President Donald Trump's ambition to acquire Greenland faces significant economic hurdles, with analysts estimating a potential cost of $1 trillion over two decades. This massive investment would be necessary to develop the island's infrastructure and workforce, yet the returns are projected to be minimal, rendering the acquisition economically unsound.

The proposed annexation, while appealing on paper due to Greenland's potential resource wealth and strategic military location, is viewed skeptically by industry experts. Otto Svendsen, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that Greenland's resources, including critical minerals and crude oil, are more economically accessible in other regions, including the continental United States. This diminishes the financial incentive for such a large-scale investment.

The market impact of acquiring Greenland is uncertain, but the substantial capital outlay would likely strain U.S. resources. The sheer scale of the project could divert funds from other sectors and potentially impact the national debt. Furthermore, the existing openness of Greenland to U.S. investment and military expansion reduces the strategic imperative for outright acquisition.

While Greenland holds significant reserves, the cost of extraction, coupled with the logistical challenges of operating in a harsh Arctic environment, makes the business case weak. The current market favors more accessible and cost-effective resource extraction locations, making Greenland a less attractive investment opportunity.

Looking ahead, the economic viability of acquiring Greenland remains questionable. Unless extraction technologies drastically improve or global resource scarcity significantly increases, the $1 trillion price tag and limited returns suggest that the acquisition would be a financially imprudent venture for the U.S. government.