As the global competition for resources, strategic positioning, and economic advantage intensifies, Greenland has emerged as a focal point of geopolitical interest. This intelligence brief analyzes the potential economic security implications should Greenland become affiliated with the United States, without advocating for such an outcome. This assessment examines how such a scenario might affect US economic competitiveness, particularly in relation to China's growing global influence.

·      Research suggests India could surpass the US in GDP by 2050, driven by a young workforce and rapid growth.

·      It seems likely that investing in India supports US competitiveness by accessing new markets and skilled labor.

·      The evidence leans toward India becoming a key economic competitor, potentially leading in technology and manufacturing.

·      There is some controversy over exact GDP projections, with varying estimates from PwC, Goldman Sachs, and others.

·      Research suggests the proposed mineral deal with Ukraine could enhance US economic security by diversifying critical mineral supplies, reducing reliance on China.

·      It seems likely that securing Ukrainian minerals like lithium, graphite, and rare earths will support US industries such as electric vehicles and defense, boosting competitiveness over the next decade.

·      The evidence leans toward supply chain security improving US economic resilience, potentially creating jobs and stabilizing prices, though challenges like infrastructure and investment needs exist.

·      Controversy surrounds the deal due to geopolitical tensions and uncertainties about Ukraine’s mineral viability, requiring careful consideration by investors.

As the Trump administration gears up to impose tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China—set to take effect today—an intriguing pattern of statecraft is emerging. The strategy isn’t just about slapping levies on goods; it’s a calculated move to rally North American allies into a unified front against a shared economic and geopolitical rival: China. Far from a blunt instrument of trade war, this approach reveals a nuanced attempt to reshape regional dynamics, leveraging economic pressure to align interests without firing a single shot.

The United States stands at the precipice of a strategic vulnerability that could unravel its economic leadership within a decade. China now controls 65% of global lithium chemical production, 80% of the world’s lithium refining capacity, and holds direct stakes in 15 of the 20 largest lithium mines operational by 2024. This dominance grants Beijing unparalleled leverage over the core mineral powering the 21st-century economy—lithium. Every electric vehicle (EV), grid-scale battery, and advanced defense system depends on this resource, yet the U.S. imports 92% of its lithium-ion batteries and 100% of processed lithium carbonate from foreign suppliers, predominantly Chinese-controlled entities. If unaddressed, this dependency will enable China to manipulate lithium prices, throttle U.S. clean energy transitions, and extort technological concessions from Fortune 500 companies within the next 5–7 years. Three existential risks emerge: the collapse of the $65B U.S. EV manufacturing sector, the forfeiture of renewable energy infrastructure projects to Chinese competitors, and the irreversible decline of American influence in critical mineral markets. This report exposes how systemic underinvestment in lithium supply chain sovereignty has created a national emergency for corporate leaders—one that demands immediate capital deployment into lithium mining ventures outside China’s sphere of influence.

·       Research suggests US companies owning data centers globally, especially in the Balkan region and Pacific Islands, is crucial for economic security and competitiveness.

·       It seems likely that these regions offer strategic locations, lower costs, and compliance with local data laws, enhancing market access and resilience.

·       The evidence leans toward potential harm to US economic competitiveness if companies don’t own these data centers, including market share loss and supply chain disruptions.

·       There is some controversy around the feasibility of data centers in Pacific Islands due to limited infrastructure, but strategic military and connectivity benefits are notable.

·      Research suggests that if Jeffrey Epstein were revealed as an Israeli intelligence agent, it could strain US-Israeli economic ties, potentially reducing military aid and trade.

·      It seems likely that US economic security could be affected, with impacts on tech collaboration, tourism, and financial markets over the next decade.

·      The evidence leans toward significant disruptions for US companies in Israel, especially in defense, tech, and pharmaceuticals, due to diplomatic tensions.

·      This scenario could unexpectedly affect global investment flows, given the strong economic interdependence between the US and Israel.

·      Research suggests China's Thousand Talents Program (TTP) is a strategic initiative to attract global scientific talent, enhancing China's economic and technological competitiveness.

·      It seems likely that TTP poses risks to US economic security, potentially through intellectual property theft and brain drain from US companies.

·      The evidence leans toward TTP remaining a significant concern over the next 20 years, as China aims to lead in critical technologies like AI and biotech.

·      Controversy exists, with some viewing TTP as legitimate talent recruitment, while others see it as a tool for espionage, affecting US-China relations.

·      Research suggests the Russian defense industry is strategically vital, with significant investments in nuclear, conventional, and hypersonic technologies, posing potential threats to US security.

·      It seems likely that Russia's defense sector will remain a long-term concern due to geopolitical tensions and economic reliance on military spending.

·      The evidence leans toward Russia’s capabilities in cyber warfare and space assets challenging US infrastructure, with ongoing modernization efforts amplifying these risks.