The American Museum of Natural History is only a 30-minute walk away from Trump Tower in New York City’s Central Park. The US President could view the Cape York Meteorite in the museum. It is a mass of iron weighing 58 tonnes, which was taken by Robert Peary from Northwest Greenland. He sold it to the American Museum of Natural History with local Inuit guides’ help.
Greenlanders had been using meteorite fragments for centuries to create tools and equipment before Danish colonisation. Peary took this resource out of local hands, selling it for a price that is equivalent to US$1.5m today. The transaction was as unbalanced as any the President may be considering.
Donald Trump now has his sights set on a prize that is much bigger than a meteorite. Trump’s advocacy for the US to take control of Greenland – possibly through force – signals a change from dealmaking towards dominance. It would have a severe impact on science. The scientific cost would be severe.
Greenland has sovereignty in all other areas except defence and foreign affairs, however, because it belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark (and therefore Nato), Greenland’s membership is guaranteed. Greenland, like any other nation in the world, controls access to their land and coast waters through permits which specify what work is allowed and where it can be done.
Cape York Meteorite Arrives in Brooklyn 1897. (Artist Unknown).
INTERFOTO / Alamy
Greenland granted access to international scientists for many years, allowing them to unlock environmental secrets hidden in its rocks, ice and seabed. US researchers were among those who benefited most, whether they were drilling into the ice for a deeper understanding of the historical link between temperature and carbon dioxide, or flying multiple Nasa missions in order to map out the terrain beneath the ice sheet.
This scientific progress, which was conducted in an open and fair manner, is a great credit to Greenland, the US and other countries. This work must continue.
Climate science is at stake
According to research, around 80% Greenland’s surface is covered with a massive ice sheet that, if it melted completely, could raise the sea level by 7 meters (equivalent to the height of two-storey houses). As the earth warms up, the ice sheet is melting faster, which releases vast quantities of freshwater in the North Atlantic. This could disrupt the ocean circulation, which moderates climates across northern hemisphere.
Greenland’s ice sheets is flooded with hundreds of glaciers.
Delpixel / shutterstock
Greenland’s remaining 20 percent is roughly equivalent to the area of Germany. Minerals have been found in abundance by geological surveys, but the economics of the situation dictates they will be used for the green energy transition and not to prolong the fossil-fuel era.
Although coal is found, it’s too costly to sell and extract. No major oil field has been discovered. The commercial focus has shifted to “critical minerals”, high-value materials that are used in renewable technology, from electric car batteries to wind turbines. Greenland holds scientific information and material that could help us avoid climate catastrophe.
Climate science could be threatened by unilateral control
Trump, on the other hand, has not shown much interest in taking climate action. In January 2026, after withdrawing the US for the second time from the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump announced that the US would leave the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific global body which assesses impacts of fossil fuel burning. He has only spoken about Greenland in terms of “security”, with mentions that the country could access its minerals, without mentioning climate research.
Disko Island in Greenland has a weather station.
Martin Nielsen / Alamy
According to the 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement with Denmark, US has already a remote base in Pituffik, northern Greenland. The US is now focusing on space-related activities. The agreement allows for the US military to be expanded if necessary, even though both countries are still members of Nato. To guarantee US security outside Nato could undermine the current pact. A unilateral takeover of Greenland would also risk scientists around the globe losing access to an important site for climate research.
Antarctica and Svalbard: Lessons to be Learned
Greenland is unique in its sovereign status, and the governance of this country differs from other notable research sites. Antarctica, for example, has been governed by an international treaty since more than 60 year, ensuring that the continent is a peaceful place, a scientific hub, and protected from environmental destruction and mining.
Svalbard is Norwegian-owned, thanks to the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, but it operates under a visa-free regime that permits citizens from nearly 50 different countries, provided they adhere to Norwegian laws, the live and work in the archipelago. Norway, to the dismay of other countries, claims that science activities aren’t covered by this treaty. Russia operates a permanent base at Barentsburg (Svalbard’s second largest settlement) from where small amounts of coal can be mined.
Greenland, unlike Antarctica and Svalbard does not have a treaty which protects the access of international scientists. Greenland is not open to international research because of the law. It depends on Greenland’s political stability, openness and continued openness.
Greenland, should it wish to adopt a more radical strategy, could create its own approach based on a treaty with certain partner countries through Nato. This would allow for security co-operation, mineral assessments and scientific research under Greenlandic regulation.
Greenland’s future should be in the hands of Greenlanders, and Denmark. Climate science and the shift to a prosperous, safe future for all depends on the continued use of the island at the terms that the locals set. Cape York’s meteorite, taken just 60 miles from US Pituffik Space Base, is an example of how control over the environment can easily be lost.
You don’t have the time to learn about climate change.
Instead, receive a weekly summary in your mailbox. Imagine is a weekly email from The Conversation’s editor of environment. It focuses on a single climate topic. Subscribe to the more than 45,000 readers that have already subscribed.
