What Does The Return Of The US Monroe Doctrine Mean For Cleantech? – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

After the first three weeks that Trump 2.0 has been unfolding, with a mix of absurd ego, drill baby drill, radical loyalty requirements, elimination of soft power, purging of ‘enemies’ and devastation of science, it’s worth asking what the foreign policy tea leaves suggest for clean technology globally. It’s actually somewhat positive, although the Americas might not agree. Marco Rubio’s recent statements on Taiwan, Trump’s push related to Greenland, and Trump’s assertions about making Canada a 51st state lead to some conclusions, and their implications regarding clean technology.

A brief step through various US foreign policy doctrines is instructive.

The Monroe Doctrine, introduced in 1823, became a foundational policy for US dominance in the Americas. While originally intended to deter European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, it evolved into a justification for US political and economic influence over Latin America. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the US invoked the doctrine to oppose European powers while asserting its own control, as seen in the Roosevelt Corollary (1904), which justified American intervention in Latin American affairs. The doctrine reinforced US hegemony, leading to military occupations, economic manipulation, and covert operations to shape regional governments in its favor, solidifying American dominance in the hemisphere.

Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine were closely linked in shaping US expansionism. Manifest Destiny (1840s) fueled the belief that the US was destined to expand across North America. Together, they justified territorial acquisitions, interventions in Latin America, and efforts to limit European influence. This expansionist mindset also shaped US perspectives on Canada, as many Americans saw British-controlled Canada as a natural extension of US territory, leading to tensions, border disputes, and support for annexationist movements, though British resistance and Canadian identity ultimately prevented US control.

The Truman Doctrine, announced in 1947, was a cornerstone of US Cold War policy, committing the United States to containing the spread of communism. Initially focused on providing military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, it set a precedent for US intervention in Europe and Asia to counter Soviet influence, and strongly influenced China policy. The doctrine justified American involvement in NATO, the Korean War, and later conflicts like Vietnam, shaping decades of US foreign policy. It marked the official beginning of the containment strategy, reinforcing the US role as a global defender of democracy against communist expansion.

The Carter Doctrine, announced by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, declared that the United States would use military force if necessary to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf. This policy was a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and growing concerns over US access to Middle Eastern oil. It signaled a shift in American foreign policy, emphasizing the strategic importance of Gulf oil supplies and laying the groundwork for future US military involvement in the region, including the Gulf War (1991) and the Iraq War (2003). The doctrine reinforced the idea that securing energy resources was a core US national security priority.

The Reagan Doctrine, introduced in the 1980s, marked a shift in US Cold War strategy from containment to actively rolling back communism. Unlike previous policies that sought to limit Soviet influence, the doctrine provided military and financial support to anti-communist insurgencies in regions where the Soviet Union or its allies had established control. This included aiding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua, and opposition forces in Angola and Cambodia. The Reagan Doctrine reinforced US interventionism, increasing pressure on the Soviet Union and contributing to its eventual collapse in 1991.

The Clinton Doctrine emerged during Bill Clinton’s presidency (1993–2001) and focused on humanitarian intervention and promoting democracy. While not formally outlined in a single speech, its key principle was that the United States should intervene militarily to stop genocide and human rights abuses, even when no direct US interests were at stake. This doctrine shaped US interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999), where NATO forces acted to prevent ethnic cleansing. Clinton also emphasized economic globalization, expanding NATO, and containing threats like Iraq. The doctrine marked a shift toward using military force for humanitarian purposes.

What the Trump Administration been doing?

Trump has expressed interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark, citing its strategic value and natural resources. Greenland holds vast resources of critical minerals, including rare earth elements, uranium, zinc, and nickel, and global warming is melting the glaciers that make them hard to extract. Representative Buddy Carter (R-GA) has introduced a bill supporting the acquisition and proposing a name change to “Red, White, and Blueland.” Denmark has stated that Greenland is not for sale, and no formal negotiations have been initiated. Trump when asked did not rule out the use of military force to take the island.

