Adam (00:00.418)  

Welcome back to Simplifying the State. I’m Adam Watson. 

Nicholas (00:03.215)  

I’m Nicholas Perrin 

Adam (00:06.468)  

Nicholas, what do ice fjords, U.S. military bases, and rare earth minerals have in common?  

Nicholas (00:09.295)  

Do they all exist in Alaska?  Adam (00:14.212)  

Maybe the ice and military bases, but that’s not what I was thinking. Another guess?  

Nicholas (00:31.557)  

Greenland.  

Adam (00:34.680)  

Yep. That’s our topic today—the history of Greenland and its relevance today. Nicholas, want to give a rundown on its history?  

Nicholas (00:58.225)  

Greenland is controlled by Denmark, which has ties to Norway. Norse settlers arrived in the 900s and accepted Norwegian rule in 1261, but their settlements were abandoned in the 1400s. Denmark-Norway began permanent settlement in 1721 and later claimed Greenland as a colony. Denmark declared sovereignty in 1921.  

The U.S. has expressed interest in acquiring Greenland multiple times—1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, and 2019. In 1867, the U.S. considered purchasing it alongside Alaska to control Canada’s trade routes, but Denmark rejected the idea. In 1910, the U.S. offered a trade deal involving islands that Denmark could exchange for land lost to Germany, but this was also rejected.  

During the Cold War, the U.S. sought greater influence in Greenland, viewing the Arctic as a strategic region in its rivalry with the Soviet Union. Despite Denmark being a NATO founding member and allowing U.S. bases in Greenland, the U.S. still floated purchase proposals, though none were seriously considered.  

In 2017, billionaire Ron Lauder suggested Donald Trump pursue Greenland through a “back channel” to Denmark. Trump claimed it was his idea and pushed for a deal, citing real estate value and economic potential. He even suggested selling Puerto Rico in exchange for Greenland. His advisors, including Sen. Tom Cotton, argued the real motivation was access to rare earth minerals.  

The U.S. already has significant deposits of these minerals but relies on imports due to the environmental impact of mining. Greenland could provide a source the U.S. government might find more acceptable to exploit.  

How does this connect to today?  

Adam (03:51.214)  

Like you said, President Trump expressed renewed interest in Greenland in December, January, and recently. He also mentioned reacquiring the Panama Canal and making Canada the 51st state.  

There are two key motivations: national security and economic security. As Arctic ice melts, previously inaccessible waters open for navigation. This makes Greenland strategically important, as it sits between two emerging shipping routes—the Northwest Passage through Canada and the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coast. Control over Greenland could provide the U.S. a strategic trade hub.  

Economically, Greenland holds vast rare earth mineral deposits, crucial for producing electric vehicles and military technology. China currently controls about 60% of the global rare earth market. Owning Greenland would give the U.S. greater access to these materials, aiding its transition to green energy. A European report noted Greenland contains many minerals essential for sustainable energy.  

The U.S. may also want more military bases in Greenland, as Russia has traditionally dominated the Arctic.  

Nicholas (08:35.387)  

Despite their name, rare earth metals aren’t actually rare. Mining them is just highly polluting. Could that be why the U.S. would rather acquire Greenland than mine its own deposits?  

Adam (08:47.661)  

Possibly. The U.S. avoids mining rare earths domestically for two reasons: pollution and national security. Maintaining reserves is a safeguard in case foreign supply chains are disrupted. Mining in Greenland could be more politically viable since it’s far from the U.S. mainland.  

Nicholas (09:36.494)  

If the U.S. keeps pressuring Denmark—or even considers military action—how would Europe react?  

Adam (09:50.927)  

Trump hasn’t ruled out force, but NATO has no precedent for one member invading another. If the U.S. attacked Danish territory, it would create a diplomatic crisis. Europe would likely respond with sanctions and tariffs.  

That said, military action is unlikely. Congress would have to approve, and 85% of Greenlanders oppose U.S. control.  

That wraps up our episode on Greenland. Next week, we’ll cover the U.S.-Mexico-Canada relations and recent developments. See you then!