Rare earths and geopolitics: Why Trump wants Greenland and what it means for Alaska

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday he has “formed the framework of a future deal” on Greenland following meetings with NATO leadership, while also ruling out military force to acquire the Danish territory. The announcement signals a strategic shift in his approach, even as tensions with U.S. Arctic allies remain strained over his aggressive pursuit of control over the resource-rich island.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump doubled down on his interest in Greenland as part of broader Arctic security strategy, though he acknowledged the long-term nature of any potential agreement.

“It’s a long-term deal. It’s the ultimate long-term deal, and I think it puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security and minerals and everything else,” Trump said.

De-escalation after heated rhetoric

Trump’s announcement that he would roll back threatened tariffs on NATO countries that opposed his Greenland ambitions represents a significant cooling of rhetoric that has dominated discussion for weeks, according to security experts.

Cameron Carlson, dean of the College of Business and Security Management at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, characterized the shift as a necessary step toward restoring international relationships damaged by the president’s aggressive posture.

“I think it’s a signaling to the recognition that President Trump has been able to bring things to a very heated boil,” Carlson said. “Having the rhetoric basically start to cool down, that we will not take military action as he indicated while he was there in Davos, is a tremendous step forward in the relations that we have with our fellow Arctic countries.”

Carlson cautioned that damage to diplomatic relationships with Europe and NATO remains significant.

“I think it’s globally important as well that this starts to basically de-escalate to the point where more focused discussions can take place in terms of how we actually can work with Greenland,” he said.

The Strategic Interest: Rare Earth Minerals and Security

While Trump has emphasized security concerns in Greenland, Carlson said the economic dimension—particularly access to rare earth minerals—appears to be the real driving force behind U.S. interest.

“From an economic perspective, it clearly blunts our ability to partner with countries that are in the region, not just Greenland, but Denmark as well,” Carlson said. “There is a real spillover potential for Alaska in terms of defense spending.”

The Trump administration’s focus on rare earths reflects broader geopolitical competition with China, which currently dominates the global market for these critical minerals essential to modern technology. Carlson explained the stakes.

“Everything that we have come to depend on today, whether it is our cell phone, our computer, our televisions, our automobiles, everything is highly dependent upon our ability to access rare earths.”

Unlike precious metals with concentrated deposits, rare earths require extensive extraction and processing across large areas to yield relatively small amounts of usable material—a process that can take decades and carries significant environmental consequences.

Alaska’s Role and the Golden Dome

Carlson stressed that what makes the United States an Arctic actor is not Washington, but Alaska’s geographic position.

“While that may seem very commonsensical to individuals that live here in Alaska, if you were to look at the lower 48, some individuals would probably say, ‘I failed to see what the real interests of the United States are,’” he said.

Alaska’s strategic importance stems from its vast territory, proximity to Russia, and control over shipping through the Bering Strait—factors that could position the state as a hub for Arctic security infrastructure.

This context makes the “Golden Dome,” a $175 billion missile defense system sponsored by Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, a potential “win” for the Trump administration that would also benefit Alaska, according to Carlson.

“Having infrastructure developed here would be a win for the Trump Administration,” Carlson said. “It would likewise be a big win for us in a security context as well, nationally, as it would be for our allies within NATO and our Arctic partners.”

Carlson suggested the Golden Dome represents an alternative pathway forward, noting that, “Alaska is going to be a key component of what we do or what we end up doing when it comes to the Golden Dome,” and could serve as “an off ramp to this where we realize some of the benefit of what will happen in that economic development.”

The Greenland Sovereignty Question

The people of Greenland complicated the rare earth equation when they voted against a mining project in recent elections, signaling their preference for environmental protection over resource extraction. Greenland is not for sale, both the territory and its parent country Denmark have made clear.

Carlson acknowledged this reality.

“They are a sovereign nation, and they have the ability, as they should, for self-determination,” he said. “They have made it very, very clear that that is not for sale, that they want to determine what is going to be in the best interest of them and the territory that they are on over the long term.”

Even if the Trump administration views a dramatic deal as a win, Carlson says any path forward requires carefully navigating partnership with Greenland’s citizens.

“They’re going to have to very carefully navigate that process of taking a look at what it takes to basically partner with the citizens of Greenland if they really want to extract these rare earths and get access to this over the long term,” Carlson said.

A Path Forward

Carlson outlined what he sees as the best outcome: restoration of civil discourse and partnership with NATO, Denmark, and Greenland to develop resource-sharing arrangements that benefit all parties—though perhaps not in the near term.

“I think the easy win that the president could basically determine from this point is that he looks at Arctic security and reinvests in what some of the capabilities are that would provide that umbrella of Arctic security, not only within Greenland, but here in Alaska as well,” Carlson said.

Editor’s note: The Associated Press contributed to this report

Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.