by: Naveed Qazi
Campaign investors of Donald Trump, who collectively have hundreds of millions of dollars in financial ties to the US president, will most likely benefit from an American takeover of Greenland. It will raise even more speculations and ethical questions regarding Trump’s controversial pursuit of the Artic territory.
The US administration is planning to secure minerals that are essential for the US tech industry and also explore gas and oil exploration there.
A Guardian analysis of campaign finance records and corporate filings shows US tech moguls who invested in mining companies operating in Greenland. It even included fossil fuel executives and crypto tycoons with their own set of plans for the country, who collectively gave at least $243m to the president’s 2024 campaign.
Meanwhile, institutional investors bankrolling Greenland mining interests also amassed $314m worth of shares in Trump Media. Some analysts believe that if anyone put money in Trump family, the returns would be in the form of some government policy.
Cryto tycoons have already labelled Greenland as an ‘investment frontier’ where data centres essential to the US artificial intelligence and crypto currency industries could be built. Some of the same donors also want to establish a largely autonomous libertarian utopian ‘post state’ for the tech elite in Greenland that could be used to practice ‘terraforming’ for a Mars colony.
The crypto industry’s aims in Greenland lack clear definition than mining, but the industry has fixated on the region. In part, the cold climate and easy access to renewable energy are attractive for bitcoin mining operations. For tech investors, it may literally be the best place in the world for data centres.
The minerals found in Greenland are used in laptops, smartphones, weapons, clean energy technology, electric vehicles and elsewhere across the economy. China so far controls seventy per cent of the rare earth market, and vital trade and military routes run through Greenland’s waters, so the administration portrays its interest as buttressing US security and industry. But Greenlanders are largely opposed to the idea.
Moreover, Greenland is a largely frozen, dark country with very little infrastructure, and it’s prone to rock slides, tsunamis and a shifting ground. It is extremely difficult and expensive to extract resources there, and the idea that a ‘gold rush’ is possible is completely unrealistic.
The garnered opposition from Greenlanders and unforgiving terrain has done little to press down the tech, mining under Trump administration and donor enthusiasm for a takeover. It shows how much Greenland is scattered with US investors.
The US has long maintained a security interest in Greenland. After Nazi Germany occupied mainland Denmark during World War Two, the US invaded Greenland, establishing military and radio stations scattered across the territory.
After the war, US forces remained in Greenland. Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, has been operated by the US ever since.
In 1951, a defence agreement with Denmark granted the US a significant role in the defence of the territory, including the right to build and maintain military bases.
Americans had an interest in Greenland decades back. In 1867, after buying Alaska from Russia, US Secretary of State William H Seward led negotiations to buy Greenland from Denmark, but failed to reach any agreement.
It was in 1946, when the US offered to pay $100m (equivalent to $1.2bn; £970m today) for the territory, judging that it was vital for national security, but the Danish government refused.
If America believes that they need Greenland for national security and even international security, it represents yet another example of imperialist ambition in the contemporary world. But as European solidarity with Greenland is unwavering, Trump’s threats of annexation of Greenland would be a strategic mistake. Infact, his expansionist ambitions risk further undermining the fragile post-war international order, which is grounded in principles of territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
Arctic states such as Canada, Russia, and Norway likely viewed Trump’s proposal with a fearful expectation. For Canada, Greenland’s proximity to its Arctic territories highlights shared security and environmental anxiousness, prompting a cautious response. Canada’s strong emphasis on multilateral cooperation and environmental custodianship suggests a preference for collaborative governance over unilateral action.
Greenland’s political lobby neither want Danes nor Americans to interfere in their territory. The common people there believe that they cannot be taken and want to determine their own future. Opinion polls also suggest that most Greenlanders oppose joining the US, although a majority favour eventual independence from Denmark.
Naveed Qazi is an author of nine books, and for feedback can be mailed at naveedqazi@live.com
Discussion about this post