Former CIA Operative Claims Trump’s Greenland Push Is Really About Arctic Power and Critical Minerals

Donald Trump really wants Greenland.

But why? That question has baffled politicians, analysts, and critics—and it has fueled nonstop speculation.

Now, a former CIA spy is weighing in.

A former CIA covert operations officer is offering fresh perspective on what many describe as one of the strangest geopolitical storylines in years: Donald Trump’s escalating push to take control of Greenland, including comments that have even raised the possibility of military force.

Andrew Bustamante, a former U.S. Air Force officer and CIA operative, says Trump’s interest in the massive Arctic island goes far beyond what is being openly discussed, and that the underlying motivations may be far more straightforward than the public debate suggests.

Trump’s tariff threats

The Greenland controversy intensified recently after Trump threatened to impose tariffs on the United Kingdom and seven other European countries unless the United States is allowed to purchase the island, which is governed by Denmark.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer pushed back during a national press conference, calling the tariff threats “wrong” and emphasizing that only Greenland and Denmark “have the right to decide what happens to the territory.”

Trump has refused to soften his stance. He continues to insist Greenland is essential for “national security,” while warning the US could acquire it “the easy way” or “the hard way”—language that has raised concerns across NATO.

Greenlanders have already rejected the idea of becoming part of the United States. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll also indicates that only one in five Americans support Trump’s effort to acquire Greenland.

A former CIA officer explains

In comments to The Express, Andrew Bustamante laid out what he believes is driving Trump’s fixation, arguing it comes down to power, resources, and the Arctic’s future.

He said: “American dominance in the Arctic is critical to American primacy. And that’s the argument for Greenland.

The second argument for Greenland is the importance of American economic independence in the use of not only strategic critical use minerals or rare earth minerals, but also critical minerals.

So the minerals that are required for economic development, as well as the rare earth minerals that are required for military advancement and weaponization, both of those exist in Greenland with the benefit of global warming, which is making more and more of Greenland accessible.

So there is a very real American interest in taking some control over the resources that are in Greenland. However, there is no legal, even by American standards, there’s no legal precedent for us to take it by force. So, what does that mean?

I think there’s a very real chance that the United States strikes an economic deal with the independent parties in Greenland that already want independence.”

Trump, for his part, has repeatedly been told that Greenland is not for sale.

A quiet workaround instead?

Rather than a dramatic military confrontation or a headline-grabbing diplomatic showdown, Bustamante believes Washington could pursue a more subtle route—one that effectively works around Denmark.

He explained: “So the United States will take control of the parts of Greenland that it wants, and I think it will find a way to do so without undermining NATO.

However, I don’t see an outcome where Denmark is happy. I see an outcome where Greenlanders are happier than, you know, than their parent company or their parent country. But it’s a very difficult, very difficult thing to predict. How fast, in what ways, et cetera. But we can’t, it’s not something that’s just gonna be forgotten.”

Bustamante argues that taking Greenland by force would have no legal foundation and would severely damage US commitments to NATO. Still, he suggests that sustained uncertainty—and the pressure it creates—may itself be useful to Trump’s strategy.

He added: “There’s no case for them to try to, you know, break their commitment to NATO by moving aggressively, politically or militarily, against the NATO allied, essentially, protectorate. So it’s a very strange and confusing situation.”

Why Greenland matters so much

Greenland’s location makes it strategically significant. Positioned between North America and the Arctic, it is well placed for missile detection systems and maritime surveillance.

But what lies beneath the ice is also drawing intense interest. Greenland is believed to hold major reserves of uranium, iron, rare earth minerals, and potentially oil and gas—resources that could influence global power for decades.

Even so, Trump has insisted the push is not about minerals, saying his interest is strictly about “national security.”

Earlier this year, JD Vance visited a US military base in Greenland, adding to speculation that long-term planning may already be underway.

Why the controversy may fade

Bustamante believes Trump understands the media cycle—and how to use it. He does not expect Greenland to dominate headlines indefinitely, particularly if agreements are pursued quietly and finalized out of public view.

As Bustamante put it: “But right now, he has a chance to basically continue to assert his power, strategic ambiguity because of his demonstration of power in Venezuela, so why not milk that for all it’s worth and make people wonder whether or not they should just kowtow to his demands in Greenland?”