Why Greenland Matters to the United States, and Why Some People Are Sceptical

8 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Greenland has become an increasingly prominent part of global geopolitical discussion, particularly in relation to the United States. On the surface, the interest can appear puzzling. Greenland has a small population, harsh conditions, and limited infrastructure. Yet for Washington, it represents one of the most strategically significant territories in the world.

Snow-covered mountains and rocky peaks rise above a deep blue sea, under a clear sky, creating a serene and majestic landscape.

At the same time, recent events elsewhere have led many observers to question whether security alone explains American interest in regions rich in natural resources. Greenland now sits at the intersection of strategic necessity and public scepticism.

Greenland’s strategic importance to US security

The primary and most consistently stated reason for US interest in Greenland is security.

Greenland occupies a crucial geographic position between North America and Europe. It sits along the shortest route for ballistic missiles travelling between Russia and the United States. This makes it essential for early warning systems and missile defence.

The US has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the Second World War. Today, Pituffik Space Base plays a key role in monitoring missile launches, tracking satellites, and supporting NATO defence architecture. These systems are designed to protect not only the United States but also its allies.

As Arctic ice continues to melt, the region is becoming more accessible to military and commercial activity. Russia has expanded its Arctic bases, and China has declared itself a near-Arctic state. From Washington’s perspective, maintaining influence in Greenland helps prevent rivals from gaining a foothold in a region that directly affects North Atlantic security.

The Arctic, climate change, and future competition

Climate change has transformed Greenland’s relevance. What was once largely inaccessible is now opening up.

New shipping routes could shorten trade paths between Asia, Europe, and North America. Scientific research, undersea cables, and surveillance infrastructure are all becoming more viable. Greenland’s location places it at the centre of these emerging routes.

For the United States, this makes Greenland less of a remote territory and more of a forward position in an increasingly contested region.

Red Mobil barrel secured with ropes on wood structure, against a cloudy sky. Blue pipes and rusty metal bar in background.

Oil and resource speculation as a secondary factor

While security dominates official policy discussions, resource speculation is often raised as an additional reason for interest in Greenland.

Greenland is believed to hold potential offshore oil and gas reserves, as well as deposits of rare earth elements, lithium, graphite, and other critical minerals. These materials are essential for electronics, renewable energy systems, and defence technologies.

It is important to note that Greenland currently restricts new oil and gas exploration licences, largely due to environmental concerns. Large-scale extraction remains difficult, expensive, and politically sensitive.

For the United States, oil is not a strategic necessity in Greenland. The country is already one of the world’s largest oil producers. However, critical minerals are a longer-term concern. The US remains heavily dependent on foreign supply chains, particularly from China, for many of these materials.

This makes Greenland attractive as a potential future partner rather than an immediate resource solution.

Why scepticism exists

Despite official explanations, scepticism persists, and not without reason.

In recent years, the United States has taken highly visible actions elsewhere that involved control over oil production and transport. These actions have reinforced a long-standing public perception that resource interests sometimes sit beneath security justifications.

The Iraq War remains a powerful reference point. Although the official rationale focused on weapons and security threats, the protection and control of oil fields became a defining feature of the conflict in the public imagination. That perception continues to shape how many people interpret US foreign policy today.

More recently, actions involving sanctions, tanker seizures, and control of oil revenues in other regions have revived these concerns. When military or economic pressure coincides with resource-rich territories, scepticism follows.

Against this backdrop, even legitimate security interests can be viewed through a lens of historical mistrust.

Greenland is not Iraq, but history shapes perception

Greenland differs significantly from past conflict zones. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. The United States does not dispute Danish sovereignty and has repeatedly stated that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people.

US engagement in Greenland has focused on diplomacy, scientific cooperation, and defence partnerships rather than intervention. There has been no military conflict, no occupation, and no attempt to forcibly extract resources.

However, history matters. Public opinion is shaped not only by current actions but by patterns over time. When people see strategic interest combined with resource potential, they naturally draw comparisons.

Denmark’s role as a stabilising factor

Denmark plays a crucial role in shaping how Greenland is engaged internationally. As the sovereign state responsible for defence and foreign policy, Denmark ensures that US involvement occurs within established legal and diplomatic frameworks.

This partnership reduces the likelihood of unilateral action and helps keep Greenland’s development aligned with environmental standards and local governance.

The broader reality

Greenland’s importance to the United States is real, and it is primarily rooted in geography and defence. Resource speculation exists, but it is not the driving force behind current policy.

At the same time, scepticism is understandable. History has taught many people to question official narratives when strategic interests and natural resources overlap.

The truth lies in the tension between these two realities. Greenland matters because of where it is, what it enables, and what it may one day provide. How it is treated will determine whether it becomes a model of cooperation or another chapter in a long story of mistrust.