Trump has called for Panama to return control of the Panama Canal to the United States, arguing that tolls for American ships are too high. The 1977 Panama Canal Treaty transferred control from the US to Panama in 1999. Panamanian officials have rejected the demand, and diplomatic discussions have not been scheduled. President Mulino has agreed to review certain Chinese business operations in Panama, including a significant port concession held by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings. Additionally, Panama has announced plans to enhance cooperation with US authorities to manage migration flows and bolster security measures.

President Donald Trump has recently suggested that Canada should become the 51st state, a proposal that has raised significant concern among Canadian officials. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, caught on a hot mic during a private meeting, expressed apprehension about Trump’s intentions, emphasizing that the US president’s interest may be driven by Canada’s abundant natural resources. Canada is rich in critical minerals, including lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and rare earth elements, which are essential for EV batteries, clean energy technologies, and defense industries.

Trudeau underscored the seriousness of the situation, noting that Trump’s annexation talk is “a real thing.” In response, former US Ambassador to Canada David Cohen dismissed the notion as an empty threat, clarifying that the US cannot annex Canada without its consent — a stance firmly held by Canadian leaders. The discourse has heightened tensions between the two nations, especially amid ongoing trade disputes and tariff threats. Of the land grabs Trump has been talking up, it’s the only one where the military option has been precluded, for now.

In a phone call with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on January 24, 2025, Rubio expressed concerns over China’s coercive actions against Taiwan. The Chinese readout of the call claimed that Rubio stated the US does not support Taiwanese independence and called for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue, but such statements were not included in the US version of the readout. Analysts read that as the US backing away from military defense of Taiwan. Rubio’s confirmation hearing included support for military defense of Taiwan, but that seems to be domestic politics as opposed to foreign policy.

In early February 2025, President Donald Trump announced a proposal for the United States to assume control over the Gaza Strip, aiming to redevelop it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” This plan involves relocating the current Palestinian residents to neighboring countries such as Egypt and Jordan, despite both nations expressing opposition to the resettlement. Trump has suggested that the US would oversee the reconstruction and economic development of Gaza, potentially utilizing American military forces if necessary. He has also issued an ultimatum to Hamas, demanding the release of Israeli hostages by a specified deadline, threatening to intensify military actions if his demands are not met. Notably, this is the only place outside of the Americas — Greenland is geologically but not politically part of the North American continent — where Trump has expressed an interest in sending the military in or engaging.

Trump has taken a new approach to Ukraine and NATO, signaling a shift in US foreign policy. He has proposed that Ukraine should not join NATO, a position welcomed by Russia, and has engaged in direct talks with Vladimir Putin about ending the war. Trump has suggested Ukraine make territorial concessions and has linked US aid to access to Ukraine’s rare-earth minerals, a proposal that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not ruled out. Within NATO, Trump is pushing for European allies to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, while assigning the United Kingdom a leadership role in coordinating military support for Ukraine, signaling a reduced US role in European defense efforts.

Most recently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated in Brussels on February 12th that the US will not deploy troops to secure peace in Ukraine, emphasizing a shift away from Europe to focus on China and domestic security. He urged European allies to take primary responsibility for their own defense while reaffirming US commitment to NATO but with limited patience.

What does this suggest for Taiwan and its cleantech impact?

Taiwan plays a crucial role in cleantech through its dominance in semiconductor manufacturing, which is essential for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and energy-efficient systems. TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company), the world’s largest semiconductor foundry, produces chips that power solar inverters, battery management systems, smart grids, and EVs. As demand for clean energy technologies grows, Taiwan’s advanced chipmaking capabilities enable higher efficiency and lower energy consumption in these critical sectors. Any disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor supply chain could significantly impact the global transition to sustainable energy solutions.

In another light, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is vital to the US military, supplying advanced chips essential for defense technologies, from fighter jets and missile systems to AI-driven warfare. TSMC produces cutting-edge semiconductors that the US cannot currently manufacture at scale. As highlighted in Chip War, the reliance on Taiwan’s chip supply is a key vulnerability in national security, prompting efforts to onshore production through initiatives like the Biden Administration’s CHIPS Act. Any disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor supply chain could severely impact US military capabilities, making its stability a strategic priority.

Taiwan is a fascinating place, politically and historically. An analogy will help at least American audiences understand it somewhat better.

