Missiles and Rocks: The Real Reason Greenland is Compelling to the Trump Administration
The MOC
By
LTC (Ret.) Darryl W. Lyon
April 22, 2025
The hyperbolic discourse regarding the United States’ interest in Greenland is mesmerizing. Observers possess strong opinions, and each side considers itself well-versed in matters about Greenland. News stories about President Donald Trump’s rhetoric reveals his administration’s neo-imperialist tendencies, with aspirations to exert global influence and… nothing more. Most commentators believe valuable minerals and national security are the primary reasons for the White House’s interest in Greenland. This is a common, yet inaccurate interpretation of the administration’s true intent.
Analysis of Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent Pituffik Space Base press conference focuses on the bellicosity of his rhetoric and his unwelcome presence in Greenland. Domestic opposition to the Trump administration has led commentators to miss the president’s true intentions in Greenland. Greenland is compelling because it offers strategic control of Arctic maritime choke points essential for accessing global markets, not because of its rare earth minerals or defense posture. The Northern Sea Route, the Northwest Passage, and the forthcoming Transpolar Route represent significant commercial opportunities for global maritime companies seeking efficiencies from a more direct route between Europe and Asia.
Rickety Sea Ice
Greenland is ice. Understanding the ice on land and in the island nation’s waters is crucial for comprehending the Trump administration’s plans for Greenland. The world’s second-largest ice sheet is melting unevenly, and so is the ice in the Arctic Ocean. While the Arctic Ocean’s ice usually freezes during the winter, in recent years it has not frozen as hard or as far south as in the past.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center’s recent findings suggest that the Arctic Ocean may soon become ice-free during the increasingly warm summer months, as multi-year ice disappears and seasonal ice decreases. According to some models, polar amplification, the massive release of methane due to permafrost melting, and a marked decrease in precipitation could create an ice-free Arctic that could happen as early as 2030.
The reduction in summer sea ice combined with the deployment of advanced Russian and Chinese nuclear icebreakers increases the feasibility of the Transpolar Route, a shortcut across the North Pole that would shave thousands of miles off the route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Russia currently operates 34 diesel icebreakers and eight nuclear-powered icebreakers. China has four operational icebreakers. The United States possesses two antiquated ships that require extensive modernization and, in seamen’s terms, might be called “rickety” at best.
A Different Strategic Lens
During his visit to the U.S. Pituffik Space Base on March 28, 2025, Vice President Vance stated that Denmark has not fulfilled its NATO obligation to defend Greenland. He is the highest-ranking U.S. official in history to have visited Greenland, and his presence indicates the administration’s seriousness about asserting control over the island.
The Trump administration does not frame grand strategy through a military lens. It sees it from an economic viewpoint. Therefore, the apparatus of national power comprises not just weapon systems but also economic tools, such as tariffs, taxes, and incentives. In the eyes of the Trump administration, Denmark cannot protect Greenland from competitors like China without the intervention of the United States.
China’s interest in Greenland is primarily economic. Approximately 90% of Greenland’s GDP comes from fishing, with China buying the catch. Nuuk opened a representative office in Beijing in 2023, and in its most recent strategic foreign policy document, the Greenlandic government makes it clear that a strong relationship with China is in the country’s best interests.
While economic competition may pose a threat to the United States’ prosperity, military threats in the Arctic also remain a considerable concern. Advanced missile systems launched from the air, land, sea, or space can reach major North American city centers within minutes if fired over the top of the Earth. This is not a new problem. During the Cold War, the United States and Canada established the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command to watch for Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles coming over the North Pole. Today’s weapons, like fractional orbital bombardment systems and hypersonic cruise missiles, and the progression of China’s nuclear buildup have returned the issue to the forefront. President Trump has called for a “golden dome” missile defense system across the Continental United States. This issue commands serious attention.
Pittufik Space Base plays a significant role in U.S. security. From this remote location, the United States Space Force enacts force protection, space superiority, and scientific research in the region through integrated base support and defense operations. The United States’ adversaries China and Russia possess missile systems that, if fired over the North Pole, could reach major city centers in minutes. The safety that the Pittufik Space Base provides addresses this concern.
