I. Event Background: The Island Purchase Dispute Escalates
Recently, Trump's attempts to acquire Greenland have grown increasingly assertive. From his initial public statement on January 7, 2025, to a year-long posture of firmness, followed by last week’s tariff hike on Europe after the setback in purchasing the island, the situation escalated into a military standoff between the US and Denmark this week, reaching a peak in tension.
Although we have no intention of delving into the political or military aspects of the incident and hope that politics remains merely politics, history shows that political maneuvering is often underpinned by the resources contained within the land. In today’s world, rare earth resources have become a key strategic asset that the US seeks to control. In today’s article, we examine the resource plunder behind the island purchase controversy.
Greenland is rich in key resources such as rare earths, oil, and natural gas. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the island holds rare earth oxide reserves of up to 1.5 million mt, which are of great strategic importance to high-tech and national defense industries.
II. Greenland's Rare Earth Resource Endowment
The island primarily hosts two major rare earth projects, each with a very different fate:
1. Kvanefjeld Rare Earth Project: Stalled Amid Controversy
The Kvanefjeld project, located in southern Greenland, is a polymetallic deposit rich in rare earth elements and uranium. It is a world-class resource project of high strategic value but also subject to significant controversy.
The project contains total ore resources exceeding 1 billion mt, with proven rare earth oxide reserves estimated between 11 million and 13 million mt, making it one of the largest rare earth deposits outside China. The average rare earth oxide grade is approximately 1.1%, significantly higher than many comparable global projects, and it has a relatively high proportion of heavy rare earths, underscoring its strategic value.
However, the main challenge lies in the ore's association with uranium, which has an average grade of 0.0266%–0.036%. This has become a major political and environmental obstacle to the project's advancement.
The project's development has been complex:
1950s: Rare earth and uranium deposits were first discovered.
1983: Exploration halted after the Danish government abandoned nuclear power.
2007: Australian company Greenland Minerals and Energy acquired ownership and resumed exploration.
2015: A feasibility study was completed, and a mining license application was submitted.
2017: China's Shenghe Resources became a major shareholder in the project company.
2021: Greenland's left-wing government came to power and enacted a ban on uranium mining (prohibiting exploitation of deposits with uranium content exceeding 100 ppm). Since the Kvanefjeld deposit's uranium content far exceeds this threshold, the project was effectively suspended.
Currently, the project is in a state of permit suspension and legal arbitration, with development largely halted.
2. Tanbreez Rare Earth Project: Better Feasibility and Active Advancement
In contrast to the Kvanefjeld project, the Tanbreez rare earth project demonstrates better feasibility. Located near the town of Kujalleq in southern Greenland, the project has total ore resources of approximately 4.7 billion mt and proven rare earth oxide reserves of 28.2 million mt, making it one of the world's largest rare earth deposits by reserves. The project's significant advantage lies in its high heavy rare earth content (27% of total rare earths), rich in strategic elements such as dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium, while containing extremely low levels of radioactive elements, which simplifies the environmental protection approval process.
Project development is progressing smoothly:
A mining license has been obtained, valid until 2050.
The core mining enterprise is the US-based Critical Metals Corp. The company was established in 2022, acquired the Tanbreez project in June 2024, and formed its core team in 2025 when Trump expressed interest in acquiring Greenland.
The project has secured a loan intent of up to $120 million from the US Export-Import Bank (EXIM), highlighting its geopolitical strategic value.
The company is actively developing its downstream supply chain, for example, signing an agreement with a Saudi industrial group to plan a joint venture for a rare earth processing plant valued at up to $1.5 billion, and has secured long-term off-take agreements for 100% of the planned production of the Tanbreez project.
The project is expected to commence in 2026, with rare earth ore production starting in 2027.
III. Geopolitical Games and Resource Competition
While Trump claimed that the goal of seizing Greenland was "for national security," the motivations behind the action go far beyond that. Historically, the US ambition for Greenland dates back to 1867, when President Andrew Johnson entertained the idea of "purchasing the island." In 1946, the Truman administration formally proposed exchanging $100 million in gold and Alaskan oil field development rights for Greenland, but the offer was rejected by Denmark. Behind this long-standing obsession lies the US deep-seated desire for Greenland’s strategic location and resource value.
