By: Kashif Anwar
Greenland has rapidly transitioned from a peripheral Arctic territory into a pivotal theatre in twenty-first-century geopolitics, driven by accelerating great-power competition for critical minerals and strategic access. Possessing vast deposits containing at least 45 million tonnes of rare-earth-rich ore, including high-value heavy elements such as dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium, the island occupies a unique position within emerging supply chain security debates. Considering China currently dominates 60% of global rare earth mining and controls up to 85% of worldwide processing capacity, Western policymakers increasingly view Greenland as essential for diversifying supplies critical to defence, renewable energy, and advanced technologies. In such circumstances, reports in late 2025 that Washington was exploring an equity stake in Critical Metals Corp – the company developing Greenland’s Tanbreez project – signalled a significant evolution in US policy thinking. However, such developments occurred alongside intensified diplomatic friction, renewed NATO debates, and expanding European and Canadian interest, revealing the complex intersections of resource competition, regional security, and Arctic governance shaping the trajectory of US-Greenland engagement.
Greenland’s Critical Minerals and Global Strategic Value
Rare Earth Elements and Supply Chain Vulnerabilities
Greenland’s geological profile places it at the centre of global efforts to secure non-Chinese sources of critical minerals. The Tanbreez deposit in southern Greenland contains one of the world’s largest heavy rare earth concentrations, with approximately 27% of the deposit composed of high-value heavy elements essential for high-temperature magnets used in electric vehicle motors, missile guidance systems, wind turbines, and advanced radar technologies. Western governments increasingly regard these minerals as foundational to national resilience, given Beijing’s demonstrated willingness to leverage export controls during geopolitical disputes, including the 2010 embargo targeting Japan and more recent restrictions on gallium and germanium.
Greenland’s broader resource profile further amplifies its strategic value and geological surveys indicate the presence of 40 of the 50 minerals designated by Washington as “critical”, alongside 25 of the 34 raw materials categorised as “critical” by the European Commission. Considering such raw materials include gallium, tantalum, zinc, lead, gold, and uranium, however, the latter remains subject to a 2021 Greenlandic ban reflecting environmental and sovereignty concerns. Considering forecasts by the International Energy Agency that rare earth demand may rise by 600% by 2040, Greenland’s potential role within future supply chains appears substantial. In such circumstances, attention has also centred on the Strange Lake deposit, which analysts suggest could eventually supply nearly 16% of global heavy rare earth demand once fully operational.
Evolution of US Strategic Engagement
From Symbolic Interest to Institutional Engagement
American outreach towards Greenland intensified significantly during the Trump administration, though initial remarks overshadowed the seriousness of emerging institutional frameworks. Trump’s 2019 suggestion of purchasing Greenland attracted criticism; however, it also signalled renewed attention to the island’s strategic and mineral potential. Vice President JD Vance’s high-profile visit to Nuuk in March 2025 illustrated an evolution from rhetorical interest to structured diplomatic engagement, reflecting bipartisan recognition of Greenland’s role in addressing US supply chain vulnerabilities.
Considering this backdrop, rebuilding institutional architecture became a priority. Washington’s reopening of its consulate in Nuuk in 2020 strengthened bilateral contact, enabling sustained engagement on mineral development, scientific cooperation, and Arctic policy. In such circumstances, the 2019 US-Greenland memorandum on mineral resource development- despite expiring without renewal under the Biden administration – provided an early template for coordinated economic engagement.
Direct Government Investment and Strategic Stakes
American interest in converting a $50 million Defence Production Act grant into an estimated 8% equity stake in Critical Metals Corp demonstrated how Washington increasingly considers direct investment necessary to secure critical mineral supply chains. This approach mirrored domestic precedents, including the 2025 purchases of stakes in Lithium Americas (5%) and MP Materials (approximately 15%), financed through Department of Energy warrants and direct equity injections. Further, such interventions marked a notable shift from grant-based funding towards deeper state involvement in strategic extractive industries.