The significance of this threat is an all too easy justification for the White House’s designs for Greenland. For decades, the world viewed the Arctic as a low-tension region governed by modern, peaceful governments. Now, due to Russian aggression in Ukraine and the recent presence of its active nuclear-capable northern fleet in the western Arctic, the United States, Canada, and Denmark are investing in domain awareness, including the deployment of low-orbit polar satellite constellations, long-range drones, and uncrewed surface vessels to monitor the region. Enhancing situational awareness is enough. No further security investments are necessary. Proposals for upgrading the Danish Mestervig Airport in eastern Greenland from its current state as a gravel airstrip to accommodate larger aircraft, warships, and military battalions are noteworthy, but not essential.
Rare Earth Minerals—“Dig Baby Dig?”
Access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals is another oft cited but only partially correct reason for President Trump’s desire to control the world’s largest island. While Greenland is rich in rare earth minerals, it is not the only place to find these critical resources; furthermore, the high production costs in such a remote and environmentally sensitive region make Greenland less attractive to companies. Other locations, such as Alaska or Maine, offer more economically viable and environmentally sustainable alternatives for extracting these essential minerals, supporting the needs of the U.S. defense industry and facilitating the evolution toward a greener economy.
Most copper, cobalt, bauxite, lithium, and other valuable minerals come from mines in Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, and the Republic of Congo, not Greenland.
Greenland’s majority-Indigenous population also has a say in natural resource exploitation on their island. Greenlanders seek to balance their country’s economic development with environmental preservation. While the potential financial benefits of mining activities, such as job creation and increased revenue, are undeniable, so is the ecological destruction and social upheaval accompanying such projects.
The Kuannersuit uranium mine in southern Greenland is one such project that, if development continues, could create an influx of rare earth minerals into global markets. This mine would contribute to Greenland’s economy, complementing its seafood and wool exports and growing tourism industry. Mining uranium would generate income quickly, allowing the island to gain independence from Denmark by reducing reliance on subsidies from Copenhagen. However, in November 2021, Greenland’s government, led by the Inuit Ataqatigiit Party, banned uranium mining in where the Kuannersuit site is located in Kvanefjeld. This ban reflects a broader commitment to environmental protection and preserving Indigenous ways of life.
This includes acknowledging their rights to land and resources, ensuring meaningful consultation and participation in decision-making processes, and addressing colonization’s historical and ongoing impacts.
The Real Reason—Artic Ocean Dominance
Beneath the threats of missile attacks and the exploitation of valuable mineral reserves lies the truth about the administration’s desire to control Greenland: that the White House seeks dominance over the Arctic Ocean’s natural maritime chokepoints. During his visit to Greenland, Vice President Vance said, “We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways, in Arctic naval routes, and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories. We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic because we know that if America doesn’t, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind.” Strategic discussions focus on the “minerals” part of this quote. However, they should focus on the language concerning the “Arctic passageways and naval routes,” because that is the real reason the Trump administration finds Greenland so compelling.
The United States Navy ensures the nation’s access to the global ocean commons. Specifically, the Navy ensures freedom of navigation through the world’s strategic maritime chokepoints. Shipping through the Arctic Ocean reduces the shipping time between Europe and Asia from one month to less than two weeks. The fuel, time, and effort cost savings associated with bypassing the Suez Canal are highly appealing to major global shipping companies.
Current events outside the region begin to reveal the true intent of the Trump administration in the Arctic. The six-day blockage of the Suez Canal in 2021, caused by the grounding of the container ship Ever Given, resulted in daily costs of U.S. $10 billion to global trade. The world’s maritime shipping companies do not overlook those losses; they seek ways to avoid them in the future. When President Trump states his desire to reclaim control of the Panama Canal “at all costs” and oversees military actions in the Straits of Hormuz against Houthi rebels attacking merchant vessels and warships, it should garner attention.
