Core Viewpoint - Gold and silver prices increased, indicating a potential shift in investor sentiment towards safe-haven assets amid mixed performance in Asian stock markets and declining U.S. stock futures [1] Group 1: Market Performance - Asian stock benchmarks showed mixed results, reflecting varied investor confidence across different markets [1] - U.S. stock futures experienced a decline, suggesting potential bearish sentiment ahead of market openings [1] Group 2: Commodity Trends - The rise in gold and silver prices may signal increased demand for safe-haven investments as market volatility persists [1]

Core Viewpoint - Donald Trump has announced plans to impose tariffs on eight European countries, including the UK, until the US is allowed to purchase Greenland, with tariffs starting at 10% on February 1 and potentially rising to 25% by June 1 if no deal is reached [1][2][4]. Group 1: Tariff Announcement - The tariffs will affect Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland, starting at 10% on February 1 [1]. - If the US does not secure a deal for the "complete and total purchase of Greenland" by June 1, the tariff rate will increase to 25% [2]. Group 2: International Reactions - French President Emmanuel Macron deemed the tariff threat "unacceptable," indicating that Europe would respond in a coordinated manner if implemented [5]. - The European Union convened an emergency meeting of ambassadors from its 27 member countries following Trump's announcement [5]. Group 3: Military Presence and Protests - The tariffs were described as retaliation for European countries sending military personnel to Greenland, with France sending 15, Germany 13, and the UK one officer [6]. - Protests occurred in Copenhagen, with thousands marching in support of Greenland, holding signs such as "Make America Smart Again" and "Hands off" [9][10]. Group 4: US Congressional Response - A bipartisan US congressional delegation, led by Senator Chris Coons, aimed to reassure Denmark and Greenland of US support, emphasizing respect for NATO [11][13]. - Coons stated there are no current security threats to Greenland, contrasting with Trump's claims about Russian and Chinese interests in the territory [15][17]. Group 5: Strategic Importance of Greenland - Trump has argued for the acquisition of Greenland due to its vast untapped reserves of critical minerals, suggesting a strategic imperative for the US [20].

Core Viewpoint - Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on several European countries, escalating his efforts to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark [1][2]. Group 1: Tariff Threats - Trump announced a 10% tariff on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland starting February 1, which will increase to 25% on June 1 [2]. - The tariffs will remain in place until a deal for the complete purchase of Greenland is reached [2]. - This move is seen as a significant challenge to relations with European allies, with immediate backlash from UK political figures [7]. Group 2: National Security Claims - Trump's interest in Greenland has intensified, claiming its current status poses a national security threat to the US, a view disputed by allies like Denmark [3]. - He suggested that China and Russia have interests in Greenland, framing the acquisition as vital for US national security [5]. Group 3: Trade Relations and Economic Impact - The tariff threats come shortly after Trump announced trade agreements with the UK and the EU, which he previously described as beneficial partnerships [6]. - Analysts express concerns that sweeping tariffs could significantly damage the US economy, with the average effective tariff rate reaching 16.8%, the highest since 1935 [10]. - Trump's aggressive trade strategy has previously strained US trade ties globally, raising fears of economic repercussions [9][10]. Group 4: Public Opinion and Legal Challenges - A recent poll indicated that fewer than one in five Americans approve of Trump's efforts to acquire Greenland, with bipartisan opposition to the use of military force [12]. - The legality of many of Trump's tariffs is currently under review by the US Supreme Court, with a decision expected soon [12].

