The strategic importance of rare earth elements (REEs) and critical minerals has become a focal point in global geopolitics, particularly between the United States and China. These materials are essential components in various advanced technologies, including renewable energy systems, defence applications, and consumer electronics. The United States’ reliance on foreign sources for these minerals has prompted initiatives to secure and diversify supply chains, with a notable emphasis on reducing dependence on China.
United States’ Consumption and Supply of Rare Earth Elements
The US consumes a substantial amount of REEs annually, primarily sourced from imports. In 2020, the U.S. imported approximately 80% of its rare earth compounds and metals from China, underscoring a significant supply chain vulnerability. These elements are integral to manufacturing high-performance magnets, batteries, and other critical components used in defense and technology sectors. The global market prices for REEs vary, for example (as something of a median) with neodymium-praseodymium oxide, a key input for permanent magnets, priced around $85 per kilogram as of 2025.
China’s Strategic Investments in Africa
China has proactively secured access to critical minerals through extensive investments in Africa. For instance, Chinese companies have engaged in mining projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), rich in cobalt and other essential minerals. These investments have positioned China as a dominant player in the global supply of critical minerals, further amplifying concerns about supply chain dependencies.
US Initiatives to Secure Critical Mineral Supplies
In response to these challenges, the U.S. has embarked on several initiatives to bolster its access to critical minerals:
1. Domestic Production Enhancement: The U.S. Department of Defense awarded $9.6 million to MP Materials in 2020 to restore domestic heavy rare earth production capabilities. In 2022, an additional $35 million was invested to develop a new commercial facility for heavy rare earth mineral processing.
2. International Collaborations: The US has sought partnerships with mineral-rich countries to diversify its supply sources. However, specific agreements with countries like Greenland, Canada, and Ukraine have faced various challenges, including environmental concerns, geopolitical sensitivities, and economic feasibility.
3. Critical Materials List: The US Department of Energy’s 2023 Critical Materials Assessment identified materials such as aluminum, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements as critical for energy applications, guiding policy and investment decisions to secure these resources.
Challenges and Future Prospects
Securing a stable supply of critical minerals involves addressing several challenges:
• Economic Feasibility: Developing new mining operations requires substantial investment and time. The financial viability of extracting minerals from regions like Greenland, Canada, or Ukraine depends on factors such as ore quality, extraction costs, and global market prices.
• Environmental and Social Considerations: Mining activities can have significant environmental impacts and may face opposition from local communities concerned about ecological degradation and social disruption.
• Geopolitical Dynamics: Collaborations with foreign nations necessitate navigating complex geopolitical landscapes, ensuring that agreements align with broader foreign policy objectives and national security considerations.
Hence the United States’ focus on securing rare earth elements and critical minerals is a strategic endeavor to mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities and reduce dependence on dominant suppliers like China. While domestic initiatives and international collaborations are underway, addressing the multifaceted challenges requires a comprehensive international approach is also required.
I. GREENLAND
President Donald Trump’s expressed interest in acquiring Greenland has reignited discussions about the island’s strategic significance and resource potential. While the notion of “taking over” Greenland may seem unconventional, it underscores a broader strategy to secure access to critical minerals and strengthen geopolitical positioning in the Arctic region.
Greenland’s Resource Potential
Greenland is endowed with vast mineral resources, including rare earth elements (REEs), which are essential for various high-tech applications such as renewable energy technologies, defense systems, and electronics. The United States Geological Survey estimates that Greenland possesses significant deposits of REEs, making it one of the largest reserves outside of China. Additionally, the island is believed to hold substantial offshore oil and natural gas reserves, estimated at 17.5 billion barrels of crude oil and 4.19 trillion cubic metres of natural gas.
Geopolitical Considerations
Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic has attracted global attention, particularly as climate change opens new shipping routes and access to untapped resources. The island’s proximity to the Arctic’s emerging maritime pathways enhances its geopolitical value, positioning it as a critical asset in the North Atlantic. The United States maintains a military presence in Greenland, notably the Thule Air Base, underscoring its defence significance.
