The renewed US fixation on Greenland is less about missiles and maps than about minerals, money and who profits from the Arctic’s untapped wealth.
When Donald Trump first suggested acquiring Greenland, the proposal was framed as a national security move. Years on, that explanation is being questioned as attention shifts to what lies beneath Greenland’s ice, with analysts pointing to a growing network of private investors, including Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, whose interests intersect with the region’s emerging mining sector.
Beyond National Security Narratives
Trump has continued to frame Greenland as vital to American security, citing Arctic shipping routes and military positioning. Yet critics argue that this language masks a more commercial ambition.
Former officials and industry observers note that US defence needs in Greenland are already met through long-standing agreements with Denmark, including the Pituffik Space Base. Ownership, they argue, adds little militarily but could open doors commercially.
The Billionaire Investment Trail
While Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are not bidding to buy Greenland, their investment portfolios reveal interests aligned with Arctic extraction. Bezos, through funds linked to his venture capital network, has backed companies focused on resource logistics and advanced mining technologies. Gates, via Breakthrough Energy and related investment vehicles, has supported firms developing critical minerals for clean energy systems.
Several of these companies have explored or partnered in Greenlandic projects, particularly around rare earth processing. The convergence of political advocacy and private gain has drawn scrutiny.
Mining Rights and Local Opposition
Greenland’s government, which retains control over mineral rights, has spent years courting foreign investors to diversify its economy. Mining licences have been granted to Australian, Canadian, and Chinese-linked firms, with US-backed capital increasingly present.
According to reporting by Bloomberg and Reuters, Western investors see Greenland as a way to reduce reliance on China for rare earths. That framing dovetails neatly with Trump’s economic nationalism and promises of supply chain independence.
For Greenlanders, however, the picture is more complex. Mining projects promise jobs but bring environmental risks and fears of losing political autonomy. Public opposition has already halted some high-profile projects, including uranium-linked mining ventures. ‘We want development, but on our terms,’ one Greenlandic lawmaker told Danish media last year, warning against becoming a resource colony.
Oil’s Quiet Return to the Debate
While mining dominates headlines, oil remains a significant, if sensitive, factor. Previous Greenlandic governments imposed bans on oil exploration, citing climate concerns. Those bans can be revisited, and industry analysts believe rising global energy demand could revive interest. For investors, even the possibility of future access adds long-term value. Trump’s broader push to expand fossil fuel production fits neatly into this outlook.
Politics, Profit, and Plausible Deniability
There is no evidence that Bezos or Gates are directing US foreign policy. However, critics argue that Trump’s Greenland rhetoric normalises the idea that territories are assets, valuable primarily for what can be extracted. Supporters counter that securing critical minerals is essential for economic security.
The real question may not be whether Greenland is for sale, but who stands to gain most if its ice continues to melt.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