President Trump has also issued an executive order “to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.” In the administration’s flurry of directives, it went unnoticed by most outside the shipping industry. The president’s remarks indicate a recommitment to the United States’ maritime dominance strategy based on Mahanian principles of seapower.
Further evidence came on March 14, 2025, when the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) exercised its authority to investigate transit chokepoints, specifically regarding the impact of foreign governments’ laws, regulations, or practices on shipping conditions. The findings of their investigation may reveal that the policies and rules of many foreign governments significantly impact American shipping. The FMC’s announcement lists transit chokepoints, including the Northern Sea Route. This measure uses the law to control global transit constraints, including the Arctic shipping lanes. It further demonstrates why the Trump administration is particularly interested in Greenland. The results of this non-adjudicatory investigation will be revealing.
Conclusion
The strategic importance of Greenland to the United States lies not in its mineral wealth but in its critical position along the Arctic Ocean’s passageways. Greenland’s maritime strategic significance is disregarded by the media in favor of reactivity towards the Trump administration’s provocative statements. Greenland enables the United States to influence Arctic maritime shipping routes and reestablish its dominance in global maritime transit. This, in turn, counterbalances the ambitions of other world powers such as Russia and China. As Arctic ice recedes, the opportunity to navigate and exploit these passages will only increase, highlighting Greenland’s indispensable presence in future geopolitical strategies.
The Trump administration’s interest in Greenland reflects a broader vision of maritime control and the assurance of freedom of navigation through key chokepoints. By prioritizing this region, the administration is signaling its commitment to maintaining America’s maritime supremacy by securing strategic advantages in the evolving Arctic geopolitics landscape. Commentators and analysts need to get over how the message is delivered and instead listen to what is being said. It’s hard to hear through the noise.
LTC (Ret.) Darryl W. Lyon is an interdisciplinary doctoral student who writes and lectures on security issues related to the Atlantic High North. Darryl served in the United States Navy and the Maine Army National Guard and is a graduate of the United States Naval War College (2017). During the last 10 years of his 30-year career, he served as the Maine National Guard’s High North Action Officer. He resides in Bangor, Maine.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.
Center for Maritime Strategy
By LTC (Ret.) Darryl W. Lyon
The hyperbolic discourse regarding the United States’ interest in Greenland is mesmerizing. Observers possess strong opinions, and each side considers itself well-versed in matters about Greenland. News stories about President Donald Trump’s rhetoric reveals his administration’s neo-imperialist tendencies, with aspirations to exert global influence and… nothing more. Most commentators believe valuable minerals and national security are the primary reasons for the White House’s interest in Greenland. This is a common, yet inaccurate interpretation of the administration’s true intent.
Analysis of Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent Pituffik Space Base press conference focuses on the bellicosity of his rhetoric and his unwelcome presence in Greenland. Domestic opposition to the Trump administration has led commentators to miss the president’s true intentions in Greenland. Greenland is compelling because it offers strategic control of Arctic maritime choke points essential for accessing global markets, not because of its rare earth minerals or defense posture. The Northern Sea Route, the Northwest Passage, and the forthcoming Transpolar Route represent significant commercial opportunities for global maritime companies seeking efficiencies from a more direct route between Europe and Asia.
Rickety Sea Ice
Greenland is ice. Understanding the ice on land and in the island nation’s waters is crucial for comprehending the Trump administration’s plans for Greenland. The world’s second-largest ice sheet is melting unevenly, and so is the ice in the Arctic Ocean. While the Arctic Ocean’s ice usually freezes during the winter, in recent years it has not frozen as hard or as far south as in the past.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center’s recent findings suggest that the Arctic Ocean may soon become ice-free during the increasingly warm summer months, as multi-year ice disappears and seasonal ice decreases. According to some models, polar amplification, the massive release of methane due to permafrost melting, and a marked decrease in precipitation could create an ice-free Arctic that could happen as early as 2030.
