Trump’s Greenland Deal Secures the Arctic—But Mining Its Rare Earths Is a Different Story

President Trump announced a deal with Denmark and Greenland on Friday. (ANNA MONEYMAKER/Getty Images)

Key Points

• President Donald Trump announced a security agreement with Denmark and Greenland that gives the U.S. permanent control over Greenland’s security.
• The deal backs down from Trump’s previous threats to annex Greenland, helping to diffuse tensions with European nations.
• A U.S. veto over foreign investments in Greenland could give the country control over the territory’s rich critical minerals deposits.

A new Greenland security deal gives President Donald Trump a triple win: smoother relations with the European Union, stronger Arctic security, and potential access to massive mineral reserves. Actually extracting those resources won’t be simple, though.

Trump announced on Friday he had reached an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that gave the U.S. “permanent control” over Greenland’s security, while backing down from threats of annexing the semiautonomous Danish territory.

Greenland has been an interest of Trump’s since his first term as president, when he first floated the idea of buying the territory from Denmark. Melting ice caps in the Arctic has made the territory the new security frontier in tensions between the U.S., Russia, and China, as all three superpowers look to secure trade routes and military bases.

At the beginning of his second presidential term, Trump threatened to annex Greenland if Denmark refused to sell the territory to the U.S., causing a rift with European nations and even endangering the strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The new deal could go a long way toward diffusing some of those tensions—and even strengthen NATO’s presence in the Arctic, experts say.

“This looks like a major victory for diplomacy,” says Jeppe Kofod, fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center and former Danish minister for foreign affairs. “The U.S. gets a stronger and lasting security presence in Greenland, while the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the kingdom and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination remain intact.”

But the devil is in the details. And the details about this deal are still scarce. In his Truth Social post, Trump said the U.S. would have “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland.” He added that “no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland” without the U.S.’s written approval, and that the U.S. would rebuild a large military presence across the country.

Denmark and Greenland’s comments were even more terse. Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in a statement the deal strengthens shared security in the Arctic while recognizing Denmark’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination.”

The military commitments alone don’t change the status quo much: The U.S. has operated military bases in Greenland since 1951. And while many of those bases have since shut down—leaving just one on Greenland’s northwest coast—no other nation operates a competing base.

What could lead to interesting changes are Trump’s comments about “sensitive investments.” China has tried to establish a foothold in Greenland for years through infrastructure investments, but has been thwarted by geopolitical concerns, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Trump’s remarks imply China and other adversaries will continue to be locked out of Greenland’s market. The White House didn’t immediately respond to Barron’s request for comment.

Importantly, a U.S. veto over foreign investments could give the country control over Greenland’s rich critical minerals deposits—which range from iron ore, graphite, zinc, and copper—to rare earths. According to the CSIS, Greenland ranks eighth in the world for rare earths reserve, with 1.5 million tons. Securing critical minerals, particularly rare earths, has become a national security priority for the U.S. as it seeks to decouple itself from China. Beijing supplies more than 50% of U.S. demand for 24 critical minerals, including more than 90% of demand for rare-earth elements, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Still, even if the U.S. does secure mining rights in Greenland, it won’t be a panacea for mineral strifes. Greenland’s harsh Arctic climate makes mining challenging, if not impossible, for most of the year. Today, there are only two active mines operating in Greenland, none of them for rare earths. Companies like Critical Metals, Amaroq Minerals, and Greenland Mines have been active in Greenland for years, but many are still in the exploration or pre-production phase.

The CSIS also points out that Greenland’s export infrastructure, including ports, electricity generation, and connecting roads, is sparse and will require significant investment to turn the country into a mining hot spot. There has also been substantial local opposition to prior mining projects that could impede further development.

The final deal is expected to be signed next week during the U.N. General Assembly, Frederiksen’s office said in a statement, and will have to undergo parliamentary procedures to enter in force.

Write to Sabrina Escobar at sabrina.escobar@barrons.com. Follow her on X and subscribe to her newsletter.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8