Core Viewpoint - The potential U.S. annexation of Greenland could severely impact trade relations with the European Union, leading to possible tariffs or economic sanctions and the risk of a trade war [1][6]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and Statements - U.S. President Donald Trump has intensified discussions about annexing Greenland, suggesting that force could be an option if necessary [1]. - Trump claims that acquiring Greenland is essential for national security, aiming to prevent rivals from accessing emerging trade routes and critical mineral resources [5]. Group 2: European Response - French Finance Minister Roland Lescure warned that U.S. actions towards Greenland could damage economic ties with Europe, emphasizing that Greenland is a sovereign part of Denmark, which is an EU member [2]. - Lescure indicated that if the U.S. were to invade Greenland, it would create a "totally new world," necessitating a significant adjustment in EU-U.S. relations [4]. Group 3: Economic Implications - Analysts suggest that significant economic pressure from the U.S. on Denmark could provoke a strong response from the EU, potentially leading to a trade war [6]. - The geopolitical strategist Dan Alamariu noted that such tensions would likely unsettle markets and raise questions about NATO's stability, although a breakup is not anticipated [7]. Group 4: Military and Political Developments - European troops have arrived in Greenland for a military exercise, signaling a collaborative effort among allies rather than a unilateral U.S. initiative [8]. - European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen affirmed the EU's commitment to supporting Greenland politically, economically, and in terms of security [9].

As filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2026. Registration Statement No. 333-292412 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORM S-1 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 GREENLAND TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING CORPORATION (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) | British Virgin Islands | 3537 | N/A | | --- | --- | --- | | (State or other jurisdiction of | (Primary Standard Industrial | (I.R.S. Employ ...

Core Viewpoint - Greenland has gained unexpected attention from President Trump, highlighting its strategic importance and potential investment opportunities in the region [1] Group 1: Geographic and Demographic Context - Ilulissat, a village in Greenland, has a population of approximately 4,000 and is situated among glaciers and snow-covered hills [1] Group 2: Political and Economic Implications - Greenland, as a territory of NATO member Denmark, may see increased geopolitical interest and investment due to its resources and strategic location [1]

Geopolitical Context - The U.S. aims to challenge China's dominance in critical minerals through various geopolitical maneuvers, including actions in Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran [1][3][14] - The U.S. seeks to limit Chinese and Russian influence in strategic locations, particularly in the Arctic and Latin America [3][6][14] Energy and Resource Control - By taking control of Venezuela's oil industry, the U.S. can restrict Chinese access to vital resources and mining investments [2][9] - The U.S. is interested in Greenland for its critical minerals and emerging trade routes, which are becoming increasingly viable due to climate change [5][6] Rare Earths and Processing Capacity - China currently holds a near-monopoly on rare earths, controlling 60% of global mining and over 90% of processing capacity [7] - The U.S. is focusing on building its processing capacity for rare earths, which is deemed more critical than mining itself [8][9] Investment and Economic Strategy - The U.S. is encouraging companies to invest $100 billion in Venezuela, countering China's previous investments of $4.8 billion in the region [9] - A critical mineral framework has been established with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and similar agreements may be pursued with Greenland [12] Strategic Alliances and Global Dynamics - The U.S. is looking to strengthen partnerships with allies to reduce dependence on Chinese rare earths and enhance its own capabilities [16][17] - The geopolitical rivalry between the U.S. and China is increasingly defining the global economic landscape, with potential for both conflict and cooperation [14][15]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government's increased strategic focus on Greenland is drawing attention to several companies involved in critical materials, military supply chains, and energy, highlighting potential investment opportunities in this sector [1][14]. Group 1: MP Materials (MP) - MP Materials is a leading player in the rare earth sector in the U.S., with significant backing from the Department of Defense, positioning it as a strategic asset amid potential supply-chain changes related to Greenland [2][3]. - The stock is currently trading at $67.67, reflecting a 27% increase over the past month, driven by geopolitical developments [3]. Group 2: V2X (VVX) - V2X is a defense and logistics company with substantial involvement in U.S. military operations in Greenland, operating under a $4 billion contract [5][6]. - The stock price is at $65.05, having risen nearly 17.5% in the last 30 days, indicating strong market interest due to the potential for increased defense spending in the region [6]. Group 3: Critical Metals Corp (CRML) - Critical Metals Corp owns the largest rare earth deposit in Greenland, positioning itself to benefit from heightened focus on critical minerals [8][9]. - The company is advancing operations in southern Greenland, aiming to become a key supplier amid growing investor interest in supply-chain security [9]. - Despite being a speculative investment with commercial production expected only in 2028, CRML's stock has surged nearly 82.5% over the past month, attracting risk-oriented investors [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. administration is actively considering options to acquire Greenland, with discussions ongoing among President Trump and his national security team, despite Denmark's firm stance that the territory is not for sale [2][4][3]. Group 1: Acquisition Interest - President Trump has expressed a desire for the U.S. to take over Greenland, citing national security concerns and the presence of Russian and Chinese ships in the region [11]. - The White House has confirmed that the acquisition of Greenland is being discussed, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio planning talks with Danish officials [4][3]. Group 2: Valuation Estimates - Historical context shows that the U.S. previously offered $100 million for Greenland in 1946, which would be approximately $1.7 billion today, but current estimates suggest a much higher valuation [6]. - Analysts estimate Greenland's value could be in the hundreds of billions, with some suggesting figures in the trillions based on its natural resources and strategic location [5][7]. - A study indicates that Greenland's known critical mineral and energy resources are valued at over $4.4 trillion, though this figure drops to $2.7 trillion when excluding oil and natural gas [8]. Group 3: Resource Conversion Rates - Greenland's low population and harsh conditions result in a low resource-to-reserve conversion rate, with only 4.2% of known rare earth reserves being accessible [9][10]. - Applying this conversion rate, the estimated value of Greenland could be as low as $186 billion, which is considered a conservative estimate [10]. Group 4: Strategic Importance - The U.S. military already has a base in Greenland, and securing the island could enhance U.S. presence in the Arctic and access to emerging shipping lanes due to climate change [11][12]. - AAF's study suggests that if Greenland were valued similarly to Iceland, its total value could reach nearly $2.8 trillion [13]. Group 5: Comparative Valuations - Previous analyses have varied widely, with estimates ranging from $1.1 trillion in 2019 to as low as $12.5 billion to $77 billion based on historical acquisitions [14][15].

