A former CIA covert intelligence officer has shared what he believes are the real motivations behind US President Donald Trump’s want to purchase Greenland. Andrew Bustamante beforehand served in the United States Air Force and nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) operations before being recruited into the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Clandestine Service.

He presently hosts the EverydaySpy podcast, offering analysis on topics including politics, global battle, psychology, and the intelligence providers. Recently, Trump declared he would impose tariffs on the UK and seven further European nations unless they permitted the US to buy the Danish territory. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded today during a press convention, calling the tariffs “wrong” and asserting that only Greenland and Denmark have the authority to decide the territory’s future.

Trump maintains that the US wants Greenland for national security reasons and will secure control of the Arctic island “the easy way” or “the hard way”, indicating that navy motion stays a risk.

However, Andrew proposes there are further components concerned. He told us: “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 financial development, as effectively as the uncommon earth minerals that are required for navy development and weaponisation, both of those exist in Greenland with the benefit of global warming, which is making more and more of Greenland accessible.”

He continued: “So there’s a very real American curiosity in taking some control over the sources that are in Greenland. However, there’s no legal, even by American requirements, there’s no legal precedent for us to take it by pressure. So, what does that imply?”.

“I feel there’s a very real likelihood that the United States strikes an financial deal with the unbiased events in Greenland that already need independence.”

Andrew believes the US would work commercially with companies on the ground to “primarily bypass” diplomatic relations and transfer immediately to industrial relationships.

He added: “So the United States will take control of the elements of Greenland that it desires, and I feel it’ll discover a means 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 is a very tough, very tough factor to predict. How fast, in what methods, et cetera. But we will not, it isn’t one thing that’s just gonna be forgotten.”

He acknowledged there is “no case” for the US to seize Greenland through pressure. He continued: “There’s no case for them to attempt to, you understand, break their dedication to NATO by transferring aggressively, politically or militarily, against the NATO allied, primarily, protectorate. So it is a very unusual and complicated scenario.”

Greenland’s strategic position between North America and the Arctic makes it vital for maritime surveillance operations and early warning systems designed to detect missile threats from hostile nations.

The territory also contains natural resources, including uranium, iron, rare earth minerals and potentially oil and gas reserves, though Trump has previously stated that the US needs Greenland for “national security, not minerals”.

Discussing the tensions further, Andrew suggested the standoff might not dominate news coverage for an extended period, as it’s “not horny”, observing how public engagement could diminish if a story “does not bleed”.

Elaborating, he also claimed that people would “stop paying consideration” when commercial or economic agreements are finally struck, and this is something that Trump “is aware of”.

He additional acknowledged: “But proper now, he has a likelihood to mainly continue to assert his energy, strategic ambiguity because of his demonstration of energy in Venezuela, so why not milk that for all it is price and make people wonder if or not they need to just kowtow to his calls for in Greenland?”.