Imagine, if you will, that after the Civil War, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, General Stonewall Jackson and the rest of the Confederate power structure occupied Florida and declared that they were the true rulers of the United States. Imagine if that persisted for 75 years, through 1940, without the US rolling into it with full military might. Imagine that the official US policy was eventual peaceful reunification. Imagine if the world initially recognized Florida as a country and not the United States, and then reversed itself, recognizing the United States instead.

Imagine if China was constantly supplying Florida with military weapons and constantly running aircraft carriers and destroyers off the costs of the Carolinas and Louisiana to threaten the US with extreme military force. Imagine if China was regularly landing hawkish senior politicians including vice presidents, speakers of the house and delegations in Florida to strengthen ties and signal Chinese support to America.

Imagine if the US and Florida were deeply economically entwined, with 40% of Florida’s foreign investment in the rest of the US. Imagine if millions of people a year crossed the border in both directions without issue for work and recreation. Imagine the US and Florida continuing to speak the same language. Imagine that Florida’s political system includes pro-reunification parties and anti-reunification parties. Imagine that lots of Floridians identified as Americans or both Floridians and Americans.

That’s the uneasy reality of China and Taiwan. Taiwan is a secessionist province of China that was taken over by the losers of the civil war 75 years ago. That Taiwan is now a democracy and has a temporary lock on semiconductors, making it strategically necessary to the US military, is a fascinating nuance of geopolitics.

China’s position on Taiwan has remained consistent for decades, and it doesn’t include taking it by force. China is patient on this. Xi hasn’t really changed this stance and has reiterated regularly the goal of peaceful reunification. He hasn’t ruled out force, but China hasn’t invaded another country for 70 years. It’s not in their national DNA the way it is for the US, which has invaded, overturned, bombed or drone-striked dozens of countries since the end of World War II. China’s military pattern is aggressive defense and preservation of its borders.

Xi has upheld the official policy of One Country, Two Systems regarding Taiwan. It’s imperfect, of course, and the example of Hong Kong is a cautionary tale. But the tale of Hong Kong still includes lots of elected officials and being outside the Great Firewall after 27 years.

The official US policy has been One China since 1972, and it recognizes China as a state, but not Taiwan. That’s the stance of the United Nations as well, which does not recognize it as a state. Only 13 countries globally recognize Taiwan as a separate country.

Xi is displaying force that’s mostly aimed at the United States, which keeps sailing military ships between Taiwan and the mainland, supplying Taiwan with weapons and landing anti-Chinese hawk politicians in Taiwan to provoke China. That’s why China has substantially increased its military almost entirely for defense, following a very long military history of ensuring that no one thinks it would be easy to invade the country.

I assembled this graphic a couple of years ago. It shows the enormous number of military bases that the US has established that effectively surround China. Go, or wéiqí, is an ancient strategy board game where two players, using black and white stones, compete to control territory. There’s a strong argument that Chinese military strategy is informed by Go, while western military strategy is informed by chess. A key tactic in Go is encirclement, where a player surrounds an opponent’s stones, cutting off their escape and capturing them. Success in Go depends on strategic positioning, balance between offense and defense, and long-term planning to secure the most territory while limiting the opponent’s influence. Being surrounded is anathema, and the US has pretty much intentionally ensured that China feels incredibly paranoid about their intentions and continues to rattle sabers.

The US has had an irrational, destabilizing, and expensive focus on the War on Terror since 9/11. That led to it losing focus on China, an actually emergent world force, and focusing on powerless countries in the Middle East. It led to the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq, winning the initial battles comprehensively and losing the wars completely, a remarkably consistent pattern since the end of World War II. Some of the bases may have been focused on the Middle East, but their encirclement and proximity to China would have been what Chinese military and political strategists would have been focused on.

Rubio’s discussion with China’s foreign minister indicates a change of stance on an island 10,000 km from US shores that no one in the US actually cares about except for military strategists and some policy wonks. It’s not Israel, it’s not full of white people and it’s a long way away. The average American couldn’t find it on a map or even guess what continent it’s part of and if it was pointed at they would assume it’s part of China. It is a refreshing step down from what the US has been consistently doing for decades. It’s also something that the US military will be deeply uncomfortable with.

