The White House’s foreign policy under President Trump has raised eyebrows for a range of reasons, whether it’s been renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, claiming Canada will be adopted as the 51st state, or making bids to bring Greenland under its control. And that’s before you consider tariffs.

The altered, often unpopular, stance of the Oval Office has led to economic experts like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to question whether Trump’s “America First” policy may end up as “America alone.”

The biggest concern in that scenario is that America’s economic and military allies may turn their backs on the White House and instead look to another foreign powerhouse, China, for support.

Writing in his annual letter to shareholders earlier this year, Dimon explained, “Keeping our alliances together, both militarily and economically, is essential.

“The opposite is precisely what our adversaries want.”

Unfortunately it seems that this is precisely what’s happening when it comes to some political conversations in Greenland, which Trump has threatened to “get” using military force, despite the country being an autonomous territory of Denmark.

“We want to develop our business sector and diversify it, and that requires investments from outside,” said Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business and mineral resources, in an interview with the Financial Times. 

And when asked if that might include working with China, she added, “We do want to partner up with European and American partners. But if they don’t show up I think we need to look elsewhere.”

Trump has long held an interest in Greenland citing “national and international” security concerns, given America’s proximity to the island. The fact that Greenland geographically sits on a potential flight path from the U.S. to Russia is also of note.

But as well as the geographic proximity to the U.S., Greenland is also home to a wealth of untapped raw materials, including 25 of the 34 materials that Europe deems “critical” materials.

The Trump 2.0 team has made its interest in securing such assets clear, having signed a deal with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky on precisely this issue in order to secure a military partnership between the two.

To make matters more complex, Nathanielsen told the FT a memorandum of understanding on mineral development with the U.S. is due to expire soon, having first been signed under the previous Trump administration.

She added, “We sort of hoped that the Trump administration would be more willing to engage in dialogue with Greenland about the mineral sector development. We got a bit more than we asked for, because we have no wish to be American.”

Of course, with heightened tensions between the U.S. and China at present, the latter nation may not want to rock the boat any further and risk a return to April’s tit-for-tat trade war.

China may be resistant to sign a deal with Greenland precisely because officials don’t want to “provoke” anything, added Nathanielsen.

Picking a side

Trump’s comments about folding Greenland into America are “disrespectful and distasteful,” the Greenland minister added.

Her view is fitting with the vast majority of her peers, with a January poll finding 85% of people on the island didn’t wish to be part of the United States.

Trump’s political ally and major donor, DOGE boss Elon Musk, has also said he “hoped” the people of Greenland would want to join the U.S. and would be “welcome” if they did. The survey conducted by pollster Verian, commissioned by the Danish newspaper Berlingske earlier this year, found that just 6% of Greenland’s population wanted to join America.

Trump’s lobbying was accompanied by a visit to Greenland by one of his sons, Donald Trump Jr., which was criticized by some lawmakers in the country.

But the nation will be conscious that despite its apparent distaste for Trump’s tactics, it does not want to burn bridges with its close military and economic ally.

As Nathanielsen put it, “We are trying to figure out, what does the new world order look like? In those terms, Chinese investment is of course problematic, but so, to some extent, is American.”