Greenland is not a prize to be taken, but a partner to be engaged. Whether that distinction holds in the long term will depend not just on policy statements, but on actions.

In a world shaped by climate change, great power competition, and historical memory, even legitimate interests must contend with the weight of the past.

Current Most Read

Why Netflix Is Circling Warner Bros, and How a Century-Old Studio Reached This Point

What Christmas 2025 Revealed About the Future of Consoles

Meta (Facebook) Under Fire Again: Why the Tech Giant Faces a New Wave of Privacy Lawsuits

Paul Francis
Aug 6, 2025
4 min read

Once again, Meta is in the spotlight, and not for the reasons it might hope. This time, it finds itself under renewed legal and regulatory scrutiny across both the UK and United States, as fresh allegations emerge about its continued tracking of user data without full consent. Despite previous fines and public outcry, the tech giant behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp is facing a storm that may be more difficult to weather.

New Legal Pressure in the United States

In the US, Meta is currently facing multiple class action lawsuits, many of which revolve around privacy breaches, exploitative platform design, and the targeting of young users.

One of the most prominent ongoing cases was filed in 2023 by dozens of US states. The lawsuit accuses Meta of deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that exploit young users' psychological vulnerabilities, encouraging addictive use of the platforms. The company is alleged to have known about the harm these features could cause, particularly to teenage mental health, but did little to change the design.

Another class action is gaining traction over the unauthorised tracking of user behaviour on third-party websites. This includes the alleged misuse of tracking pixels to collect data even when users are not logged into Meta’s platforms. Users claim they were unaware that their health, financial, or browsing information was being collected in the background.

These lawsuits follow in the wake of a $725 million settlement Meta agreed to pay in 2022 over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The current cases suggest that regulatory and legal appetite for holding Big Tech accountable is only increasing.

Investigations and Pressure in the UK

Facebook app icon with a red notification badge showing "3" on a smartphone screen. Adjacent icons partially visible.

Across the Atlantic, Meta is facing scrutiny from the UK’s Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Though details of ongoing investigations remain confidential, the ICO has expressed growing concern about the use of data tracking in digital advertising. The regulator is reportedly investigating whether Meta’s ad targeting systems and platform architecture violate UK privacy laws, especially in light of recent Online Safety Act provisions.

In addition, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched probes into how Meta collects and uses consumer data, particularly around its growing integration with virtual and augmented reality services.

The UK’s appetite for action follows similar moves in the European Union. In 2023, Ireland’s Data Protection Commission issued Meta with a €1.2 billion fine for unlawful data transfers to the United States, the largest GDPR-related fine ever issued.

A Pattern of Privacy Failures

Meta’s defenders often argue that the company is simply evolving in a fast-moving tech environment. However, critics point to a repeated pattern of behaviour that undermines public trust.

From Cambridge Analytica to hidden tracking pixels and now algorithms that allegedly harm young people, Meta’s record on user data is far from spotless. Regulators and campaigners say this pattern suggests systemic issues rather than one-off mistakes.

James Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media, said:"Tech giants like Meta have failed to put the wellbeing of users first. We have seen this time and again. Fines may not be enough to drive real change."

What Could This Mean for Meta?

The potential financial impact of these actions could be considerable. Under GDPR, fines can reach up to 4 percent of global turnover. With Meta reporting revenue of around $135 billion in 2024, this could mean penalties in the multi-billion range.

Beyond the fines, Meta faces restrictions on how it can collect and use data. Some legal experts believe upcoming rulings may force the company to overhaul its ad systems entirely, particularly those built around inferred personal data and behavioural tracking.

There is also reputational risk. Consumers, particularly younger ones, are increasingly conscious of how their data is handled. With rival platforms emerging and concerns around AI-generated content on the rise, Meta’s grip on digital culture may be slipping.

Why It Matters to Everyone

These legal actions may feel distant from everyday life, but they reflect a deeper issue about how much control individuals have over their digital lives. Most users never read the fine print or understand the scope of the data being collected. Meta’s platforms remain free to use, but the cost is increasingly paid in privacy.

There is also a broader societal question at play. If companies continue to operate in a way that values data extraction over transparency, can regulation ever catch up? Or are we simply witnessing the beginning of a new kind of digital economy, one where personal information is the price of entry?

A Familiar Story with Higher Stakes

Whether this new wave of lawsuits and investigations leads to genuine change is yet to be seen. Meta has the resources to fight prolonged legal battles, and history has shown the company is rarely forced into long-term reform.

But there is a sense that the tide is turning. Public sentiment is shifting, and regulators appear more coordinated than ever. If Meta is once again under fire for failing to respect data boundaries, this time it may find the consequences harder to brush off.