Expert on Arctic politics explains Greenland’s strategic appeal

Amid renewed talk by U.S. officials of purchasing Greenland — and rising tensions over Arctic dominance — an expert on the region’s politics explains what’s really at stake.

Steve Lamy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, International Relations and Spatial Sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, breaks down the motivations, risks and global consequences behind U.S. interest in the world’s largest island.

What makes Greenland a valuable asset for President Trump and the United States?

The Trump administration has pushed two arguments for taking Greenland. The first is to gain control of rare earth minerals or rare earth elements, such as lithium and titanium, critical for manufacturing phones, computer chips and other new technologies, and the second is related to U.S. security.

Greenland is in a crucial geostrategic location. It is proximate to the U.S. and Canada and part of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, a strategic sea corridor for shipping and the movement of submarines and naval warships. This area was essential to protecting the North Atlantic and the U.S. East Coast during World War II, leading the U.S. to establish and maintain many bases in Greenland. Today, the U.S. maintains only the Pituffick Space, and Danish Arctic forces provide the island’s security. As Arctic ice melts, the region is more open to ship traffic, including Chinese and Russian warships, icebreakers and submarines.

The Trump administration wants control of these minerals and blocks Chinese efforts to do so. Of 34 critical minerals, 31 are abundant. Still, infrastructure issues such as the lack of roads, severe weather conditions, and Inuit cultural traditions supporting a sustainable hunting and fishing environment have slowed mining efforts. Many mining proposals have been submitted to the Greenlandic government, but only two active mines now operate in Greenland.

Does Trump’s interest in Greenland reflect a policy stance or just a symbolic push to counter China and Russia’s growing influence in the Arctic?

The current Trump foreign policy rejects 80 years of U.S. leadership in global affairs that promote democracy, capitalism and the rule of law through multilateral cooperation and collective problem-solving. Every Republican and Democratic administration since WWII — especially through the Cold War — has endorsed and defended this order. The Trump administration is no longer willing to defend the ideas and institutions that “won the Cold War” without some form of payback. This position suggests that current U.S. foreign policy is in a new position, with material interests overwhelming goals based on ideals and principles.

Trump’s Greenland strategy is mainly about the U.S. economic battle with China. Data suggests that China refines 40 – 90% of the global supply of key elements. Of the 50 critical minerals listed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. imports 50 – 100% of 41 of them, according to a 2025 Center for Strategic and International Studies report. The Trump administration worries that China will use its control of these minerals to hurt the U.S. economy, counter U.S. tariff policies, and gain more geopolitical power and influence.

Concerns about Russia are more related to military security. Russia could challenge North American and European security with its icebreakers and submarines, and Arctic security challenges have not been a priority for the Trump administration.

In past administrations, cooperation with our allies and working within the rules and practices of international and regional organizations were favored strategies. For example, the Biden administration established the Minerals Security Partnership — which included Greenland, Canada and Ukraine — to deal with critical mineral supply chains outside China. Trump prefers colonial-style relationships and not multilateral partnerships. Again, his transactional style may explain his recent demand that Ukraine give the U.S. exclusive access to its minerals and his desire to take control of Greenland and its resources.

How might Trump’s talk of acquiring Greenland impact NATO and U.S.-European alliances?

If Trump implements a coercive diplomacy strategy to take Greenland by force or the threat of force and trade sanctions, NATO will condemn the action. While NATO won’t respond militarily, it’s likely that U.S. participation in the alliance would end, prompting Europe and Canada to form a new collective defense organization. This partnership, which may include Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan, will be another phase in the effort to create strategic autonomy from an unreliable U.S. The Western alliance with the Asia-Pacific partners will need to step up and redesign the international security system and prepare to respond militarily to global security challenges.

What is the bigger threat to the Arctic, climate change or the scramble for resources?

Because of weather conditions, the scramble for resources in the Arctic is limited to a few players. It is not as intense as the current competition for resources in Africa, for example.

The main problem in the Arctic is climate change, which continues to increase because of the actions of global consumers in non-Arctic regions. Only 4 million live in the Arctic region, and the continuing consumption of fossil fuels by most non-Arctic states is warming the planet, and the world’s collective actions to slow climate change are simply inadequate.

Major oil companies are interested in the Arctic, but it’s difficult to explore. Norwegian oil giant Equinor has extensive experience in the region, as do Russian companies, which are all increasing production because Russia needs to finance its war with Ukraine. Russia is collaborating with China to drill and is also using illegal ghost ships to break the sanctions and sell more gas and oil to anyone willing to pay. President Trump wants to add Greenland to America’s domestic sources of oil, gas and minerals.

The Arctic paradox means that as climate change warms the planet, ice melts and more Arctic areas are open for exploration and drilling. That means more consumption, more global warming and more competition among the great powers.

And if warming continues, the Northern Sea Route across Russia and the Northwest Passage above Canada and the U.S. could open further, leading to increased ocean traffic and a scramble for nearby resources. It may also increase the vulnerability of communities in the region to a variety of bad actors.