American financing architecture further expanded through the US Export-Import Bank’s preliminary offer of a $120 million loan for Tanbreez’s construction, equal to approximately 41% of project costs. Considering discussions within Washington about reallocating portions of the CHIPS and Science Act budget towards critical minerals, there is strong evidence that policymakers increasingly conceptualise mineral access as strategic infrastructure akin to semiconductors.
Geopolitical Dynamics and Regional Security Implications
NATO Tensions and Danish Sovereignty Concerns
US ambition in Greenland complicated relations with Denmark, which retains constitutional sovereignty over the island while granting extensive autonomy to its government. Tensions intensified in August 2025 when Denmark’s security service detected American attempts to identify potential supporters for pro-US narratives in Greenland, prompting a formal diplomatic reprimand. Danish leaders described such interference as unacceptable, whilst expressing concern that American rhetoric risked destabilising domestic political dynamics in Greenlandic communities. On the issue as Danish authorities summoned the US charge d’affaires for a formal dressing-down over the issue, with the Trump administration responding that Denmark should “calm down”, exacerbating diplomatic friction.
Further, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen who articulated that Greenlandic anxieties, noting how unsettling it felt for residents of small coastal settlements when the world’s strongest superpower spoke of them as something that could be bought or owned. Considering the long history of Danish stewardship in the Arctic, these tensions manifested symbolically when Denmark excluded US military participation from its major Arctic Light 2025 exercise, despite invitations to observe. In such circumstances, the episode revealed deeper structural frictions within NATO concerning Arctic priorities, alliance cohesion, and regional threat perceptions.
Greenlandic Political Agency and Sovereignty Assertions
Greenland’s domestic politics strongly shaped responses to US advances. Foreign Minister Naaja Nathanielsen described Trump’s public interest in acquiring Greenland as “disrespectful”, arguing that such statements disregarded Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen later reaffirmed this stance when addressing the European Parliament, emphasising Greenland’s commitment to maintaining constructive European partnerships whilst remaining open to diversified international cooperation.
Greenland’s 2021 uranium mining ban also illustrated willingness to reject foreign investment perceived as environmentally or politically problematic, ultimately preventing Chinese state-linked investors from pursuing the Kvanefjeld project. The ban demonstrated Greenland’s capacity to regulate extractive industries independently despite external pressure.
Multilateral Competition beyond the US
Growing global interest in Greenland’s mineral sector reflected broader strategic realignments across the Arctic. Considering the UK reopened free trade negotiations in 2025 and EU funding proposals exceeded €530 million, competition for access to Greenlandic minerals extends well beyond Washington. In such circumstances, Canadian policymakers have also argued that enhanced Canada-Greenland cooperation could help balance US influence, particularly given similarities between Greenlandic and Inuit-governed territories in northern Canada.
Development of the Tanbreez Project
Project Structure, Control, and Production Ambitions
Critical Metals Corp’s acquisition of Tanbreez for $216 million in combined cash and equity significantly altered ownership dynamics, enabling Western control over one of the world’s largest heavy rare earth deposits. The company’s subsequent increase in ownership to 92.5% strengthened this position, with European Lithium retaining a small minority (7.5%) share.
Such a projection appears particularly relevant given China’s historical tendency to manipulate rare earth prices during periods of emerging competition. In such circumstances, production plans outline phased expansion, beginning with 85,000 tonnes of rare earth concentrate annually from 2026, scaling potentially to 425,000 tonnes if modular expansion proceeds.
Further, such a scenario carries significant implications for market stability and long-term diversification efforts. Critical Metals also secured a ten-year offtake agreement with a US separation facility in August 2025, ensuring integration into Western midstream processing networks from the outset.
Environmental, Logistical, and Regulatory Considerations
Developing Tanbreez poses important logistical challenges due to harsh Arctic conditions and limited local infrastructure. Despite these challenges, the site’s proximity to deep-water fjords enables year-round shipping, offering a significant logistical advantage compared to other Arctic mining operations.
