When President Donald Trump revived his controversial push to acquire Greenland, the proposal was widely dismissed by critics as geopolitical theater-an audacious headline-grabbing maneuver with little grounding in diplomatic reality. Yet beneath the rhetoric about national security and Arctic dominance, a quieter and more consequential story has been unfolding. While Trump publicly floated the idea of taking Greenland “one way or the other,” several figures drawn from his personal, political, and business orbit were already positioning themselves within Greenland’s emerging rare earth minerals sector.

This convergence of presidential ambition, national security rhetoric, and private commercial interests has raised profound ethical questions. At its core is a small network of Trump administration officials and Trump Organization executives whose activities suggest that the renewed US focus on Greenland may be about more than strategy alone. Instead, critics argue, it reflects a familiar pattern in Trump-era governance: the blurring of public power and private gain.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is home to just 57,000 people but occupies an outsized role in global geopolitics. Situated in the Arctic Circle, it commands key shipping routes increasingly opened by climate change and contains significant deposits of rare earth elements-minerals essential for renewable energy technologies, advanced electronics, and modern weapons systems.

China has aggressively pursued control over global rare earth supply chains, prompting Washington to identify alternative sources as a national security priority. Greenland’s mineral wealth, therefore, sits at the intersection of economic opportunity and strategic anxiety.

Trump has repeatedly framed his interest in Greenland in these terms. In March 2025, he told Congress, “One way or the other, we’re going to get it,” explicitly citing minerals and Arctic security. But Greenland’s elected leaders-and Denmark, which has governed the territory since 1721-have categorically rejected any notion of a US takeover. Public opinion in Greenland similarly opposes incorporation into the United States.

Despite this resistance, Trump and his allies have persisted, pushing the issue deeper into diplomatic, military, and commercial channels.

Central to the unfolding controversy is a company known as GreenMet, the trade name of Greentech Minerals Holdings Inc. In April 2025, GreenMet announced a strategic partnership with Tanbreez Mining........

© Blitz