Greenland’s Political Landscape
In recent elections, Greenland’s pro-business Demokraatit Party, which advocates for gradual independence from Denmark and supports mining initiatives, gained significant parliamentary representation. This shift indicates a growing interest in leveraging the island’s mineral wealth to achieve economic self-sufficiency. However, the path to independence is complex, involving negotiations with Denmark and considerations of economic viability.
Constitutional and Practical Challenges
The prospect of Greenland becoming the 51st US state faces substantial constitutional and practical hurdles:
• Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Greenland is a self-governing territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. Any change in sovereignty would require the consent of Greenland’s population and the Danish government, respecting principles of self-determination.
• Constitutional Process: The US Constitution allows for the admission of new states; however, this process traditionally applies to territories seeking statehood, not foreign countries or autonomous regions. The legal framework for such an acquisition is ambiguous and unprecedented.
• NATO Considerations: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. Any attempt to acquire Greenland without Danish consent would strain NATO alliances and violate international law.
• Infrastructure and Accessibility: Greenland’s harsh climate, limited infrastructure, and sparse population present logistical challenges. The island lacks a comprehensive road network, and settlements are isolated, with Nuuk, the capital, housing fewer than 20,000 residents. Accessing remote areas requires specialised equipment, such as icebreakers and helicopters, to navigate the icy terrain and unpredictable weather conditions.
Alternative Approaches
Given these challenges, President Trump’s reference to “taking over” Greenland may metaphorically suggest increasing U.S. investment in Greenland’s mining sector rather than pursuing sovereignty. Engaging in strategic partnerships could provide mutual benefits:
• Economic Development: U.S. investments could stimulate Greenland’s economy, creating jobs and infrastructure improvements while securing access to critical minerals.
• Strategic Partnerships: Establishing agreements similar to the Compact of Free Association (COFA) could enhance defense cooperation and economic ties without altering sovereignty.
Conclusions on Greenland
While the idea of the United States acquiring Greenland faces significant geopolitical, legal, and practical obstacles, enhancing economic and strategic partnerships presents a viable path forward. Such collaborations could secure access to vital resources, bolster defense capabilities, and support Greenland’s aspirations for economic independence, aligning with U.S. interests in the Arctic region.
II. CANADA
President Donald Trump’s assertion that Canada ought to be part of the United States has sparked discussions about the strategic interests, constitutional implications, and practical feasibility of such a proposition. While the idea of merging the two nations is unprecedented and fraught with complexities, examining the underlying motivations—particularly concerning Canada’s abundant natural resources—provides insight into the potential benefits and challenges of closer US-Canada relations.
Strategic Interests in Canada’s Natural Resources
Canada is endowed with vast natural resources, making it a significant player in global markets:
• Energy Resources: Canada possesses the third-largest proven oil reserves globally, primarily located in Alberta’s oil sands. It is also a leading producer of natural gas and hydroelectric power.
• Minerals and Metals: The country is rich in minerals such as nickel, copper, gold, and potash. Notably, Canada is a major supplier of critical minerals essential for high-tech industries, including cobalt and lithium.
• Forestry: With extensive forested areas, Canada is one of the largest exporters of timber and wood products.
For the United States, securing access to these resources is strategically advantageous, reducing reliance on other foreign suppliers and bolstering economic and national security.
Constitutional Implications of a Merger
The notion of integrating Canada into the United States presents significant constitutional challenges:
• Canadian Perspective: Canada is a sovereign nation with its own constitution, legal system, and parliamentary democracy. Any proposal to merge with another country would require substantial legal amendments, nationwide referendums, and the consent of provincial governments.
• American Perspective: As observed in respect of Greenland, the US Constitution provides mechanisms for admitting new states but does not outline procedures for incorporating an existing sovereign nation. Such an action would necessitate constitutional amendments, approval from Congress, and likely face considerable political and public opposition.
Given these hurdles, a merger appears highly impractical.
