GREENLAND TURNS TO CANADA IN MINING DEAL, DEALING STRATEGIC BLOW TO U.S. AMBITIONS
NUUK, Greenland — In a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington and reshaped the geopolitics of the Arctic, Greenland has signed a sweeping mining and energy partnership with Canada, bypassing the United States at a moment when American interest in the island’s vast mineral wealth has never been more pronounced.
The agreement, finalized in Nuuk late Wednesday, grants Canadian mining and infrastructure firms preferential access to Greenland’s untapped reserves of rare earth elements, uranium, and other critical minerals — resources that are essential for electric vehicle batteries, advanced weaponry, and the renewable energy technologies that are driving the global economy. In exchange, Canada will provide $4.2 billion in infrastructure investment, including port facilities and energy systems designed to accelerate Greenland’s path toward economic independence from Denmark.
For the United States, the deal represents a stunning setback. President Trump, who during his first term famously floated the idea of purchasing Greenland from Denmark, has repeatedly argued that the island’s strategic location and resource wealth make it a vital national security interest. His administration has spent months courting Greenlandic officials, dangling investment packages and security guarantees in an effort to secure American dominance in the Arctic.
But those efforts appear to have backfired. Greenlandic officials, wary of being drawn into Washington’s superpower rivalries with China and Russia, have instead chosen a partner that offers resources and proximity without the political baggage.
“We are not a pawn in anyone’s geopolitical game,” said Múte Bourup Egede, Greenland’s prime minister, at a news conference alongside Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada. “Greenland chooses its partners based on respect, shared values, and mutual benefit. Canada has demonstrated that it sees us as an equal.”
For Mr. Carney, the deal is the latest in a series of strategic moves designed to position Canada as the dominant Arctic power and to reduce the country’s economic dependence on the United States. In recent weeks, Ottawa has signed major energy and trade agreements with Qatar, Germany, and now Greenland — each one bypassing Washington and expanding Canada’s global footprint.
“The Arctic is Canadian territory, and Canadian interests must be defended and advanced,” Mr. Carney said. “This partnership with Greenland is about building a prosperous, stable, and sovereign Arctic region — one that benefits the people who live here, not distant capitals that see this land only for what it can be extracted.”
The political reaction in Washington was swift and furious. President Trump, according to multiple aides, erupted when briefed on the agreement, demanding to know how the United States had been “cut out” of negotiations that had been ongoing for months. In a series of social media posts, the president accused Canada of “undermining American security” and suggested that the deal was “illegitimate.”
Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. envoy to Canada, was even more direct. In an interview with Fox News, he called the agreement “a dagger pointed at the heart of American economic security” and warned that the administration would consider “all options” in response.
But those options appear limited. Greenland is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, with full control over its natural resources. The United States maintains a military presence at the Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland, but that facility — critical for missile defense and space surveillance — was not part of the mining negotiations.
“The United States assumed that its strategic importance to Greenland would translate into commercial dominance,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, a fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and an expert on Arctic geopolitics. “What we are seeing is that Greenland has other priorities. They want economic development, infrastructure, and a partner that will help them achieve self-sufficiency without treating them as a military outpost.”
The deal has particular significance for the global supply chain for rare earth elements. China currently dominates the market, controlling approximately 80 percent of global rare earth processing capacity. Both the United States and Europe have been racing to develop alternative supply chains, and Greenland’s Kvanefjeld deposit — one of the largest rare earth sites outside China — has been a focal point of that competition.
Under the agreement with Canada, Greenlandic rare earths will be processed in Quebec, where Canadian firms have been building out refining capacity designed to meet Western defense and technology standards. That arrangement effectively locks the United States out of a supply chain that American policymakers had hoped would reduce dependence on Chinese sources.
“This is not just about minerals,” said Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen, a professor of Arctic studies at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. “This is about who gets to shape the economic future of the Arctic. Canada just signaled that it intends to be the dominant player in that future, and the United States is now playing catch-up.”
For Greenland, the deal represents a historic opportunity. The island of 56,000 people has been moving slowly toward greater autonomy from Denmark, but economic dependence has remained a barrier. The Canadian investment — which includes port expansions, energy infrastructure, and training programs for Greenlandic workers — is designed to build the kind of self-sustaining economy that could make full independence feasible within a generation.
“This is our future,” said Aqqaluk Lynge, a veteran Greenlandic politician and advocate for indigenous rights. “For too long, the world has looked at Greenland and seen only resources to be taken. Canada has offered something different: partnership, respect, and a vision that puts our people first.”
As the Arctic ice continues to retreat, opening new shipping lanes and exposing previously inaccessible resources, the competition for influence in the region is intensifying. Russia has been rebuilding its Arctic military capabilities, China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” and now Canada has asserted itself as the preferred partner for the region’s most strategically significant territory.
Whether the United States can recover its footing remains an open question. For now, the message from Nuuk to Washington is clear: the Arctic is no longer America’s backyard. And the race for its future has already begun
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