The reduction in summer sea ice combined with the deployment of advanced Russian and Chinese nuclear icebreakers increases the feasibility of the Transpolar Route, a shortcut across the North Pole that would shave thousands of miles off the route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Russia currently operates 34 diesel icebreakers and eight nuclear-powered icebreakers. China has four operational icebreakers. The United States possesses two antiquated ships that require extensive modernization and, in seamen’s terms, might be called “rickety” at best.
A Different Strategic Lens
During his visit to the U.S. Pituffik Space Base on March 28, 2025, Vice President Vance stated that Denmark has not fulfilled its NATO obligation to defend Greenland. He is the highest-ranking U.S. official in history to have visited Greenland, and his presence indicates the administration’s seriousness about asserting control over the island.
The Trump administration does not frame grand strategy through a military lens. It sees it from an economic viewpoint. Therefore, the apparatus of national power comprises not just weapon systems but also economic tools, such as tariffs, taxes, and incentives. In the eyes of the Trump administration, Denmark cannot protect Greenland from competitors like China without the intervention of the United States.
China’s interest in Greenland is primarily economic. Approximately 90% of Greenland’s GDP comes from fishing, with China buying the catch. Nuuk opened a representative office in Beijing in 2023, and in its most recent strategic foreign policy document, the Greenlandic government makes it clear that a strong relationship with China is in the country’s best interests.
While economic competition may pose a threat to the United States’ prosperity, military threats in the Arctic also remain a considerable concern. Advanced missile systems launched from the air, land, sea, or space can reach major North American city centers within minutes if fired over the top of the Earth. This is not a new problem. During the Cold War, the United States and Canada established the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command to watch for Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles coming over the North Pole. Today’s weapons, like fractional orbital bombardment systems and hypersonic cruise missiles, and the progression of China’s nuclear buildup have returned the issue to the forefront. President Trump has called for a “golden dome” missile defense system across the Continental United States. This issue commands serious attention.
Pittufik Space Base plays a significant role in U.S. security. From this remote location, the United States Space Force enacts force protection, space superiority, and scientific research in the region through integrated base support and defense operations. The United States’ adversaries China and Russia possess missile systems that, if fired over the North Pole, could reach major city centers in minutes. The safety that the Pittufik Space Base provides addresses this concern.
The significance of this threat is an all too easy justification for the White House’s designs for Greenland. For decades, the world viewed the Arctic as a low-tension region governed by modern, peaceful governments. Now, due to Russian aggression in Ukraine and the recent presence of its active nuclear-capable northern fleet in the western Arctic, the United States, Canada, and Denmark are investing in domain awareness, including the deployment of low-orbit polar satellite constellations, long-range drones, and uncrewed surface vessels to monitor the region. Enhancing situational awareness is enough. No further security investments are necessary. Proposals for upgrading the Danish Mestervig Airport in eastern Greenland from its current state as a gravel airstrip to accommodate larger aircraft, warships, and military battalions are noteworthy, but not essential.
Rare Earth Minerals—“Dig Baby Dig?”
Access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals is another oft cited but only partially correct reason for President Trump’s desire to control the world’s largest island. While Greenland is rich in rare earth minerals, it is not the only place to find these critical resources; furthermore, the high production costs in such a remote and environmentally sensitive region make Greenland less attractive to companies. Other locations, such as Alaska or Maine, offer more economically viable and environmentally sustainable alternatives for extracting these essential minerals, supporting the needs of the U.S. defense industry and facilitating the evolution toward a greener economy.
Most copper, cobalt, bauxite, lithium, and other valuable minerals come from mines in Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, and the Republic of Congo, not Greenland.
Greenland’s majority-Indigenous population also has a say in natural resource exploitation on their island. Greenlanders seek to balance their country’s economic development with environmental preservation. While the potential financial benefits of mining activities, such as job creation and increased revenue, are undeniable, so is the ecological destruction and social upheaval accompanying such projects.
The Kuannersuit uranium mine in southern Greenland is one such project that, if development continues, could create an influx of rare earth minerals into global markets. This mine would contribute to Greenland’s economy, complementing its seafood and wool exports and growing tourism industry. Mining uranium would generate income quickly, allowing the island to gain independence from Denmark by reducing reliance on subsidies from Copenhagen. However, in November 2021, Greenland’s government, led by the Inuit Ataqatigiit Party, banned uranium mining in where the Kuannersuit site is located in Kvanefjeld. This ban reflects a broader commitment to environmental protection and preserving Indigenous ways of life.
