look at a small area, I take a few samples. What it doesn\u2019t tell you is how large is the deposit? What grade is the deposit?\u201d<\/p>\n His timeline estimate? \u201cMy opinion, 10 to 15 years. No question, given the infrastructure you have to overcome, given the local political situation there.\u201d<\/p>\n Rebecca Pincus, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and Arctic specialist who testified before Congress in March 2025, agrees the economic argument collapses under scrutiny. While she concedes that Greenland has rare earth minerals, the island\u2019s conditions make mining these resources economically irrational. she says. \u201cThat doesn\u2019t change if Greenland becomes an American territory. There\u2019s just not a lot of infrastructure there. The climate is really super harsh. Those barriers aren\u2019t going to magically go away.\u201d<\/p>\n Gray acknowledges the astronomical costs but dismissed them as secondary. His Senate testimony referenced estimates of \u201chundreds of billions of dollars\u201d to acquire and support Greenland\u2014costs stemming from replacing Denmark\u2019s annual $600 million subsidy to the nation, massive infrastructure investments, and replicating the safety net Greenlanders currently enjoy.<\/p>\n \u201cThe cost is actually not the most important piece of this,\u201d Gray insists. \u201cThis is not an economic issue for the United States. This is not a question of dollars and cents. This is not about mineral resources. I see this as a strategic issue, a national security issue with a lot of continuity across centuries.\u201d<\/p>\n Gray points to U.S. relationships with the Freely Associated States in the Pacific\u2014Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau\u2014as a template. \u201cWe basically provide for their entire defense and we have unlimited access to their land, air and sea. If you look at those relationships, the math has never added up, and those will always be a net deficit from a math perspective for the United States. But they are incalculably valuable from a strategic standpoint.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s a significant problem with this comparison, however. According to research by the Danish Institute for International Studies, the U.S. currently pays the Compact of Free Association (COFA) states approximately $2,025 per capita, while Denmark provides Greenland roughly $12,500 per capita\u2014more than six times as much.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gray\u2019s solution involves creative financing: a minerals and oil trust fund modeled on Alaska\u2019s Permanent Fund, and distributing universal basic income to every Greenlander. \u201cI think that\u2019s a way, an innovative way, that can help take some of the pressure off the U.S. Treasury for funding this whole thing.\u201d<\/p>\n But this assumes viable mineral extraction\u2014an assumption experts like Marchese consider highly optimistic.\u00a0<\/p>\n Trump claims \u201cGreenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,\u201d framing its acquisition as essential to national security. But experts like Pincus dispute this characterization.<\/p>\n \u201cThe idea of the U.S. purchasing or annexing or conquering Greenland is a really maximalist solution to a set of problems that\u2019s much more modest,\u201d she told Fortune<\/em>.<\/p>\n The U.S. already operates the Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, housing critical early warning radar systems for homeland missile defense. \u201cThe U.S. has had this base there since the Cold War, decades and decades. It\u2019s super important to Homeland Defense,\u201d Pincus notes. \u201cThe Greenlanders and Danes have made it very clear that they are open to the U.S. making requests for additional presence on Greenland.\u201d<\/p>\n JULIETTE PAVY\u2014Bloomberg\/Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n Regarding Russian threats, Pincus is skeptical: \u201cI just don\u2019t see any likelihood of Russia trying to seize Greenland. Why? For what purpose? There\u2019s been no indication from Russia that they\u2019re even considering some sort of design on Greenland.\u201d<\/p>\n On Chinese influence, Pincus acknowledges that the nation has attempted investments in Greenland infrastructure\u2014most notably bidding on airport construction projects. But \u201cGreenland is not high on China\u2019s list of priorities,\u201d she argues. \u201cGreenlanders are smart and savvy, and they recognize that in the current climate, you can play the U.S. and China off against each other to maximize your benefits.\u201d When China expressed interest in the airports, \u201cCopenhagen swooped in and said they would cover it.\u201d<\/p>\n Gray offers a different perspective, warning that an independent Greenland\u2014which has been on a path toward sovereignty for 45 years\u2014would be vulnerable. \u201cThe question is, what\u2019s greeting them when they become independent? Is it Russia? Is it China? Both of those powers will pounce on Greenland and take advantage of them. They will be absorbed and coerced and lose their sovereignty within hours of becoming an independent country.\u201d<\/p>\n Lin Mortensgaard, an international politics of the Arctic specialist at the Danish Institute for International Studies, sees Trump\u2019s motivations as shifting constantly. \u201cOn Mondays, Trump wants resources. On Tuesdays it\u2019s for national security, and on Wednesday, it\u2019s for international security. I think that explicit motivation changes all the time, but I\u2019m starting to read it more and more as it\u2019s an ego thing about expanding the American territory,\u201d she told Fortune<\/em>.<\/p>\n She points to the administration\u2019s \u201cDonroe Doctrine\u201c\u2014a merger of Trump\u2019s name with the Monroe Doctrine\u2014as evidence of \u201chemisphere thinking\u201d where \u201cthere\u2019s a US hemisphere, or sphere of interest. There\u2019s a Russian sphere of interest, and it\u2019s a Chinese sphere of interest.