If it’s actually the new US policy, it’s at least somewhat pragmatic. Wargaming exercises over the past few years have made it clear that if the US tried to get into a fight with China over Taiwan it would lose both the battles and the war. China’s bolstering of defensive capability combined with the US loss of logistical maritime capability through the unintentional consequences of the Jones Act — intended to achieve the reverse — and free market ideology which led to a collapse of domestic ship manufacturing, means that the US can’t project force in the South China Sea for any significant duration.

The United States has made strides in bolstering domestic semiconductor manufacturing. A notable development is TSMC’s facility in Phoenix, Arizona, which began producing advanced 4-nanometer chips in early 2025. This milestone aligns with the objectives of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which allocated substantial funding to enhance US semiconductor production. Additionally, Intel has been awarded $7.9 billion under the CHIPS Act to expand its US manufacturing capabilities. These initiatives aim to reduce reliance on foreign chip supplies and strengthen national security. However, challenges such as high construction costs and a shortage of skilled labor have led to delays in some projects, including TSMC’s second Arizona plant, now expected to commence production in 2027 or 2028. Despite these hurdles, the US is progressing toward a more resilient and self-sufficient semiconductor industry.

China has made significant strides in semiconductor manufacturing as well, despite US export restrictions. SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation) has produced 7nm chips and is now developing 5nm chips using deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography, bypassing the need for restricted extreme ultraviolet (EUV) technology. The launch of Huawei’s Mate 60 Pro, powered by a domestically made 5G chip, showcased China’s ability to innovate despite sanctions. However, producing advanced chips with DUV is costly and less efficient than EUV-based methods. With heavy government investment and state subsidies, China continues to reduce its reliance on foreign technology and reshape the global semiconductor supply chain.

The combination means that both China and the US are reducing their strategic reliance on Taiwanese-based chip fabs. That reduces both countries’ strategic conflict over the island 160 km off the mainland of China, 10,000 km from America’s coast.

That’s very good news in two ways. The first is that actual tensions in the South China Sea between two major powers are diminishing, and that the supply of chips for clean technology will be able to take advantage of a more diversified supply chain.

What does this mean for the Americas?

It would be nice if the diminishment of conflict around Taiwan was mirrored by at least stable western concerns, but that’s not what the tea leaves suggest to me. Instead, I see a return to the America’s focused Monroe Doctrine, with a big helping of Trump’s ego.

Some analysts are credibly suggesting that Trump wants a legacy of an expanded United States. It’s a real estate play, and Trump remains a real estate mogul interested in stamping his name on new properties. That’s why the Gulf of Mexico has been renamed, at least in US facing maps including Google’s, as the Gulf of America. Whatever else is going on, the Mercator projection of Greenland makes it look enormous, when in fact it’s simply very big. Denmark and the citizens of Greenland disagree quite strongly with this proposal.

Meanwhile, Canada is actually enormous and Trump has repeated his desire to make it the 51st state. The people thinking this couldn’t possibly fly because then the US would have added over 40 million Democratic voters and some Democratic Senators are ignoring that it would undoubtedly be added as a unincorporated territory, like Puerto Rico. That means it falls under US sovereignty but lacks the full rights of a state. While residents are US citizens, they cannot vote in presidential elections and have only a non-voting delegate in Congress. Puerto Rico governs itself with a local legislature and governor, but federal laws still apply, often differently than in the states. Similar US territories include Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, all of which have limited representation in Congress. While Washington, D.C. shares some similarities, it has electoral votes in presidential elections, unlike Puerto Rico. That’s what Canada would end up as in a North America that fed Trump’s ego. Canada disagrees quite strongly with the entire idea.

What Greenland, Canada, and Panama have that America would like to have is  resources. Canada has water that Trump doesn’t understand but knows Canada has a lot of. Both geographies have critical minerals that Trump doesn’t understand but that China currently controls most of the supply chain for. Further, Canada and Greenland aren’t full of entitled Americans who will vote against strip mining the land and setting up processing facilities that destroy the environment. Preserving the parts of America that rich people enjoy and have properties in is important to the right wing of America.

