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.
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.
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.