This includes acknowledging their rights to land and resources, ensuring meaningful consultation and participation in decision-making processes, and addressing colonization’s historical and ongoing impacts.
The Real Reason—Artic Ocean Dominance
Beneath the threats of missile attacks and the exploitation of valuable mineral reserves lies the truth about the administration’s desire to control Greenland: that the White House seeks dominance over the Arctic Ocean’s natural maritime chokepoints. During his visit to Greenland, Vice President Vance said, “We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways, in Arctic naval routes, and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories. We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic because we know that if America doesn’t, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind.” Strategic discussions focus on the “minerals” part of this quote. However, they should focus on the language concerning the “Arctic passageways and naval routes,” because that is the real reason the Trump administration finds Greenland so compelling.
The United States Navy ensures the nation’s access to the global ocean commons. Specifically, the Navy ensures freedom of navigation through the world’s strategic maritime chokepoints. Shipping through the Arctic Ocean reduces the shipping time between Europe and Asia from one month to less than two weeks. The fuel, time, and effort cost savings associated with bypassing the Suez Canal are highly appealing to major global shipping companies.
Current events outside the region begin to reveal the true intent of the Trump administration in the Arctic. The six-day blockage of the Suez Canal in 2021, caused by the grounding of the container ship Ever Given, resulted in daily costs of U.S. $10 billion to global trade. The world’s maritime shipping companies do not overlook those losses; they seek ways to avoid them in the future. When President Trump states his desire to reclaim control of the Panama Canal “at all costs” and oversees military actions in the Straits of Hormuz against Houthi rebels attacking merchant vessels and warships, it should garner attention.
President Trump has also issued an executive order “to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.” In the administration’s flurry of directives, it went unnoticed by most outside the shipping industry. The president’s remarks indicate a recommitment to the United States’ maritime dominance strategy based on Mahanian principles of seapower.
Further evidence came on March 14, 2025, when the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) exercised its authority to investigate transit chokepoints, specifically regarding the impact of foreign governments’ laws, regulations, or practices on shipping conditions. The findings of their investigation may reveal that the policies and rules of many foreign governments significantly impact American shipping. The FMC’s announcement lists transit chokepoints, including the Northern Sea Route. This measure uses the law to control global transit constraints, including the Arctic shipping lanes. It further demonstrates why the Trump administration is particularly interested in Greenland. The results of this non-adjudicatory investigation will be revealing.
Conclusion
The strategic importance of Greenland to the United States lies not in its mineral wealth but in its critical position along the Arctic Ocean’s passageways. Greenland’s maritime strategic significance is disregarded by the media in favor of reactivity towards the Trump administration’s provocative statements. Greenland enables the United States to influence Arctic maritime shipping routes and reestablish its dominance in global maritime transit. This, in turn, counterbalances the ambitions of other world powers such as Russia and China. As Arctic ice recedes, the opportunity to navigate and exploit these passages will only increase, highlighting Greenland’s indispensable presence in future geopolitical strategies.
The Trump administration’s interest in Greenland reflects a broader vision of maritime control and the assurance of freedom of navigation through key chokepoints. By prioritizing this region, the administration is signaling its commitment to maintaining America’s maritime supremacy by securing strategic advantages in the evolving Arctic geopolitics landscape. Commentators and analysts need to get over how the message is delivered and instead listen to what is being said. It’s hard to hear through the noise.
LTC (Ret.) Darryl W. Lyon is an interdisciplinary doctoral student who writes and lectures on security issues related to the Atlantic High North. Darryl served in the United States Navy and the Maine Army National Guard and is a graduate of the United States Naval War College (2017). During the last 10 years of his 30-year career, he served as the Maine National Guard’s High North Action Officer. He resides in Bangor, Maine.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.