Trump’s Strategic Focus on Critical Minerals in Greenland, Canada, and Ukraine

Introduction

In the first weeks of his second term, President Donald Trump’s administration has pursued a foreign policy marked by unilateral executive actions, geopolitical brinkmanship, and a focus on securing access to strategic resources.

A critical throughline in this agenda is the pursuit of critical minerals—resources essential for advanced technologies, military infrastructure, and clean energy transitions.

Although geographically and politically distinct, Greenland, Canada, and Ukraine share a common thread: they are all targets of Trump’s efforts to secure mineral wealth as part of a broader strategy to reduce U.S. reliance on China and reassert American dominance in global supply chains.

The Geopolitical Imperative of Critical Minerals

Critical minerals, including lithium, titanium, uranium, rare earth elements (REEs), and graphite, are indispensable for modern industries.

These resources power everything from electric vehicle (EV) batteries and semiconductors to missile systems and renewable energy infrastructure.

China currently dominates global processing and supply chains for these minerals, controlling over 90% of rare earth element production and leveraging this dominance as geopolitical leverage.

The Trump administration views this dependency as a national security vulnerability, prompting aggressive efforts to diversify sourcing through partnerships—and confrontations—with resource-rich nations.

This strategy aligns with the Project 2025 blueprint, a conservative policy agenda Trump initially distanced himself from during the 2024 campaign but has since embraced.

The plan emphasizes “energy dominance” and restructuring global supply chains to favor U.S. interests, often at the expense of diplomatic norms.

Greenland: The Arctic’s Untapped Mineral Frontier

Greenland’s vast, underexplored mineral deposits have made it a focal point of Trump’s resource-driven foreign policy.

The island holds significant reserves of copper, nickel, rare earth elements, and gold, with an untapped potential estimated in the trillions of dollars. In January 2025,

Trump reignited his 2019 bid to “purchase” Greenland, framing it as “economic security” despite Denmark’s repeated rejections.

The administration’s interest is not merely symbolic. Greenland’s rare earth deposits, particularly in the southern Nalunaq region, could provide alternatives to Chinese-controlled supplies.

For instance, the Kvanefjeld project alone holds over 1 million tons of rare earth oxides, essential for wind turbines and EV motors.

However, exploitation faces challenges: harsh Arctic conditions, environmental concerns, and Greenland’s push for greater autonomy complicate U.S. ambitions.

Trump’s approach has drawn criticism for its transactional tone. The administration risks alienating Greenlandic leaders and undermining long-term partnerships by prioritizing resource extraction over diplomatic engagement.

Canada: Tensions Over Shared Resources and Sovereignty

Canada, a traditional U.S. ally, has been in Trump’s crosshairs due to its lithium, cobalt, and uranium reserves.

The Great White North holds 2.6% of global lithium reserves and is a key supplier of uranium for U.S. nuclear reactors.

However, Trump’s rhetoric—including threats to annex Canada as the “51st state”—has strained relations, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dismissing the remarks as “dangerous nonsense.”

The friction stems from competing visions of resource management. Canada has prioritized partnerships with European and Asian allies to build EV battery supply chains. At the same time, the Trump administration seeks to redirect these resources toward U.S. industries via tariffs and coercive deals.

For example, Trump’s proposed “minerals-for-security” arrangement would link Canadian critical mineral exports to continued defense cooperation, a move critics argue undermines Canadian sovereignty.

Domestic politics further complicate matters. Canadian provinces like Québec and Ontario have resisted U.S. pressure to fast-track mining permits, citing environmental and Indigenous rights concerns.

Ukraine: A Prize Amidst Conflict

Ukraine’s mineral wealth has become a bargaining chip in Trump’s efforts to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

The country holds 22 of 34 minerals deemed critical by the EU, including 20% of the world’s graphite reserves, 30% of titanium, and substantial lithium deposits.

These resources are vital for aerospace, defense, and battery industries, making Ukraine a strategic target for U.S. interests.

In February 2025, Trump pressured Kyiv to sign a $500 billion minerals deal for military aid, demanding rights to future revenue from Ukrainian resources.

Though the final agreement omitted direct profit-sharing, it granted U.S. companies preferential access to mining projects in postwar Ukraine.

Critics argue this arrangement exploits Ukraine’s vulnerability, as 20% of its mineral-rich territories remain under Russian occupation.

The deal also serves Trump’s broader goal of countering China. By securing Ukrainian gallium (used in radar systems) and lithium, the U.S. aims to bypass Chinese export restrictions imposed in response to Trump’s tariffs.

However, analysts caution that developing Ukraine’s mining sector could take decades, given infrastructure deficits and ongoing conflict.

A Coherent Strategy or Chaotic Opportunism?

Trump’s focus on critical minerals reflects a calculated—if controversial—strategy to reshape global supply chains. By targeting Greenland, Canada, and Ukraine, the administration seeks to

Reduce Reliance on China: Diversifying mineral sources mitigates risks posed by Beijing’s export controls, such as its 2024 ban on gallium shipments to the U.S.

Boost Domestic Manufacturing: Access to raw materials supports Trump’s “America First” agenda, particularly in EVs and defense sectors.

Leverage Geopolitical Crises: The Ukraine deal exemplifies Trump’s willingness to extract concessions from nations dependent on U.S. support.

However, the approach has drawn bipartisan criticism. Legal scholars argue that Trump’s unilateral executive orders—such as redefining birthright citizenship and dismantling diversity initiatives—overreach presidential authority. Internationally, allies perceive his tactics as exploitative, risking long-term diplomatic fallout.

Controversies and Legal Challenges

The administration’s aggressive posture has sparked a backlash:

Greenland

Danish officials condemned Trump’s territorial claims as “neo-colonial,” while Greenlandic leaders reaffirmed their commitment to self-governance.

Canada

Proposed tariffs on critical Canadian minerals face opposition from U.S. manufacturers reliant on cross-border supply chains.

Ukraine

The minerals deal lacks security guarantees for Kyiv, raising concerns that Trump prioritizes resource extraction over Ukrainian sovereignty.

Legal challenges have already emerged. Federal judges blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order, citing violations of the 14th Amendment, while watchdog groups sued the administration over transparency violations.

Conclusion

Minerals as a New Currency of Power

Trump’s chaotic agenda underscores a paradigm shift in global politics: critical minerals have become the new currency of power.

By targeting Greenland, Canada, and Ukraine, the administration aims to secure resources vital for 21st-century industries while diminishing China’s influence.

Yet this strategy carries significant risks—diplomatic alienation, legal entanglements, and the perpetuation of resource-driven conflicts.

The coming years will test whether Trump’s transactional approach can yield sustainable benefits or further destabilize international relations.

As the race for critical minerals intensifies, the U.S. must balance strategic interests with ethical stewardship—a challenge this administration has yet to confront fully.