\u201d<\/p>\n Mujtaba Rahman, Managing Director for Europe at Eurasia Group, frames it more starkly: \u201cThe question for the Europeans is: what is it that the Americans want to do that they can\u2019t already do given the existing governance arrangements that are in place?\u201d The U.S. already exercises de facto military sovereignty over Greenland through the 1951 Defense Agreement. \u201cThere\u2019s no Danish opposition to more U.S. bases,\u201d he told Fortune<\/em>. \u201cThat\u2019s why there is a belief that the goals are different. It\u2019s real estate, it\u2019s predatory, it\u2019s ideology. It\u2019s about territorial expansion.\u201d<\/p>\n The gravest concern among the majority of experts who spoke with Fortune<\/em>, however, isn\u2019t financial\u2014it\u2019s the potential destruction of NATO. \u201cThis is completely unprecedented, that not only a NATO ally, but the biggest, most powerful state within the NATO alliance threatens another with annexation,\u201d Mortensgaard says. \u201cThat would really be the end of NATO if there is real fighting between NATO allies.\u201d<\/p>\n Rahman goes further, arguing that \u201cGreenland represents a bigger risk to NATO cohesion than Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine.\u201d His logic: \u201cRussia is an adversary that European countries understand. But if you have the most important country in NATO, the country responsible for European security, now seeking to annex the territory of another NATO member and ally, all of the assumptions that have underpinned the way Europe thinks about the world are completely upended.\u201d<\/p>\n Put more simply: \u201cIt involves dealing with America, and America is meant to be a friend, not an enemy,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n U.S. allies have already begun voicing concern and even condemnation. Seven major European nations issued a rare joint statement on January 6 declaring that \u201cGreenland belongs to its people\u201d and warning that \u201csecurity in the Arctic must be achieved collectively\u201d while \u201cupholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders.\u201d<\/p>\n Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen also warned bluntly: \u201cIf the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops\u2014that is, including NATO.\u201d<\/p>\n Mortensgaard believes actual military action would be symbolically simple but strategically catastrophic. \u201cIn practical terms, it\u2019s about taking over a few government buildings in Nuuk, which has 20,000 inhabitants, and then hoisting the stars and stripes. So in that sense, it\u2019s easily done. But the bigger damage of this in NATO terms would be completely unprecedented and actually difficult to compute.\u201d<\/p>\n Rahman sees a more sophisticated approach emerging: \u201cA political influence operation that involves political and economic coercion.\u201d The administration narrative would be \u201cAmerica is going to liberate you, Greenland, from Denmark,\u201d targeting \u201csympathetic pockets within the population and among the elites that are willing to work with America.\u201d<\/p>\n He notes that opposition parties in Greenland are already saying \u201cwe should talk to Trump directly\u201d\u2014precisely the opening the administration seeks. \u201cTrump is deeply unpopular in Greenland today. The question is, does he remain unpopular over the medium term if the administration brings to bear economic incentives and attempts to work with local partners to change public opinion over time?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n For businesses eyeing Greenland\u2019s resources, the uncertainty creates what Rahman calls \u201ca very substantial chilling effect on investment. The Greenland question is now the central question informing the future of the Transatlantic Alliance. As long as that question remains unresolved, I can imagine it would have a chilling effect.\u201d<\/p>\n Pincus worries the aggressive approach undermines U.S. interests: \u201cGreenlanders are very proud of their democracy, and they are in pursuit of independence, and the U.S. is acting scary right now. That doesn\u2019t necessarily help us.\u201d<\/p>\n Gray remains confident the administration will find a path forward, modeling it on Pacific island relationships that prioritize strategic value over economic return. \u201cFrankly, the intangible security value to the United States is worth a lot more than any social services calculation,\u201d he argues.\u00a0<\/p>\n But as Marchese pointedly asks about the Chinese, who have scoured the globe for rare earth deposits for three decades: \u201cWhy aren\u2019t they in Greenland? I believe they\u2019re not stupid people. They\u2019re all over the world. Why don\u2019t you see any of that there? I think it\u2019s just an infrastructure issue. How much money do you want to spend in the billions, and how long is it going to take?\u201d<\/p>\n The answer, experts agree, is measured not in months or single-digit years, but in decades and hundreds of billions of dollars\u2014assuming Greenland\u2019s people, Denmark, Europe, and the foundations of the Western alliance survive the attempt intact.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n #Arrow #Button #Icon<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When President Donald Trump en… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10354,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[3816,3817,5540,486,7760,3408,5542,3818,3449,7387,1949,1137],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10353"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10353\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/10354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The shaky economic case<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/GettyImages-2254449818.jpg?format=webp&w=1440&q=100\"\/)
<\/div>The hundreds of billions question<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The security rationale under scrutiny<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/GettyImages-2244807080.jpg?format=webp&w=1440&q=100\"\/)
<\/div>An ego play masquerading as strategy?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The NATO nightmare<\/strong><\/h2>\n
What happens next?<\/strong><\/h2>\n