Practical Considerations and Border Dynamics
The US-Canada border is the longest undefended border in the world, spanning over 5,500 miles. While this facilitates trade and movement, it also presents logistical challenges in terms of infrastructure, security, and administration. Integrating two vast nations with diverse populations and regional identities would be an unprecedented endeavour, likely leading to significant economic and social disruptions.
Resource Extraction Agreements: A Viable Alternative
Instead of pursuing political union, enhancing resource extraction agreements between US companies and Canada offers a pragmatic approach:
Advantages for the United States
• Secure Supply Chains: Establishing stable agreements ensures a consistent flow of essential resources.
• Economic Benefits: Investments in Canadian resource sectors can yield profitable returns for U.S. companies.
Advantages for Canada
• Economic Growth: Foreign investments can stimulate local economies, create jobs, and enhance technological development.
• Infrastructure Development: Collaborative projects can lead to improved infrastructure, benefiting broader communities.
Disadvantages
• Environmental Concerns: Intensive resource extraction can lead to environmental degradation, necessitating stringent regulations.
• Economic Dependence: Overreliance on foreign investment may affect domestic policy autonomy.
Geographical Distribution of Resources and Logistics
Canada’s natural resources are dispersed across its vast territory:
• Western Canada: Alberta’s oil sands and British Columbia’s natural gas reserves are prominent.
• Central Canada: Ontario and Quebec are rich in minerals like nickel and gold.
• Northern Canada: The territories hold significant deposits of diamonds and rare earth elements.
Transporting these resources to the United States involves complex logistics, including:
• Pipeline Infrastructure: For oil and gas, extensive pipelines are required, some of which have faced environmental and political opposition.
• Rail and Road Networks: Minerals and timber rely on railways and highways, necessitating maintenance and expansion to handle increased loads.
Current Trade Relations and Tensions
As of early 2025, US-Canada relations have been strained due to trade disputes:
• U.S. Tariffs: The United States imposed 25% tariffs on most Canadian goods, excluding oil and energy products, which are taxed at 10%.
• Canadian Retaliation: Canada responded with 25% tariffs on a range of US goods, escalating the trade conflict.
These tensions have disrupted supply chains and increased costs for industries on both sides of the border.
Path Forward: Enhancing Bilateral Relations
To foster closer relations in mineral exploitation and beyond, both nations could consider:
• Negotiating Trade Agreements: Revisiting and updating trade agreements to address current challenges and reduce tariffs.
• Joint Ventures: Encouraging partnerships between US and Canadian companies to share expertise and risks in resource extraction projects.
• Environmental Collaboration: Implementing joint environmental standards to ensure sustainable resource development.
In conclusion, while the idea of merging Canada into the United States is fraught with constitutional and practical challenges, strengthening bilateral agreements in resource extraction presents a feasible path to mutual economic benefit. Overcoming current trade tensions through diplomacy and cooperation is essential to achieving these objectives.
III. UKRAINE
The proposed “US-Ukraine Minerals Agreement” has garnered significant attention, aiming to facilitate investment by US companies in Ukraine’s resource extraction sector. While this framework lacks binding legal force, it sets the stage for potential collaborations that could benefit both nations. However, the path to realising these opportunities is fraught with challenges, particularly given Ukraine’s war-torn infrastructure and the complexities inherent in large-scale investments in such environments.
Ukraine’s Resource Potential
Ukraine is endowed with a wealth of natural resources, notably:
• Rare Earth Elements (REEs): Essential for high-tech industries, Ukraine’s untapped REE reserves are estimated to be worth approximately $500 billion once extracted.
• Lithium: Vital for electric vehicle batteries, Ukraine’s lithium deposits have attracted interest from international mining companies.
• Other Minerals: The nation also possesses significant reserves of titanium, uranium, and graphite, all critical for various industrial applications.
Investment Considerations
While President Trump has characterised potential agreements as a means for the US to recoup expenditures from supporting Ukraine during the war, the reality is that these would be standard investment agreements requiring meticulous negotiation. Key considerations include:
• Infrastructure Rehabilitation: The conflict has severely degraded Ukraine’s infrastructure, necessitating substantial reconstruction efforts to support mining operations.
