Select Language:

Deutsch Français Italiano Español Nederlands Polski Svenska English Ελληνικά

The Arctic Gambit: Inside Trump’s Audacious Greenland Bid.

A strategic mineral grab, tech billionaire ambitions, and the biggest challenge to NATO since the Cold War converge on a frozen island with 57,000 people

The image circulated on social media in a moment of calculated provocation: President Donald Trump, photoshopped into Arctic fatigues, planting an American flag on Greenland’s icy terrain. It was January 2026, and what began as a 2019 curiosity had transformed into something far more serious—a sustained, muscular campaign involving national security hawks, Silicon Valley libertarians, mining companies, and Trump’s closest advisers.

“We are going to take action regarding Greenland, whether the locals agree or not,” Trump declared aboard Air Force One earlier this month. “If we cannot approach it the straightforward way, we will resort to tougher measures.” When pressed at a Davos press conference on how far he would go, Trump offered a cryptic two-word response: “You’ll find out.”

For American allies in Europe, these were alarming words. NATO members watched as their most powerful partner threatened their collective security architecture. For Greenlanders—a population smaller than many American towns—the prospect was surreal. For a small constellation of billionaire investors, government officials, and mining companies, however, Trump’s Greenland obsession represented an unprecedented opportunity: the chance to reshape geopolitical power, access critical minerals worth billions, and establish a libertarian “freedom city” beyond the reach of democratic regulation.

The story of Trump’s Greenland initiative reveals far more than one man’s territorial ambitions. It exposes the convergence of three distinct power structures reshaping American policy in 2026: nationalist geopolitics, tech billionaire ideology, and the military-industrial complex’s hunger for critical resources in an era of great power competition.

The Strategic Case: Mining, Missiles, and the Arctic Race

Trump’s argument for Greenland begins with national security. The island sits at a critical chokepoint between the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Circle. As climate change recedes polar ice, shipping lanes that were impassable for centuries are suddenly viable. Russia and China have signaled serious Arctic ambitions. In 2019, a Chinese state company offered to fund airport improvements in Greenland; Denmark hastily countered with its own funding to block the move. China has invested in mining partnerships. Russia conducted military exercises. The strategic logic, from Washington’s perspective, is elementary: whoever controls the Arctic dominates the future.

But there is a more immediate driver: rare earth minerals.

Greenland sits atop vast reserves of neodymium, dysprosium, terbium, and other rare earth elements that modern warfare and technology cannot function without. Electric vehicle batteries, precision-guided missiles, fighter jet engines, MRI machines, advanced semiconductors—all require rare earths. Currently, China controls roughly 80 percent of global rare earth processing. For Pentagon planners, this dependency represents an existential vulnerability.

“We need Greenland,” Trump told journalists. “It’s incredibly strategic right now.”

The Trump administration has moved aggressively on this front. In June 2025, the U.S. Export-Import Bank sent a $120 million loan commitment to Critical Metals Corp to develop the Tanbreez rare earth mine—the largest undeveloped rare earth project in Greenland. Then, in October 2025, Reuters reported that Trump administration officials were discussing converting a $50 million grant into direct equity ownership of Critical Metals Corp, giving the U.S. government approximately 8 percent of the company. It would represent the first American government equity stake in an overseas mining venture[1].

The Tanbreez mine, if brought into production, could yield 85,000 metric tons of rare earth concentrate annually—a transformative amount of global supply. It would reduce American dependence on Chinese processing and create a strategic advantage in the technology and defense sectors that depend on rare earth elements.

On the surface, this is serious geopolitical strategy. Beneath the surface, however, it is also lucrative private business opportunity for people very close to Trump.

The Billionaire Dimension: Peter Thiel’s Libertarian Frontier

Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal and Trump’s most influential Silicon Valley confidant, has long promoted a radical vision: that democracy is incompatible with freedom, and that the solution is escape—to outer space, to seasteads (unregulated ocean communities), or to new cities governed by private entrepreneurs rather than elected officials.

In April 2025, Reuters reported that Thiel, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, and tech investor Shervin Pishevar were exploring the creation of a “freedom city” in Greenland. This would not be a traditional municipality governed by elected officials. Instead, it would be a hyper-deregulated zone where artificial intelligence companies, autonomous vehicle manufacturers, space launch companies, and nuclear reactor startups could operate with minimal environmental or labor restrictions—a blank slate for libertarian experimentation[2].

“Expanding to Greenland can be the dawn of a new Manifest Destiny,” Pishevar stated, invoking the 19th-century ideology of American territorial expansion.

Ken Howery, Trump’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Denmark, stands at the nexus of these interests. Howery co-founded venture capital firms alongside Thiel and maintains long-standing ties to Elon Musk. Once confirmed by the Senate, Howery would be responsible for leading American negotiations to acquire Greenland. According to sources, Howery has already been involved in preliminary discussions about establishing the freedom city concept on the island.

