Donald Trump has been in the headlines recently for the USA’s involvement in Venezuela and comments made by the administration about Greenland. Reigniting debate over whether the US is entering a new global scramble for resources. From the reported intervention in Venezuela, to renewed comments about acquiring Greenland, these developments raise questions about power, sovereignty, and growing competition with China.
In early January, reports emerged that the United States had captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, with the Trump administration justifying the action on charges related to narco-terrorism. While the legality and international response to this move remain highly contested, it marked a significant escalation in U.S. involvement in Venezuela. Shortly afterwards, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that using the U.S. military was “always an option” when discussing the possibility of the U.S. acquiring Greenland. Together, these events suggest a more assertive and controversial U.S. foreign policy approach.
Why has the Trump administration taken such a strong interest in Venezuela? Following Maduro, President Trump made it clear that the U.S. would oversee the regeneration of Venezuela’s oil industry, claiming that American oil companies would invest billions to restore production. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, making it strategically significant.
Much of Venezuela’s oil is heavy crude, which is harder to refine but essential for producing fuels such as gasoline. The U.S. currently imports most of its heavy crude from Canada, while exporting its own lighter crude. Greater access to Venezuelan oil would therefore reduce U.S. dependence on other suppliers. However, following the nationalisation of Venezuela’s oil industry, exports declined significantly due to mismanagement and corruption, with much of the remaining output going to China.
This shift is particularly important in the context of the growing U.S.-China rivalry. As China continues to expand its global influence through trade and investment, particularly in the Global South, U.S. dominance is increasingly challenged. Control over key resources strengthens global power, and Venezuela’s oil represents both economic value and geopolitical leverage. Critics, however, argue that U.S. intervention risks worsening Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis and undermining national sovereignty.
Greenland:
Trump has also repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. When questioned, he cited national security concerns, pointing to China’s growing presence in the Arctic and its investments in Greenlandic infrastructure.
Greenland is rich in rare earth minerals, which are essential for modern technologies, including electric vehicles, Smartphones and military equipment. As global demand for these materials increases, access to them has become a strategic priority. Although Denmark remains Greenland’s largest trading partner, China is one of its most significant export destinations, increasing U.S. concerns about supply chain dependence.
In addition to rare earths, Greenland possesses vast untapped reserves of natural gas and oil, made more accessible by melting Arctic ice due to climate change. However, Greenlandic and Danish leaders have firmly rejected any suggestion of U.S. acquisition, emphasising self-determination, environmental concerns, and the rights of indigenous communities.
Trump’s actions towards Venezuela and Greenland can be understood as part of a broader attempt to secure the United States’ position as the world’s leading superpower amid intensifying competition with China. By prioritising access to key resources, the U.S seeks to maintain economic strength and geopolitical influence. However, these methods have strained diplomatic relations and raised serious questions about sovereignty, international law and ethical responsibility.
As competition for resources continues to shape global politics, the key question remains: will the pursuit of power justify the diplomatic and humanitarian costs? For students observing these developments, the answer may shape the kind of international order future generations inherit.
Photo by Maria Lupan on Unsplash