• Investment Scale and Timeline: Developing mining infrastructure is capital-intensive and time-consuming. Companies must assess the financial viability, considering current market prices and demand for these minerals.
• Geopolitical Risks: Ongoing regional instability poses risks to investments, potentially deterring companies or leading to higher required returns to offset these risks.
Practical Challenges
Several hurdles must be addressed to ensure successful execution of these agreements:
• Regulatory Framework: Establishing clear, transparent, and stable regulations in a country with historically poor rule of law is crucial to attract and retain foreign investment.
• Environmental Concerns: Mining activities can have significant environmental impacts. Implementing sustainable practices and securing community support are essential to maintain Ukrainian government and population support for such projects.
• Market Dynamics: Fluctuations in global commodity prices can affect the profitability of mining projects, influencing investment decisions.
Conclusions on Ukraine
The envisioned US-Ukraine minerals agreement holds the potential to unlock Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth, offering economic benefits to both nations. However, realising this potential requires a ceasefire, careful navigation of investment challenges, and infrastructure rehabilitation. A collaborative approach, underpinned by meticulous planning and mutual respect, is essential to transform this vision into reality.
IV. THE PANAMA CANAL
President Donald Trump’s recent directives to the Pentagon to draft plans for “reclaiming” the Panama Canal have sparked considerable debate and concern. This move raises questions about US intentions, the strategic importance of the canal, and the geopolitical dynamics at play.
Historical Context of the Panama Canal
The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, is a pivotal maritime route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Its construction was a monumental engineering feat, significantly reducing travel time for global shipping. Initially controlled by the United States, the canal was handed over to Panama on 31 December 1999, following the Torrijos–Carter Treaties signed in 1977.
The Canal’s Role in Global Trade
Serving as a conduit for approximately 6% of global maritime commerce, the Panama Canal is integral to international trade. It accommodates vessels transporting goods ranging from consumer products to raw materials, underscoring its strategic economic significance.
Current US Access and Potential Threats
Presently the Panama Canal operates under Panamanian administration, with access granted to vessels from all nations, including the United States. There is no evidence to suggest that US ships face restrictions or discriminatory practices when transiting the canal. However, concerns have emerged regarding China’s growing influence in the region, particularly through investments in port facilities near the canal.
Chinese Presence Near the Canal
Chinese companies, notably Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison, manage two of the canal’s five ports: the Balboa port on the Pacific side and the Cristóbal port on the Atlantic side. While these ports are strategically located, they do not control access to the canal itself. The Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous Panamanian government agency, oversees canal operations, including the locks and marine traffic control. Nonetheless, the proximity of Chinese-managed ports has raised alarms in the US about potential geopolitical and security implications.
Pentagon’s Potential Plans
In response to President Trump’s directive, the Pentagon is likely exploring various strategies, ranging from diplomatic negotiations to assert US interests to contingency plans for military intervention (presumably to seize the Chinese-owned ports). The latter would be unprecedented and fraught with significant geopolitical risks, especially considering Panama’s sovereignty and the potential for escalating tensions with China.
Treaty Obligations and Strategic Objectives
The Torrijos–Carter Treaties guarantee the neutrality of the Panama Canal, ensuring that it remains open to vessels of all nations, including the United States, in both peace and war. Any unilateral action by the US to “reclaim” the canal could be viewed as a violation of international law and treaty obligations. The underlying strategic objective of such actions appears to be countering China’s influence in the region and securing unimpeded access to a critical maritime route essential for the transportation of goods and raw materials.
Conclusions on the Panama Canal
President Trump’s proposal to “take back” the Panama Canal reflects broader concerns about maintaining US strategic interests in the face of China’s expanding global footprint. However, any actions to alter the current administration of the canal must carefully consider international law, Panama’s sovereignty, and the potential repercussions on global trade and diplomatic relations. The potential for Chinese military retaliation to military action against Chinese-owned bases is considerable.