The ideological motivation is clear: Thiel and his network view regulation—environmental, labor, democratic oversight—as obstacles to innovation.

Greenland represents a frontier where venture capitalists could implement their vision of governance. One source described the aspiration as encompassing an AI center, autonomous vehicle testing grounds, micro nuclear reactors, and space launch facilities, all operating under principles of minimal state intervention.

“This is not about contributing to the common good,” noted one analysis of the initiative. “It is about establishing a highly deregulated special zone—an experimental field for capital and technology, freed from the shackles we commonly refer to as democracy, law, and public order.”

The Business Nexus: Trump Associates and Greenland Profits

The most troubling dimension involves the direct financial entanglement of Trump administration officials with companies positioned to profit from Greenland’s acquisition.

Reuters reported in January 2026 that Keith Sorial and Allen Horn—both former Trump Organization employees—hold financial interests in GreenMet, a company involved in developing Greenland’s mining sector. Horn personally briefed Trump with photographs of mining sites in Greenland. Another Trump associate, Keith Schiller (Trump’s former bodyguard and personal assistant), has pursued business interests in Greenland[3].

“Trump’s illegal and illegitimate designs on Greenland would be bad enough,” said Norman Eisen, former U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic, speaking to OCCRP. “But they are made worse by allegations that Trump associates have ties to companies who could benefit from the president’s actions.”

Meanwhile, major billionaires with broader investment portfolios have positioned themselves for Greenland opportunities. According to reporting by Engineer Live in October 2024, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Michael Bloomberg have invested in Greenland mining ventures, drawn by the critical mineral deposits and geopolitical importance. Ronald Lauder, the Estée Lauder heir, is also an investor. According to John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Adviser, Lauder first proposed Greenland acquisition to Trump during his first term.

The pattern is clear: those close to Trump administration power—both in government and in the broader billionaire investor class—stand to profit substantially if the U.S. acquires Greenland or even simply secures favorable mining concessions[4].

Congressional Support: The MAGA Wing Mobilizes

Within Congress, support for Greenland acquisition concentrates in the MAGA wing of the Republican Party—populist nationalists who view Trump’s territorial ambitions as a historic legacy achievement.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tennessee) introduced legislation authorizing the acquisition of Greenland with a 60-day Congressional review process. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Georgia) introduced the “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025.” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) co-sponsored the “Make Greenland Great Again Act.” Senators Ted Cruz and others have called the acquisition “overwhelmingly beneficial” to American interests.

These are not outliers within Republican circles. They represent a strand of nationalist-expansionist thinking that views Arctic territory as essential to American greatness. The rhetoric consistently invokes American westward expansion in the 19th century—the concept of “Manifest Destiny”—applied to the Arctic.

However, support is far from universal. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), despite her state’s own history of acquisition (purchased from Russia in 1867), has voiced vocal criticism. Democratic senators introduced bills to prevent the acquisition. And European allies—particularly Denmark and the Nordic countries—have made clear that any American military action would trigger a NATO crisis[5].

The Pushback: NATO in Crisis

On January 21, 2026, European Parliament members debated Trump’s Greenland strategy as a matter of urgent continental security. “Greenland and the need for a united EU response to US blackmail attempts,”

French President Emmanuel Macron sent Trump a private message, later publicly released by Trump in a diplomatic breach, stating: “I do not understand what you are doing on Greenland.”

Danish officials have offered Trump numerous alternatives: expanded military cooperation, joint defense arrangements, shared investment in Arctic infrastructure. None has satisfied the president, who posted doctored images showing American flags planted on Greenland’s soil.

Trump has linked his demands to his grievance about not winning the Nobel Peace Prize—a connecting point that alarmed NATO strategists, who recognized that rational negotiation might prove impossible with a leader motivated by personal slights and legacy concerns.

Perhaps most concerning: Trump has not ruled out military action. When asked directly about the possibility, he offered only: “You’ll find out.”

A NATO war with its most powerful member over a Danish territory is a contingency that seemed impossible just years ago. Now it occupies serious strategic planning conversations in European defense ministries.

The Hidden Agenda: Coercive Diplomacy

Some international relations scholars argue that Trump’s Greenland acquisition threat may be less about actual annexation and more about extracting concessions. By threatening military action and imposing tariffs (Trump announced 10 percent tariffs on all European goods effective February 1 if opposition continues), Trump may be positioning himself to win favorable mining contracts, military base access, and investment opportunities—all while appearing to make a “deal” by accepting something short of full territorial acquisition.

This interpretation suggests Trump’s real goal: ensuring that Greenland’s resources flow to American companies (particularly those in which his associates have financial stakes) rather than to Chinese competitors, while maintaining the appearance of respecting Danish sovereignty.

If true, it represents a form of coercive diplomacy that threatens NATO cohesion and international law to extract private economic advantage.