Greenland, the world's largest island, spans over 836,000 square miles, most of it covered in ice. Beneath this frozen expanse lie trillions of dollars' worth of rare-earth minerals and critical metals such as lithium, neodymium, and dysprosium, as well as untapped uranium, zinc, and potential oil and gas reserves—all vital to modern technology. Strategically, Greenland occupies a critical position at the top of the world, overlooking the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), a vital naval chokepoint for monitoring submarines entering the Atlantic. As Arctic sea ice melts at an unprecedented rate due to climate change, the Northern Sea Route—a shorter shipping lane connecting Europe and Asia—is becoming a major global trade artery.
For years, US President Donald Trump has viewed Greenland as a prize of unparalleled value. He was considering buying it outright back in 2019. Now, 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 US funding, NGOs, and sophisticated influence operations.
How did this process unfold? For decades, the US has used USAID and affiliated organizations to invest heavily in Greenland. Official photos show Greenland's prime minister meeting USAID Administrator Samantha Power. 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.
A key example is the 2021 moratorium on large-scale mining and oil/gas extraction. A coalition of 141 environmental and human rights NGOs, many with strong US ties or funding, successfully lobbied for the ban, citing the severe risks posed by pollution to the fragile Arctic ecosystem. While it appeared to be a genuine environmental concern, skeptics argue it kept Greenland economically dependent on Danish subsidies and ensured its resources remained untouched until Washington decided the time was 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 of $10,000 to $100,000 per person to Greenlanders who support secession from Denmark. Whether framed as bribes or "generous incentives for self-determination," the plan assumes that influential local elites, softened by years of US money, meetings, and promises, will help smooth the path. After achieving independence, a pro-American leadership could swiftly 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 US 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 oversight of critical submarine surveillance and emerging trade lanes, dominated by the US.
Greenlanders themselves remain deeply divided. Many fear that large-scale mining would devastate fishing, tourism, and the fragile Arctic environment. Yet if key elites have already aligned with American interests, grassroots voices could be overridden.
Washington has deeply embedded its influence in Greenland through years of quiet funding and carefully built networks. What was once framed as "development help" now looks much more like a slow, steady effort to steer local politics. And as the US becomes more assertive in the Arctic, Greenland is no longer just a territory on the map—it has become a testing ground for how far a superpower will go to claim strategic advantage under the guise of aid and cooperation.
Related News:
Watch This | President kidnapped? Caracas under midnight storm
Comment