The Panama Canal remains a strategic asset for the United States, serving as a vital trade and military corridor between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Although the US transferred control of the canal to Panama in 1999, it continues to depend on its smooth operation for the shipping of goods, energy exports, and military logistics. The canal plays a critical role in global supply chains, especially for US agricultural and manufacturing exports, while also reducing shipping costs and transit times.

This is not only a return to the Monroe Doctrine, but something I had thought — in print at that — was 180 years in the rearview mirror, Manifest Destiny, as well as the Banana Republics model that decimated Central American and Caribbean nations as they were asset stripped by US businesses backed by the US military.

Would the US be able to take advantage of these critical minerals?

In my recent discussion with Gavin Mudd, director of critical minerals intelligence for the British Geological Survey, we discussed this very thing. I was aware that western universities were shutting down mining sciences and engineering departments for lack of student interest, having first heard that in my New Zealand speaking tour in 2023 from the minerals experts that were my audiences. Mudd made it clear that this was a broad western phenomenon with mining having come to be considered a dirty job, environmentally damaging, and less attractive than alternatives, including finance. It’s part of the broader theme of reduced STEM degrees in the west.

We discussed the reality that the west, including the United States, had completely taken its eye off of the military strategic importance of critical minerals, quite happily ceding their extraction, processing and refining to mostly China over the past 40 years as the US obsessed about the Middle East instead. The western assumption that the markets would always yield the best result had a very specific strategic weakness. Even the US F35 was found to have Chinese cobalt-samarium alloy in the turbine.

China dominates the global supply of critical minerals essential for clean technology and military applications, holding a near-monopoly in key areas. It processes 70% of the world’s cobalt, a critical component in EV batteries and aerospace alloys, and refines over 60% of global lithium, vital for energy storage and electric vehicles. China also controls 80% of global graphite production and 70% of its processing, making it indispensable for battery anodes. In rare earth elements, which are crucial for missile systems, fighter jets, and wind turbines, China accounts for over 85% of global refining capacity. Its dominance extends to nickel, tungsten, and antimony, materials critical to both defense and high-tech industries. With its vast control over mining, refining, and manufacturing, China remains the single most influential player in the global critical minerals supply chain, creating geopolitical tensions as countries seek to diversify sources.

China also dominates in all of the human resources and intellectual capital necessary to process and refine critical minerals. It graduates more STEM PhDs from western and domestic universities than all of the developed world now, and while early PhDs were relatively weak, that’s no longer the case. Further, it dominates in intellectual capital related to cleanly processing critical minerals, as it’s been cleaning up processing and refining as a strategic effort since 2010. There are rare earth refineries that look like clean rooms operating in China, and while the Ulan Bator region still bears the scars of earlier refining and is still imperfect, it’s cleaning up as well. The country and its companies consider this intellectual capital and their trade secrets to be vital differentiators and strategic assets and they aren’t willing to share.

China’s cleaning up of its minerals processing is often misconstrued. In many cases, it found that a clean process could only be achieved with significant reductions in output as some ores were just too problematic. As a result, antimony — a critical mineral used in flame retardants, batteries, semiconductors, and military applications, including armor-piercing ammunition and infrared sensors — saw a significant reduction in exports from China. China is similarly capping exports of other critical minerals in order to ensure its domestic requirements are met.

To the point of US expansionism, whether it’s in the form of annexation, invasion or simply turning weaker Americas states into Banana Republics, the critical minerals undermining much of the aggression will usually remain unmined, unprocessed and unrefined. The United States doesn’t have the human resources or the intellectual capital, nor does it have an administration that understands that a critical minerals onshoring strategy has to include a big press for increased research in the sciences and education.

Instead, the Trump administration, with support from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has enacted sweeping cuts to higher education and research funding. Nearly $900 million in contracts from the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) have been eliminated, disrupting critical studies on student performance and disability programs. At the same time, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is facing a $4.5 billion budget reduction, impacting grants for medical research, cancer treatments, and pandemic preparedness. Further cuts to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and pending reductions to the National Health Service (NHS) collaboration programs could weaken US leadership in global research. The administration has also proposed dismantling the Department of Education, shifting control to individual states.

