Greenland: A whim of Trump or a global strategy?

Greenland’s critical mineral reserves and melting icecaps highlight the intensifying global competition for strategic resources in the face of climate change

No one knows whether Donald Trump will actually dare to proceed with his project to annex Greenland to the United States. However, the mere threat has already revealed at least two important points with great clarity. First, the United States is acutely aware of the role of natural resource scarcity in the coming decades. Second, despite his repeated dismissals of climate change science, even someone like Donald Trump is operating with future scenarios in which global warming has already caused significant upheavals.

Disputes and wars over natural resources are nothing new in history, and even less so for the United States. Although the US did not participate in the first phase of colonial plundering carried out by countries like Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, and Britain, from the mid-19th century onwards, it demonstrated a tremendous willingness and ability to seize natural resources located in foreign jurisdictions. And it seems those skills have not been lost since.

Just as the overexploitation of agricultural land was reducing soil fertility around 1850—threatening food supply problems—developed nations discovered that the guano found along the Peruvian coast could be the perfect remedy. Guano, the excrement of seabirds, is rich in nitrogen and, consequently, an excellent fertiliser. However, its accumulation in vast quantities was available only on certain islands of the world. Thus, the US Congress passed a law in 1856 under which the country claimed more than one hundred islands in the Pacific and the Caribbean, arguing that US citizens had discovered guano there and were obliged to ensure its exploitation. The United States still retains ten of these islands, with the guano long since depleted, for scientific and military purposes.

One of the fascinating aspects of this history is that guano trade flows were one of the stimuli for constructing the Panama Canal. The canal remained under US control from its definitive completion in 1914 until the late 1990s, when it was handed over to Panama. Now, Trump is also calling for the United States to reclaim it, arguing that it is crucial for national security—the same reasoning he has used for Greenland.

If guano was a pillar of the US economy for decades—to the extent that twice as much guano as coffee was imported—the so-called ‘critical minerals’ hidden in Greenland are their equivalent for the digitised economies of the 21st century. Both small electronic devices, such as smartphones, and larger ones, like electric motors and generators, require varying quantities of these minerals to be manufactured. Just as nitrogen limits plant growth—and thus food availability—these minerals are critical because their absence constrains the production of such products. Furthermore, the energy transition also depends on them, as wind turbine blades and other renewable energy converters need critical minerals to manufacture. Consequently, they have become highly coveted commodities—much like guano in the 19th century.

Geology has whimsically ensured that these critical minerals are found in very few parts of the world, shaping a new playing field. Some countries are fortunate to have large reserves within their territories, while others must rely on trade and integration into global value chains—or military means, if sufficiently strong. For instance, 75% of cobalt is mined in the Congo and 50% of lithium in Australia, but almost 75% and over 50%, respectively, are processed in China. The grand prize—rare earth elements—is also held by China, which accounts for over 70% of extraction and over 80% of processing within its borders. Additionally, China leads in mining investments in continents like Africa and Latin America, complemented by new infrastructure that facilitates the transportation of goods to processing sites.

If the US is losing the race to control critical resources to China, the situation is even worse for the European Union. The Draghi report, unfortunately barely read with this focus, systematically highlights the severe vulnerability of European economies to this situation. It is no wonder, as sudden and severe price spikes could destabilise entire economies. This would jeopardise the green transition—making the abandonment of fossil fuels prohibitively expensive—and could trigger significant social unrest in hyperconsumerist societies accustomed to exceedingly cheap electronic devices.

It is thus unsurprising that the US has set its sights on Greenland. This vast territory of Denmark, with just 60,000 inhabitants, boasts large deposits of critical minerals, including rare earths. For this reason, it has signed mining agreements with both the European Union and the United States. The main problem is the climate, which is still too cold for such minerals to be extracted viably and profitably. Even ice obstructs maritime transport in winter. However, everyone knows where the climate is heading, don’t they?

This is the second and ironic lesson from Trump’s threat. Although he does not seem to believe in climate change, his actions suggest otherwise. That is why he is preparing for a scenario where Greenland’s ice continues melting, new maritime—and military—routes are established, and mining becomes profitable. He seeks to regain ground from China regarding the great issue of the 21st century: natural resources. As I mentioned in another article, the ideological stance of Trump and Musk is not climate denialism but social Darwinism. They know the world is changing radically, but their gamble is to ensure that they and their kind are the first to save themselves. Their ideologies are structured around their survival instincts.

However, a population of 60,000, like Greenland’s, inclined towards political independence, is highly sensitive to such disputes. In my opinion, it is unlikely we will see anything resembling a military invasion. It is much more likely that commercial agreements in the coming years, within the new context of a military threat, will be reformulated in favour of US interests.

The big question is: what is the European Union doing about all this? Countries with a more pronounced Europeanist tradition, and the most important ones, like Germany and France, currently have weak governments. In contrast, the reactionary international movement of Trump and Musk has allies in the governments of Italy and Hungary, among others, while encouraging far-right movements in other countries. Meanwhile, the UK has a weak Labour government, battered by Musk's grave lies and attacks, yet it also dares not rebuild its relationship with the European Union—the only viable option to avoid becoming a minor satellite of the US. The case of Spain is well known: an economy temporarily on the rise, a weak progressive government, radicalised right-wing factions, a left divided by an infantile civil war, and, ultimately, an increasing likelihood of reactionary tentacles taking another European stronghold in the coming years.

In short, the dispute over Greenland and its critical minerals is not a mere political whim or yet another anecdote of Trump’s eccentricity; it is a symptom of the global tensions that will define the 21st century. In a context where climate change reshapes territories and opens new frontiers for exploitation, major powers fiercely compete to secure strategic resources to sustain their economies and geopolitical influence. Just as they did in the 19th century, although not exactly by the same means. The inaction or political weakness of regions like the European Union only accelerates this uneven race, where there are no clear winners but a planet and societies increasingly fragmented against the backdrop of global warming and the intensification of the ecological crisis. Ultimately, the fate of Greenland symbolises much more than a question of sovereignty: it reflects the limits of an unsustainable economic model and the urgent need to rethink our relationship with resources and power.