How to get what Greenland has, with permission

Summary of How to get what Greenland has, with permission

by NPR

27m•February 18, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of How to get what Greenland has, with permission (Planet Money, NPR)

This episode examines why Greenland suddenly became headline news, what the island actually offers (rare earth minerals and strategic geography), how the United States lost its edge in the rare‑earths supply chain, and why seizing Greenland would be unnecessary, impractical, and diplomatically costly. Experts interviewed include Gracelyn Baskin (critical minerals economist) and Daniel Immerwahr (author of How to Hide an Empire). The episode explains realistic alternatives to conquest: trade, partnerships, infrastructure investment, and expanded—but negotiated—military presence.

Key points and main takeaways

  • Greenland is geopolitically valuable (between the U.S., Russia and Europe) and contains accessible deposits of heavy rare earth elements—critical for electronics and defense systems.
  • The U.S. is dependent on China for processed rare earths: roughly 90% of global processing occurs in China, creating supply‑chain vulnerability.
  • Greenland’s rare earths are not a short‑term fix: extraction would require massive infrastructure, decades of development, and extremely high costs.
  • Controlling the geology alone isn’t enough; processing capacity and technology matter. Mineral security requires international partnerships and diversified supply chains, not unilateral ownership.
  • The United States already has significant—and relatively unrestricted—military access to Greenland for defense purposes and could expand bases with permission rather than attempting to buy or seize territory.
  • Greenlanders and Danish authorities are not interested in being sold; Greenlanders emphasize sovereignty, indigenous stewardship of land, and cautious, negotiated partnerships.

Why Greenland matters

  • Minerals: Greenland has deposits of heavy rare earth elements (e.g., dysprosium, terbium)—materials essential for magnets, electronics, and military hardware. Heavy rare earths are geologically rarer than the “light” rare earths the U.S. has domestically.
  • Geography: Greenland sits on strategic Arctic shipping and missile trajectories; its location is important for early warning, missile defense, and Arctic operations as ice melts.
  • Population & governance: Greenland has ~56–57k residents, is mostly Inuit, self‑governing within the Kingdom of Denmark, and follows traditions that treat land as shared rather than privately owned.

How the U.S. fell behind in rare earths

  • Historical shift: The U.S. led rare‑earth production from the 1950s to mid‑1980s but stepped back as China invested heavily in mining and processing.
  • Policy choices: The U.S. closed the Bureau of Mines (1996) and deprioritized minerals as strategic industry for decades.
  • Result: China now dominates refining and processing; export restrictions (real or threatened) have caused real disruptions (e.g., manufacturing halts during recent trade tensions).

China’s approach vs. a U.S. rush to buy territory

  • China’s strategy: Long‑term infrastructure investment and financing (soft power) to build footholds—not abrupt annexation. In Greenland, China has pursued airport and port projects and signed processing agreements tied to mining projects.
  • U.S. temptation: Political rhetoric about buying or seizing Greenland surfaced, but experts say such moves would be unnecessary and damaging.
  • Practical reality: China’s presence in Greenland and elsewhere is best countered by diplomatic investment and competitive offers, not by coercion.

Why taking Greenland would not solve the U.S. mineral/security problem

Three main reasons Gracelyn Baskin gives:

  1. Greenland is willing to partner with the U.S.: Greenland and Denmark have shown a preference for Western partnerships; the U.S. already has memoranda of understanding and private investment to ward off unwanted bidders.
  2. Timescale & cost: Developing Greenland’s deposits (under ice, with almost no existing infrastructure) would take decades and huge investment—possibly orders of magnitude higher than surface estimates.
  3. Processing & technological capacity: Even if the U.S. controlled Greenland’s geology, it would still need globalized processing technology and facilities. Mineral security requires a chain (mining + processing + manufacturing), which no single country can fully internalize.

Military presence and historical context

  • The U.S. already has significant military facilities and long‑standing defense access in Greenland (used for missile warning, defense, space surveillance).
  • Daniel Immerwahr explains how modern imperial reach often comes through bases and negotiated rights rather than formal annexation. Bases can grant near‑sovereign control over operations without changing formal territorial ownership.
  • Historically, the U.S. acquired territory both by purchase and by force; post–World War II international norms have made outright acquisition of inhabited territories far less acceptable.

Greenlandic and Indigenous perspectives

  • Greenlanders interviewed stress agency: they are not passive objects of geopolitics and prioritize sustained, fair trade relationships.
  • Land tenure in Greenland: private land ownership does not exist; land is governed by collective/indigenous norms and permitting regimes, complicating any foreign effort to "buy" land outright.
  • Concern is broader than local economics—Greenlanders worry about global norms, security, and the precedent of powerful countries claiming others’ territories.

Risks and implications

  • Attempting to buy or seize territory would damage alliances, violate norms, and likely increase global instability—possibly accelerating the very scramble for resources it seeks to prevent.
  • Mineral nationalism (trying to lock away resources) would not be a practical path to long‑term security and might undermine supply chains rather than strengthen them.
  • The political spectacle of wanting Greenland has already raised concerns about respect for sovereignty and the stability of international order.

Practical alternatives and recommended approaches (implied by experts)

  • Diversify supply chains: partner with multiple mining countries (Australia, Canada, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India) and build processing capacity across allies.
  • Invest in domestic processing and R&D for refining, recycling, and substitution of critical minerals.
  • Use diplomacy and soft power: infrastructure investment, mutually beneficial deals, and scientific partnerships with Greenland and other Arctic states.
  • Expand negotiated defense cooperation and bases (with Greenland and Denmark) when needed—no annexation required.
  • Respect Greenlandic sovereignty and indigenous governance: pursue partnerships that include local consent, benefits, and environmental safeguards.

Notable lines / soundbites

  • “For how valuable these rocks are, they look...very gray. They just look like gravel.” — Gracelyn Baskin (on what rare earths look like).
  • “Just because you have geology doesn’t mean you have mineral security.” — Gracelyn Baskin.
  • “We are not passive spectators... We are good tradespeople.” — Zaha Olsvig (Greenlandic parliamentarian / Inuit representative).

Bottom line

Greenland has geostrategic location and valuable heavy rare earths, but seizing it would be legally, morally, and practically unnecessary. Mineral and security resilience for the U.S. depend on diversified partnerships, industrial capacity (especially processing), diplomatic engagement, and working with—not overriding—Greenlandic and Danish authorities.