Core Perspective - The U.S. administration is actively pursuing the acquisition of Greenland, emphasizing its strategic importance and mineral wealth, which has raised concerns among European leaders regarding U.S. territorial ambitions [2][4][18]. Group 1: U.S. Intentions and Actions - The Trump administration has expressed a strong desire to acquire Greenland, citing its mineral resources and strategic location as vital to national security [2][18]. - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that discussions regarding the acquisition of Greenland are ongoing, with all options, including military force, being considered [4][18]. - Previous attempts to purchase Greenland during Trump's first term were met with rejection from Denmark, indicating a complex diplomatic history [5]. Group 2: Reactions from Denmark and Greenland - Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has urged the U.S. to cease threats regarding Greenland, labeling the idea of U.S. control as a "fantasy" [3][7]. - Greenland's leadership and public opinion largely oppose U.S. control, with many Greenlanders favoring independence from Denmark [13][16]. - The Danish government, along with European leaders, has emphasized that decisions regarding Greenland should be made by its people and Denmark, reinforcing the island's status within NATO [9][10]. Group 3: European and NATO Response - European leaders have shifted their stance to defend Greenland's sovereignty, asserting that it is part of NATO and should not be subject to military action by the U.S. [9][10]. - There are calls for European lawmakers to engage in robust political statements and lobbying against any military intervention in Greenland [11]. - Analysts have raised concerns about the implications of U.S. military action against a NATO ally, warning that it could undermine long-standing security agreements [8][10]. Group 4: Strategic Considerations - The U.S. views Greenland as strategically important due to perceived threats from Russia and China in the Arctic region [18][19]. - Analysts question the necessity of U.S. control over Greenland for national security, noting existing U.S. military presence and agreements with Denmark [20].