After the U.S. military operation against Venezuela, U.S. President Donald Trump made it clear that he has other countries in his sights. Alongside threats directed at Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico, he declared that the United States must also control Greenland — for the sake of “national security.” Since Trump’s first term, some of the world’s richest people, including Ronald Lauder, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Michael Bloomberg, have been investing strategically in projects on the island. That raises a number of questions.
According to John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser and now a critic, the idea of buying Greenland first emerged in late 2018. The trigger was not an internal strategy paper, but a suggestion from businessman Ronald Lauder, heir to the Estée Lauder fortune. Lauder has long been considered a major financier of conservative politics in the United States and also supported Trump’s political campaigns financially.
Lauder did not limit himself to internal discussions. He made his interest in Greenland public and, in an opinion piece for the New York Post, argued for stronger U.S. influence over the island. He also began investing. According to investigations by the Danish newspaper Politiken, Lauder took a stake in a Greenlandic company that bottles fresh water, even though the business is considered economically unsuccessful. The explosive element is the personal proximity: a co-owner is Jørgen Wæver Johansen, the local chairman of the governing party Siumut in the capital Nuuk and the husband of Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt. This raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Bezos, Gates, Bloomberg, Altman: Billionaires search for raw materials
Other billionaires turned their attention to Greenland’s natural resources. From 2019 onward, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Michael Bloomberg invested in the start-up KoBold Metals. The company searches the island for critical raw materials needed for electronics and battery technology, using AI-supported exploration methods.
These investments came after Trump had publicly spoken about a possible “purchase” of Greenland. The investments were made through Breakthrough Energy Ventures, which Gates co-founded. Breakthrough Energy also participated in a later financing round in December 2024, when KoBold Metals raised fresh capital and was valued at just under three billion dollars.
In 2022, another prominent investor joined in. Sam Altman invested via his venture fund Apollo Projects in a financing round. None of the billionaires involved commented publicly on the possible connections.
Plans for a “Freedom City”: A special zone without state rules
Alongside raw materials, a second idea is circulating that goes even further politically. According to Reuters, investors from the Silicon Valley ecosystem are discussing Greenland as a potential location for a so-called “Freedom City.” The term refers to a largely deregulated model city that would sideline key state responsibilities and severely limit political oversight by democratic institutions. According to Reuters, the talks are still at an early stage, but they are being taken seriously in Trump’s circle.
A key role is played by Ken Howery, Trump’s ambassador to Denmark, who has been in office since November 2025. Howery co-founded the investment firm Founders Fund built by Peter Thiel and is considered a close friend of Elon Musk. According to Forbes, Thiel supported the start-up “Praxis” in early 2021, which aims to build a largely deregulated model city and also examined Greenland as a possible location.
The concepts under discussion range from AI centers and autonomous vehicles to new infrastructure. They draw on libertarian ideas of so-called “Freedom Cities,” internationally also referred to as charter cities. Donald Trump had already announced the creation of such cities during his election campaign.
Provocations from the White House
After the U.S. military operation in Venezuela, President Donald Trump said that the United States “needs Greenland” for reasons of national security. He argued that Washington must prevent Russia or China from expanding their influence in the Arctic. Observers, however, note that there is no publicly verifiable evidence of an acute shift in the balance of power around Greenland and therefore view the argument primarily as a strategic framing for U.S. geopolitical ambitions.
Further irritation was caused by a post from Trump’s inner circle. Katie Miller, the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, shared a map of Greenland in U.S. flag colors on X, accompanied by the word “SOON.”
At the same time, reports emerged that the U.S. government is once again examining the possibility of buying Greenland. According to a Reuters report, internal discussions even included offering one-time payments of between 10,000 and 100,000 U.S. dollars to each of the roughly 57,000 inhabitants in order to gain support for such a move. The plan has not been officially confirmed.
Elon Musk had already commented on the issue last year. In 2025, he wrote on X that the people of Greenland would be welcome in the United States should they decide to join.
The Greenlandic government firmly rejected the latest statements and speculation from Washington. In a statement, it made clear that neither a sale of the island nor an accession to the United States was under discussion. Copenhagen also responded clearly: the Danish government emphasized that Greenland is not an object of geopolitical negotiations. This position received support from Europe as well. Several EU states underlined Greenland’s sovereignty and stressed that only the Greenlandic population itself should decide the island’s future. Polls show a clear majority against joining the United States.
Growing U.S. presence in Greenland
Criticism is also coming from experts. Arctic specialist Marc Jacobsen of the Royal Danish Defence College considers Lauder’s involvement in Greenland’s fresh water bottling business to be economically insignificant. What matters less is the business model than the institutional environment in which such stakes are embedded. It becomes problematic where economic interests coincide with direct access to the political leadership — for example, when investor structures extend into the government’s closest circles. In this light, the growing U.S. presence in Greenland, such as new direct flights to Nuuk, appears less like a purely tourism-driven development and more like part of a complex web of influence, political proximity, and strategic interest that is difficult to disentangle.
Trump’s grab for Greenland therefore appears less like a spontaneous obsession. Behind the political escalation are actors with clear interests: access to raw materials, geopolitical influence, and experiments with new economic and social models.
The rights to the content remain with the original publisher.
Post Views: 4
