By Angelo Giuliano
Picture this: The world's largest island, Greenland, stretches across more than 836,000 square miles of mostly ice-covered land. Beneath that frozen surface lie trillions of dollars worth of rare earth minerals, critical metals like lithium, neodymium, and dysprosium, plus untapped reserves of uranium, zinc, and potentially even oil and gas. These resources are essential for modern technology — smartphones, electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, fighter jets, and advanced weapons systems. At the same time, Greenland's location makes it one of the most strategically important places on Earth. It sits at the top of the world, guarding the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), a vital naval chokepoint for tracking submarines entering the Atlantic. As Arctic sea ice melts faster than ever due to climate change, the Northern Sea Route — a shorter shipping lane connecting Europe and Asia — is becoming a major global trade artery.
President Donald Trump has long viewed Greenland as the ultimate real estate prize. Back in 2019, he famously floated the idea of purchasing it outright. Now, in early 2026, he speaks about it with renewed urgency and striking confidence. Vice President JD Vance has amplified the message on Fox News, warning that Denmark isn't doing enough to secure the island against Russian and Chinese influence. Trump himself has refused to rule out military options if necessary. But why does he sound so sure this time around? Many observers believe the answer lies in years of quiet, behind-the-scenes work: Greenland's political and business elites have already been influenced — and in some cases effectively bought — through U.S. funding, NGOs, and sophisticated influence operations.
How did this process unfold? For decades, the United States has used USAID and affiliated organizations to invest heavily in Greenland. Official photos and reports show Greenland's Prime Minister in direct meetings with USAID Administrator Samantha Power — the same high-ranking official who has held talks with Ukraine's President Zelensky. Critics argue these are not simple development partnerships. USAID and connected NGOs have channeled millions of dollars into education programs, infrastructure projects, economic initiatives, and "civil society" support — all of which frequently come with subtle (or not-so-subtle) political expectations.
The 2021 moratorium on large-scale mining and oil/gas extraction offers a key example. A coalition of 141 environmental and human rights NGOs, many with strong U.S. ties or funding, successfully lobbied for the ban, citing the severe risks of pollution in the fragile Arctic ecosystem. On the surface, the push looked like genuine environmental concern. But skeptics see a different strategy at play: deliberately keeping Greenland economically dependent on Danish subsidies, preventing it from developing its own mineral wealth, and ensuring the resources remain untouched until Washington decides the time is right to gain access.
The influence runs deeper still. Leaked reports and social media investigations from 2025 describe a network of Trump-linked operatives and contractors quietly compiling lists of "friendly" Greenlandic figures. These operatives allegedly coached local politicians, spread anti-Danish narratives, and built alliances with business leaders and influencers. Regime-change-style NGOs are accused of pouring funds into the island for years, targeting a population of just around 56,000 people — a small enough group that swaying a handful of key decision-makers can shift the entire political landscape.
Trump's inner circle appears well aware of this groundwork. Recent proposals circulating in Washington include cash offers ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person for Greenlanders who support secession from Denmark. Whether framed as bribes or "generous incentives for self-determination," the plan relies on the assumption that influential local elites — softened by years of U.S. money, meetings, and promises — will help smooth the path. Once independence is achieved (or pressured into existence), a pro-American leadership could quickly negotiate a favorable deal. A few billion dollars might then secure the entire territory — potentially the largest territorial acquisition since the Louisiana Purchase.
The stakes go far beyond resources. Full U.S. control of Greenland would solidify American dominance in the Arctic, counter Russia's strong grip on the Northern Sea Route, and limit China's expanding partnerships in the region. It would also ensure continued Western (U.S.-led) oversight of critical submarine surveillance and emerging trade lanes.
Greenlanders themselves remain deeply divided. Many fear large-scale mining would devastate fishing — their main livelihood — ruin tourism, and bring irreversible pollution to a warming Arctic. Yet if key elites have already aligned with American interests, grassroots voices could be overridden.
Now ask yourself these questions:
- Why has USAID consistently bypassed Denmark to deal directly with Greenlandic authorities?
- If the U.S. once supported restrictions on mining to keep Greenland weak, why the sudden push for total control?
- And with reports of local leaders swayed by years of funding, networks, and promises, isn't Trump's bold confidence simply the logical result?
The clock is ticking. High-level meetings are scheduled, public statements grow sharper, and the Arctic map may soon look very different.
So, what do you think? Is Trump confident because of genuine security threats… or because the patient, decades-long purchase of influence — through USAID, NGOs, and elite networks — has already done most of the heavy lifting? Greenland is no longer just a frozen land. It has become the ultimate test of who will truly shape the future of the High North.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Angelo Giuliano:
Opinion | US imperial aggression: The brazen kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro
Opinion | China and Venezuela: The sad reality of realpolitik – the oil will keep flowing
Comment