At the beginning of 2025, US President-Elect Donald Trump made headlines with his reiterated announcement that he intends to take control of Greenland, an Arctic territory that has long been targeted for its mineral potential.
Trump first attempted this plan in 2019 during his previous presidency, a plan that was quickly rebuffed by the Danish Government (which currently maintains control over Greenland), as well as the Greenlandic Government, both responding: “Greenland is not for sale.”
This time around, the proposed deal is being taken somewhat more seriously in that discussions for collaboration are open, though the point has been reiterated that Greenland will not be bought, instead being ‘open for business’.
Rhetoric around the news has become slightly fevered, with Trump claiming he will use military force or “very high” tariffs to wrestle control of Greenland if need be.
The reality is likely to be far less extreme, and government members have called for calm amidst the talks, with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen telling reporters: “I think we can all do ourselves a favour and get our heart rate down a little bit.”
However, the topic has raised several questions about Greenland’s status, not least its potential role in providing the materials necessary for a clean energy transition. With an election coming up in April, the time seems ripe for a possible change, and for the country to breathe new life into its mining industry.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataWhy is the US interested in Greenland?
Greenland’s appeal to the US (and Trump) can be broadly condensed to two things: defence and minerals.
The island has long been a security interest for the US. Located along the shortest route between Europe and North America, Greenland is strategically vulnerable to missile or aircraft attack from Russia, making it a key area for the US ballistic missile warning system.
From a minerals perspective, Greenland houses a range of materials, including rare earth metals, coal, graphite and uranium, as well as copper, lead and zinc.
The promise of a mineral supply disconnected from current market superpower China has motivated attraction to mining on the island. Additionally, access to many minerals is expected to become easier in the coming years, with global warming causing ice sheets in the Arctic region to melt at a rapid pace.
Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, professor of war studies and Arctic security specialist at Loughborough University, says that while Trump’s claims are more performative than anything else, it does hold a geopolitical threat.
“I don’t think the Americans actually need to ‘buy’ Greenland, because their military and defence presence and their influence is already established,” she says.
“But underneath it, it’s articulated a warning to Russia and China – and this is important for mining – that Greenland is within the sphere of American influence commercially.
“The fight for infrastructure in the Arctic is incredibly important. Plus, because Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, and melting fast, those rare earth minerals will become cheaper to access. So, these are seen as long-term investments for America.”
Yet while the presence of minerals has been proven in Greenland, mining in the country has been limited, with potential investors deterred by factors such as harsh conditions and environmental pushback from local groups. Attracting new investment in the wake of Trump’s new spotlight is therefore a priority in seeing the industry’s promise come to fruition.
Greenland’s mineral promise
While the presence of critical minerals in Greenland is proven, the value of these is, perhaps strangely, contested.
Ten years ago, a research report, ‘For the Benefit of Greenland’, was conducted by a team of geologists. It warned of unrealistic expectations around the island’s mineral potential given uncertainties around market prices and global demand.
“Even if estimates of the quantity and quality of ore in a geological deposit are well documented,” it reads, “it is difficult to translate this into economic potential and even more difficult to predict a specific revenue for Greenlandic society.
One of its authors, Greenlander and geology professor Minik Thorleif Rosing tells Mining Technology that the situation is relatively unchanged since the report’s publication.
“There is a misconception that Greenland will be like a new Saudi Arabia, only at the size of a small British town,” he says.
“The reality is that while mineral resources could be a part of Greenland’s economy, it is unlikely to be a major part. Even if you had an unrealistically high rate of development of mineral resources, it would be unlikely to replace more than half the annual block grant from Denmark in any near future.”
Here he refers to the annual grant given to Greenland from Denmark, consisting of DKr3.9bn (roughly $540m), which accounts for approximately 20% of Greenland’s GDP.
Greenland’s uncertain mineral future is not, Rosing says, due to a lack of resources, but more a reflection of wider markets.
“It is not because Greenland doesn’t have a lot of minerals, but minerals are not the same as wealth,” he said.
“For one thing, the value of a deposit is a sociological rather than geological feature – it all depends on the market. And right now, there is no stable market for rare earths. If this changes, then there’s definitely a chance for rare earth metals to be developed, but it hinges on this condition.
“This is not to talk down the potential of Greenland, but just to caution on the extreme end of the dreams about what Greenland could do, he continues.
Similarly, Torben Andersen, an economics professor at Aarhus University, suggests that to reap the potential benefits of mining in Greenland will require government action and industry development.
“The new geopolitical situation and the focus on control over supply chains may change this, but it would take years before this develops into a significant part of the economy,” he explains.
“The impact of developing mining all depends on the government’s actions, and the scope for using such activities to improve job prospects for the local population, involvement of local small businesses, etc.
“There is a large potential [in Greenland], but it would take time to develop it.”
What the industry needs
For those materials with more stable global markets, there is of course more of an opening for Greenland to gain a foothold. There is also a sense of optimism amongst some industry members as to the potentially beneficial impacts Trump’s interest could have.
For one, Greenlandic miner Amaroq Minerals is in the final stages of securing approvals to restart its Nalunaq gold project, with hopes that its success could pave the way for similar approvals.
Indeed, EIFO, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, issued a non-binding letter of interest this month in providing funding to Greenland-based GreenRoc for its Amitsoq graphite project in the Nanortalik region of southern Greenland.
“There are high hopes for [Amaroq Minerals’] project because Greenland needs more examples of successful mining operations in recent times,” says Miki Jensen, director of Innovation South Greenland.
“I think greater US interest in mining could help highlight Greenland’s potential. Foreign companies can already invest and operate mines here, but it’s a slow process from idea to reality. US involvement might speed this up.”
Historically, slow progress has also been the result of environmental concerns and the slow development of mining regulations in the country.
“Greenland’s mineral resource legislation is relatively strict,” explains Jensen.
“It requires local involvement in the workforce, royalty payments, and a relatively high tax rate compared to other countries. The process from exploration to operations also takes a long time, partly due to administrative and political delays.
“Furthermore, there is a natural scepticism among the local population towards the mining sector. Concerns are often raised about whether the industry gives enough back to society and whether operations are environmentally and health-wise responsible.”
While the country’s stringent environmental standards have naturally been applauded by those who caution against mining a region already impacted by climate change, it has also added to the perception of Greenland as an unappealing investment.
With Trump placing a renewed spotlight on the country, however, Greenland has a chance to change this perception and establish itself as a significant mining power on the global stage. To do so, however, experts say Greenlanders themselves must be a part of the conversation.
“Right now, Greenland is riding a wave of attention, and I think the game-changer here is they can use the attention to make something positive,” says Mads Qvist Frederiksen, director of the Arctic Economic Council.
“Greenland has the opportunity to speak with very high-level people and governments to unpack some of its potential.”
“I think we can also use this increased attention to make it clear that there are people living in Greenland – it’s not just a piece of real estate to be bought. It’s a home, and you need to talk to the people that live there.”