In terms of resource control, the US has consistently obstructed other countries from developing Greenland’s resources over the years. For example, when an Australian company acquired ownership of the Kvanefjeld rare earth project and advanced feasibility studies, the US repeatedly interfered through political pressure and questioning of environmental standards. More notably, when China’s Shenghe Resources became one of the largest shareholders of the project in 2017, the US cited "national security" concerns and collaborated with political forces within Denmark to push Greenland to pass a uranium mining ban in 2021. This directly led to the suspension of what was then the world’s largest rare earth project outside China. Such interference is not an isolated incident but part of a systematic US strategy to prevent competitors from accessing Greenland’s critical minerals.
The Value of Greenland Is Reflected in Multiple Aspects:
Strategic Location: It commands the sea route connecting the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, serving as a key link in the "Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap" within NATO's anti-submarine warfare system.
Military Significance: The Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) on the island is an outpost of the US ballistic missile early warning system and is crucial for North American aerospace defense.
Resource Reserves: It possesses reserves of 1.5 million mt of rare earth oxides, with a high proportion of heavy rare earths, which are vital for high-tech and national defense industries.
The Trump administration ostensibly emphasized security needs, but in reality, it sought to secure U.S. dominance in the rare earth supply chain by controlling Greenland. In 2025, the U.S. promoted the establishment of a "Critical Minerals Trading Club," courting allies such as Japan and Australia in an attempt to build a rare earth supply chain that excluded China. At the same time, the U.S. signed key mineral cooperation agreements with Thailand and Malaysia, requiring them "not to prohibit the export of critical minerals to the United States," further confirming its resource control strategy.
"I cannot accept fair trade, I can only accept cheap resources and continuous wealth accumulation"—this statement profoundly reflects the resource plundering logic of the Trump administration. This 19th-century-style expansionist mindset views international relations as a zero-sum game, attempting to secure the US's monopoly position in new energy and high-tech industries through power politics.
Reflecting on the international situation in early 2026, the Trump administration’s intervention in Greenland affairs under the guise of security epitomized its global pursuit of the “America First” strategy. Beyond Greenland, Trump had also claimed intentions to turn Canada into the “51st state” of the US and regain control of the Panama Canal, indicating that his expansionist tendencies were systematic rather than isolated.
However, this strategy of aggressive acquisition faces multiple practical obstacles:
Legal and Public Opinion Constraints: Greenland’s 2009 Self-Government Act stipulates that any change in sovereignty requires approval by the local parliament and a referendum, while polls show that 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the US.
International Opposition: European countries such as Denmark, France, and Germany have issued a joint statement supporting Danish sovereignty, and the European Union may trigger the collective defense mechanism under the Lisbon Treaty.
Contradictions within NATO Mechanisms: If the US were to use military force against Greenland, it would trigger Article 5 of NATO’s collective defense clause, plunging the military alliance into a logical paradox and rendering it paralyzed.
In the long run, unilateral expansionism is unsustainable. The Greenland issue reflects a deep-seated conflict in perspectives on international order: whether to reshape the geopolitical landscape through power politics or to adhere to international law, sovereign equality, and public opinion as the basis for handling international affairs. History has shown that the latter is the cornerstone of lasting stability and prosperity. In the future, the US is more likely to adopt a compromise approach to strengthen its presence in Greenland, such as upgrading the US-Greenland Joint Committee dialogue mechanism established in 2004, expanding its military presence under the framework of the Greenland Defense Agreement, or participating in rare earth projects like Tanbreez through equity investments. While these methods may be less direct than outright control, they are more cost-effective and feasible. The ultimate evolution of the Greenland dispute will depend on the wisdom of major power competition, the autonomous choices of the Greenlandic people, and the international community's resolve to uphold a rules-based multilateral system. Respecting fair transactions and international cooperation, rather than zero-sum games, is the true path to addressing global resource challenges and achieving sustainable development.
![Rare Earth Prices Hold Up Well, and Market Inquiry Activity Increases [SMM Rare Earth Weekly Review]](https://imgqn.smm.cn/usercenter/AJTtH20251217171744.jpg)