Environmental governance remains central to Greenland’s regulatory approach, particularly regarding radioactive material handling. Given the 2021 uranium ban, projects generating significant radioactive waste require exceptional safeguards. Greenlandic authorities have repeatedly stressed the importance of community involvement, respect for Indigenous rights, and strict compliance with environmental standards.
Market Dynamics and China’s Strategic Responses
Considering China’s dominance in rare earth processing, market analysts suggest that Beijing could attempt to undercut emerging Western suppliers by lowering prices or increasing output. In such circumstances, historical precedents demonstrate that Chinese pricing decisions significantly influence global market stability. Western policymakers nevertheless view diversification as essential despite potential volatility, given long-term demand growth driven by electrification and military modernisation.
Policy Implications and Strategic Futures
Building Mine-to-Magnet Supply Chains
Washington’s potential investment in Tanbreez forms part of a wider national strategy to construct full mine-to-magnet supply chains independent of China. This includes investment in separation facilities, magnet manufacturing plants, and streamlined permitting systems. Considering the United States historically relied almost entirely on Chinese processing, rebuilding midstream capacity remains essential for achieving technological and defence resilience.
Balancing Strategy with Diplomacy
The future of US-Greenland relations depends on recalibrating American diplomacy towards partnership rather than acquisition. Considering earlier tensions generated by Trump’s rhetoric and reported influence activities, Washington faces a strategic necessity to demonstrate respect for Greenland’s autonomy, environmental priorities, and political agency. In such circumstances, cooperation with Denmark and the EU remains essential to maintain NATO unity and sustain long-term Arctic governance stability.
Further, climate change fundamentally alters Arctic dynamics, with ice retreat opening new shipping routes and resource access whilst simultaneously raising environmental risks. Denmark’s investment commitments, which include considering the acquisition of P-8 maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft for double-digit billion kroner to improve situational awareness around Greenland and the Faroe Islands, reflect growing threat perceptions. Such defensive investments, combined with increased NATO exercises in the region, risked escalating tensions yet proved necessary to maintain deterrence against potential adversaries.
Arctic Security Architecture and Multilateralism
Arctic governance is evolving due to intensifying multilateral competition and shifting security dynamics. Considering Russia’s extensive military build-up in the region alongside Sino-Russian cooperation, Western states increasingly emphasise surveillance, maritime domain awareness, and shared military exercises. In such circumstances, Greenland’s growing diplomatic assertiveness – including its increasing participation in European fora – indicates an emerging role in shaping Arctic governance frameworks rather than simply being governed through Danish representation.
Conclusion
US outreach towards Greenland during the Trump administration revealed an intricate convergence of strategic resource acquisition, Arctic security considerations, and diplomatic tension. Greenland’s exceptional rare earth endowments, particularly the heavy rare earth-rich Tanbreez deposit, provide Washington with an opportunity to diversify critical mineral supply chains away from Chinese dominance. However, these opportunities have unfolded alongside Danish concerns about sovereignty breaches, Greenlandic assertions of political agency, and intensifying European, British, and Canadian competition for access to Greenland’s resources. Further, Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen’s parliamentary address, warning that ‘Trump will be back’, reflected sustained concern despite temporary quiet on the issue.
Considering this interplay, the future stability of US-Greenland relations requires recalibrated diplomacy grounded in mutual respect, environmental responsibility, and recognition of Greenland’s autonomy. In such circumstances, Greenland’s emerging strategic role within broader Arctic governance debates demonstrates how resource security, alliance cohesion, and climate-driven geopolitical change are reshaping regional politics. The trajectory of the US-Greenland relationship will therefore remain a key indicator of whether great-power competition in the Arctic proceeds through cooperative partnerships or escalates into adversarial zero-sum dynamics.