The NIH cuts eliminate the funding universities use to provide buildings, administrative services, heat, power and human resources services to researchers, meaning that the universities are going to have to shutter entire departments. That’s likely to be replicated at the NSF. One key point of conflict between Musk and the Silicon Valley oligarchs supporting Trump and the rest of Trump’s billionaire supporters and base is on the use of foreign skilled workers. The MAGA movement wants all immigration of non-white people eliminated, while Musk and co know that they need to import the best educated people from around the world.

During his first term, Donald Trump implemented aggressive policies targeting Chinese researchers in the US, citing concerns over intellectual property theft and national security. The China Initiative, launched by the Department of Justice in 2018, aimed to root out economic espionage but quickly expanded into a broad crackdown on academics with ties to China, leading to wrongful prosecutions and driving many Chinese-born scientists out of American universities.

The policy created a chilling effect on US international research collaboration, particularly in fields like clean energy and biomedical research, as institutions became wary of hiring or working with Chinese scholars. Many top researchers relocated to China, accelerating the country’s rise in advanced technologies, while US universities suffered a decline in international talent and global scientific partnerships. The initiative was widely criticized for racial profiling and was officially ended in 2022, but its long-term impact on the US research ecosystem remains significant, with ongoing hesitancy toward scientific exchanges and collaborations with China. Expect it to return with Trump 2.0.

As Chinese researchers dominate the minerals extraction, processing and refining space, as well as most other hard sciences, while the United States has been graduating finance quants instead, and the majority of the Trump Administration’s base wants to block all foreign migration, not just the poorly paid essential workers who work farms, care for loved ones in nursing homes, cook their food, build their homes and pick up their trash, the United States won’t be able to attract a critical mass of minerals expertise domestically.

While there is no observable coherent strategy, just an emergent trend that’s starting to look like a recidivist Monroe Doctrine scrambled with Banana Republics, the likely outcome would be to keep immigrants out of the United States per se, and bring the rest of the world to Greenland, Canada, and Latin American countries, satisfying Trump’s base and keeping potentially environmentally damaging mining activities away from rich Americans’ domestic playgrounds. It’s also very likely that the environmental damages done by US firms in new Banana Republics would ignored as well.

That wouldn’t lead to the motivated and innovated workers necessary in the space, but quite the opposite.

It would still take decades of concerted strategic focus to build up significant supplies of all of the critical minerals that the west has ceded to China. The United States can’t manage to focus for two years, never mind two decades. As a result, the odds that any of this will come to pass are low. The US military is full of good people and Trump would have challenges mobilizing it against Greenland or Canada, although it has proven itself happy to invade Panama in the past. Europe will figure it out because it actually has an adult attention span, so critical minerals necessary for cleantech will diversify.

Assuming Canada stays unannexed, it will continue to build critical minerals mining, processing and refining capabilities, as it is one of the major mining economies of the world, although that’s been challenged by the same lack of focus on educating and training the next generation of engineers and researchers and a tendency to extract ores and ship them to China for processing and refining.

Greenland, under the Kingdom of Denmark, actively welcomes foreign companies to engage in mineral extraction. Since the Self-Government Act of 2009, Greenland has held authority over its mineral resources, enabling it to manage exploration and exploitation activities independently. The government has implemented frameworks, such as the “Large Scale Act” of 2012, to facilitate large-scale projects by allowing the use of foreign labor during construction phases when local labor supply is insufficient. This legislation aims to attract international investment into Greenland’s rich deposits of minerals like rare earth elements, uranium, and precious metals. Denmark retains control over foreign, security, and defense policies, which can influence certain aspects of foreign investments, especially those involving countries like China and Russia. Overall, Greenland’s policies are designed to encourage foreign participation in its mining sector while balancing environmental and social considerations.

If Trump’s expansionist tendencies are carried out at all, they will simply destabilize the west, allowing China an extended grace period to lap the developed world a few times, cementing markets for its clean tech products in every country of the world. Meanwhile, the US will continue to thrash and decline and the rest of the west will engage productively with China.