The weak business case for Trump acquiring Greenland: a $1 trillion price tag and few returns for two decades

President Donald Trump’s dogged determination to annex the icy island of Greenland relies on the idea that doing so would give the U.S. an untapped treasure trove of natural resources and strategic military positioning. But the harsh environment, enormous financial investments, and massive infrastructure and workforce buildout required to create an economic engine could cost at least $1 trillion over two decades and make little to no economic sense, according to industry and geopolitical analysts.

The prize is great on paper for a real estate tycoon like Trump—after all, Greenland would exceed the Louisiana Purchase as the largest geographic acquisition in U.S. history. But multiple specialists in the region and its resources dismiss the economic reasoning as nonsensical, given that Greenland already is open to greater U.S. investment and military scale-up.

Greenland may be home to large reserves of critical minerals and crude oil, but they’re much cheaper to extract elsewhere in the world, including within the Lower 48, said Otto Svendsen, associate fellow specializing in the Arctic for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The business case is non-existent, setting aside all the political and legal and practical reasons for why I think it’s impossible,” Svendsen told Fortune.

The White House’s own estimations place the cost of a purchase of Greenland close to $700 billion, he said. ...