The weak business case for Trump acquiring Greenland: a $1 trillion price tag and few returns for two decades

[BeyondGeography]

President Donald Trump’s dogged determination to annex the icy island of Greenland relies on the idea that doing so would give the U.S. an untapped treasure trove of natural resources and strategic military positioning. But the harsh environment, enormous financial investments, and massive infrastructure and workforce buildout required to create an economic engine could cost at least $1 trillion over two decades and make little to no economic sense, according to industry and geopolitical analysts.

The prize is great on paper for a real estate tycoon like Trump—after all, Greenland would exceed the Louisiana Purchase as the largest geographic acquisition in U.S. history. But multiple specialists in the region and its resources dismiss the economic reasoning as nonsensical, given that Greenland already is open to greater U.S. investment and military scale-up. Greenland may be home to large reserves of critical minerals and crude oil, but they’re much cheaper to extract elsewhere in the world, including within the Lower 48, said Otto Svendsen, associate fellow specializing in the Arctic for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

… “The numbers just don’t add up at all,” Svendsen said. “It cannot be hammered home enough that the U.S. has an incredibly favorable arrangement at the moment with an incredible amount of access to Greenlandic territory, both to advance its security and its economic interests.” Despite ample efforts over the years to develop mines and drill for oil—the last, unsuccessful drilling bid was abandoned in 2011—Greenland today is home to zero oil production and just two active mines, neither of which extract the desired rare earths essential to computer, automotive, and military defense equipment. There’s a small gold mine and another for anorthosite—a mineral used to produce fiberglass, paint, and other common materials. While some rare earths and oil projects are in development—by U.S. companies—they remain in early stages, with no guarantees of success.

The relative lack of success over decades is no fluke, said Malte Humpert, senior fellow and founder of The Arctic Institute nonprofit think tank. “You’re dealing with ice, polar bears, darkness, lack of power, the sea ice being frozen, really low temperatures. It’s probably one of the roughest places on Earth,” Humpert said. “The fact that it hasn’t been done—when it could have been done—is really all you need to know. It’s very difficult to make it economical.”

… Greenland’s estimated rare earths reserves offer a smorgasbord of 1.5 million metric tons, including the more uncommon heavy rare earths. That would rank Greenland eighth worldwide, coincidentally just behind the United States, but well behind China and its 44 million tons, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. But as the research firm Wood Mackenzie says in a new report, “Here, ambition runs up against reality. Around 80% of the island is covered by the Greenland Ice Sheet, averaging a mile thick, meaning only limited work has been undertaken to quantify the true scale of Greenland’s deposits.” An even bigger challenge is the higher costs of developing a mining industry in Greenland’s harsh terrain, where there’s little to no existing infrastructure. There are just a few short, warmer windows when drilling and mining are practical; there is less daylight than almost anywhere on earth; and most of the terrain is accessible only by helicopter.

More at https://fortune.com/2026/01/17/weak-business-case-trump-acquiring-greenland-spend-1-trillion-few-returns-decades/

[BootinUp]

1. None of tRumps plans make good economic sense. nt

[underpants]

2. Business man huh?

[genxlib]

3. We just aren't smart enough to see the long game

See it plays out like this

1. AI has a voracious appetite for energy
2. We burn every bit of fossil fuel we can get
3. We melt the ice caps
4. Exposing Greenland to mineral extraction
5. Drill for oil and dig for minerals to feed the AI beast

The rest of us will be dead or irrelevant but the math works for certain classes of people. Especially if the Government covers the costs while the companies reap the benefits.

[sop]

4. Till now it hasn't been economically feasible, but if Trump can get U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for the development

of Greenland's resources, then his billionaire backers can walk away with the profits. He'll likely do the same in Venezuela: spend public funds to recapture and rebuild their decrepit oil-producing infrastructure, then turn it all over to privately owned oil interests so they can reap the benefits. American capitalism has always been based on the concept of "socializing your losses, privatizing your profits."

[BeyondGeography]

5. His billionaire backers include many companies that would take huge hits in Europe if this happens

Right now $1.5-$1.8 trillion in goods and services flow between the US and Europe every year. There is already plenty of talk on the continent about making American companies, particularly on the technology side, pay a price for torpedoing NATO (which would inevitably happen if Trump invades Greenland). The sentiment is already there to impose new rules on social media and AI. Invade Greenland and the EU would essentially reorient itself away from America for good. Any way you look at this situation, America has far more, exponentially more, to lose in Greenland than to gain.