Quick Read
- President Trump has renewed his efforts to annex Greenland, citing national security and vast mineral wealth after the US intervention in Venezuela.
- Denmark and Greenland have strongly condemned Trump’s proposals, asserting their sovereignty and rejecting any notion of annexation.
- Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen called the US approach ‘disrespectful’ and a ‘fantasy’.
- International allies, including the UK, France, Sweden, and the EU, have expressed solidarity with Denmark, emphasizing respect for international law.
- The ongoing diplomatic row raises concerns about NATO cohesion and the potential for economic or diplomatic pressure on Denmark.
In the wake of a dramatic military operation in Venezuela that saw its leader Nicolás Maduro captured and removed to a New York City jail, President Donald Trump has once again set his sights on Greenland. His renewed, assertive push to annex the vast Arctic island, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, has ignited a fierce diplomatic firestorm, drawing immediate and unequivocal condemnation from Copenhagen, Nuuk, and a chorus of international allies.
Trump, who returned to the Oval Office in 2025, has repeatedly articulated his desire for Greenland, framing it as a critical national security imperative for the United States. His latest remarks, delivered in a telephone interview with The Atlantic on January 4, 2026, and later to reporters aboard Air Force One, underscore a potentially bolder, more interventionist foreign policy stance, a clear shift from his previous expressed distaste for regime change and nation-building.
The Strategic Calculus: National Security and Arctic Resources
For President Trump, the rationale behind acquiring Greenland is multifaceted, primarily anchored in national security and economic opportunity. He describes the island as ‘surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships,’ suggesting a growing geopolitical contest in the Arctic that necessitates American control. This concern is amplified by the ongoing global warming trends, which are progressively opening new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean, elevating Greenland’s strategic importance as a gateway to this increasingly accessible region.
Beyond its geographical positioning, Greenland is believed to possess immense mineral wealth, including rare earth elements crucial for high-tech industries. Trump has frequently highlighted this potential, seeing it as a vital resource for American economic and technological independence. While the United States already maintains a significant defense presence on the island, notably the Pituffik Space Base, which has operated since 1951, Trump’s administration seems to believe a full annexation would solidify these interests.
The appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland, tasked with exploring the island’s integration into the U.S., further signals the administration’s serious intent. Landry, accepting the volunteer position, publicly expressed his honor to work towards making Greenland ‘a part of the US.’ However, this proactive stance, coupled with Trump’s rhetoric, has only served to fuel alarm.
Denmark’s Defiant Stance: Sovereignty and International Law
The Danish government, along with Greenland’s self-rule administration, has met Trump’s overtures with a firm and unified rejection. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been particularly vocal, stating unequivocally that ‘the US has no right to annex any of the three nations in the Danish kingdom.’ She emphasized that Denmark, and by extension Greenland, is a NATO member, already covered by the alliance’s collective security guarantee, and that a defense agreement granting the US access to the island is already in place. Her message to Washington has been direct: ‘stop the threats.’
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen echoed this sentiment, describing the notion of US control as a ‘fantasy’ and the linking of Greenland’s future to the military intervention in Venezuela as ‘disrespectful.’ He asserted, ‘No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation. We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law.’
The diplomatic friction was exacerbated by a social media post from Katie Miller, wife of a senior Trump aide, Stephen Miller, which depicted a map of Greenland colored in the American flag with the word ‘SOON.’ This provocative image prompted a ‘friendly reminder’ from the Danish ambassador to the US that the two nations are allies and Denmark expects respect for its territorial integrity. Opinion polls within Greenland itself show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US, despite most Greenlanders favoring eventual independence from Denmark.
A Wider World Reacts: NATO, Allies, and Geopolitical Tensions
The international community has largely sided with Denmark, expressing concern over the implications of Trump’s annexation ambitions. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, speaking to the BBC, made it clear that ‘Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark must decide the future of Greenland, and only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark.’ Similar sentiments were voiced by French Foreign Ministry Spokesman Pascal Confavreux, who told French national broadcaster TF1 that ‘Borders cannot be changed by force,’ and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, who affirmed his country’s solidarity with Denmark.
The European Union has also rejected Trump’s claim that the EU ‘needs’ the US to control the territory. European Commission chief spokesperson Paula Pinho stated that this was ‘certainly not’ the EU’s position and that she was unaware of any such discussions. The collective international response underscores a shared commitment to national sovereignty and the principles of international law.
Perhaps most critically, the Greenland row has cast a shadow over the cohesion of NATO, an alliance built on mutual defense and shared values. As Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US, noted to Euronews, such threats are ‘extremely disruptive of a transatlantic security relationship that’s already in jeopardy.’ While a forceful annexation is widely considered unlikely, the experience in Venezuela has led some, including Lesser, to suggest that the president’s words should be taken seriously. The fear is that even if military intervention is off the table, the US could exert significant commercial, diplomatic, and economic pressure to secure concessions from Denmark, potentially creating a ‘real crisis inside the Alliance.’
President Trump’s persistent pursuit of Greenland, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a direct military intervention in Venezuela, signals a notable shift in American foreign policy, prioritizing perceived national interests through assertive and, at times, unilateral means. This approach, however, comes at a significant diplomatic cost, alienating key allies, challenging established norms of international law, and potentially eroding the very transatlantic security framework that the US purports to uphold in the Arctic. The confrontation over Greenland is not merely about territory or resources; it is a profound test of international cooperation, sovereignty, and the enduring strength of alliances in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.