Trump’s Greenland Gambit: A Former CIA Officer Speaks Out
A former CIA covert operations officer has weighed in on one of the most unusual geopolitical moves in recent memory: President Donald Trump’s push to take control of Greenland, even hinting at possible military intervention.
Andrew Bustamante, a former Air Force officer and CIA operative, says Trump’s Arctic ambitions go far deeper than the White House suggests.
Tariffs, Tensions, and Threats
Trump recently threatened tariffs on the United Kingdom and seven other European nations unless the U.S. could purchase Greenland, a Danish territory.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer fired back, calling the proposed tariffs “wrong” and stressing that only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide the island’s fate.
But Trump isn’t backing down. He insists Greenland is vital for “national security” and warns the U.S. could claim the island “the easy way” or “the hard way,” leaving military options on the table.
The people of Greenland, however, have rejected any notion of joining the United States.
The Real Prize: Arctic Dominance and Minerals
Speaking to Express.co.uk, Bustamante explained what he believes is truly driving Trump’s Greenland fixation:
“American dominance in the Arctic is critical to maintaining U.S. primacy,” he said. “And Greenland is central to that.
“Second, the island holds strategic minerals—rare earth elements and critical minerals essential for economic development and military technology. Global warming is making more of Greenland accessible. Controlling these resources is a real American interest.
“However, there is no legal precedent to take Greenland by force. The most likely path is negotiating directly with Greenlanders who already favor independence.”
A Backdoor Approach?
Bustamante predicts the U.S. may bypass Denmark entirely, working directly with local stakeholders.
“The U.S. could take control of parts of Greenland it wants without undermining NATO,” he said. “Denmark may not be happy, but Greenlanders might benefit. The timing and methods are unpredictable, but this issue won’t disappear anytime soon.”
No Legal Case for Force, But Chaos Lurks
While Bustamante dismisses any legal justification for military action, he warns confusion could erupt.
“There’s no case for the U.S. to break NATO commitments by acting aggressively against a NATO ally’s territory,” he said. “Strategically, Greenland sits between North America and the Arctic, perfect for early missile detection and maritime surveillance. And its natural resources—uranium, iron, rare earths, possibly oil and gas—make it highly valuable.
“Trump insists the motivation isn’t minerals, but national security.”
Strategic Ambiguity and the Trump Advantage
Bustamante predicts public interest will fade once any commercial deals are quietly signed. But Trump can leverage the drama in the meantime.
“He has a chance to assert power through strategic ambiguity,” Bustamante said. “Like his demonstration in Venezuela, he can make nations wonder whether to comply with his Greenland demands. It’s about perception, influence, and timing.”
Greenland: The Silent Chessboard
While headlines focus on the spectacle, Bustamante suggests the real action is behind the scenes. The Arctic, long a strategic and resource-rich frontier, may soon become the site of quiet deals shaping U.S. power in the region.
