President Donald Trump’s interest in taking “control” of Greenland, by force or coercion, has been met with outrage in Denmark, Greenland, and across most of Europe. After initially seeking to downplay Trump’s remarks to deescalate the situation, the Danish government has stepped up its own rhetoric, forcefully denouncing hostile American attentions and vowing that Denmark would object to “any claims on Greenland.” During an April visit to Greenland, the Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen told reporters that “the US shall not take over Greenland. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” Shortly before the visit, Greenland’s new prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated, “President Trump says that the United States is getting Greenland. Let me be clear: the United States won’t get that. We do not belong to anyone else.”
The governments in Copenhagen and Nuuk have coordinated their messaging to demonstrate their unity and shared opposition to Trump’s interest. The effort has included reciprocal visits by the Danish and Greenlandic prime ministers and a trip to Greenland by Denmark’s King Frederik X.
Opinion polls show that the Danish and Greenlandic publics are firmly behind their governments when it comes to Trump’s interest. A YouGov poll from late January found that 78 percent of Danes would oppose a sale of Greenland to the United States, with 72 percent expressing the view that the decision should be Greenland’s, not Denmark’s. A poll by Verian found that 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States, with only 6 percent in favor. Most Greenlanders have long wanted independence from Denmark, but that does not mean they want to become American.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and, since 2009, it has had the right to call an independence referendum. It has a home-rule government responsible for most domestic affairs, but foreign, defense, and monetary policy are made in Copenhagen; Denmark covers roughly half of Greenland’s budget revenue (approximately $600 million in 2024). The island became a Danish colony in 1721 and has gradually gained autonomy since 1953.
The broader debate in Denmark and Greenland reflects public opinion. The political opposition in Denmark, both to the left and the right of the centrist government, has been even more outspoken in their pushback against Trump than the government has. Leftist politicians have urged the Danish government and the international community to do more to deter Trump’s interest. A conservative member of parliament has called for Denmark to close the American consulate in Greenland, while a member of the European Parliament from the right-wing Danish People’s Party went so far as to direct profanity against Trump.
Shortly after the March 11 election in Greenland, the leaders of all five major political parties issued a joint statement in which they denounced Trump’s remarks about annexation and control of Greenland as “unacceptable.” The election resulted in a historically broad coalition government, consisting of four political parties representing a combined 75 percent of the electorate. The decisive reason for this broad coalition was a desire to signal Greenlandic unity in the face of Trump’s remarks. The coalition agreement states, “We need stability and unity at a time when external actors are trying to influence our national development.”
Trump’s remarks about American “ownership and control” of Greenland have thus proved remarkably counterproductive. Elites and publics in Denmark and Greenland are firmly opposed to the idea, and Trump has paradoxically brought Denmark and Greenland closer together. Moreover, the controversy over Greenland has strained U.S. relations with one of its most loyal allies. Forty-one percent of Danes now view the United States as a threat. This represents a seismic shift in public opinion in a country that has consistently ranked among the most pro-American in Europe.
While Trump’s bombast has been unhelpful, he is right to call greater U.S. attention to Greenland. The island’s strategic location and its energy resources make it a significant geopolitical asset in the increasingly important Arctic region.
The United States has three vital national interests in Greenland: maintaining a military presence, gaining access to critical minerals, and preventing Chinese and Russian influence. Trump has correctly identified these. The question is not whether the United States has national interests in Greenland. The question is how these are best advanced.
The solution is not to buy or invade Greenland. There is also no need for a new institutional framework, like a compact of free association between the United States and an independent Greenland or a condominium that gives the United States and Denmark joint sovereignty over Greenland. Such proposals are solutions to a problem that does not exist.
American interests can be addressed without any of these proposals. The United States already has de facto military sovereignty in Greenland as a result of a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark, which allows it to establish and maintain as many defense bases as it wants. Greenland is open to U.S. investments in mining, and there are currently no formal obstacles preventing U.S. companies from doing so. Finally, Copenhagen and Nuuk share Washington’s concerns about Chinese and Russian influence.
Both Denmark and Greenland understand their limitations in managing their interest in Greenland. Therefore, they have repeatedly expressed their willingness to work with the United States.
The Danish government has acknowledged U.S. security concerns and welcomed an increased U.S. military presence in Greenland. As Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said in a video message posted on X after Vice President J.D. Vance visited Pituffik Space Base in March, “We respect that the United States needs a greater military presence in Greenland…. We, Denmark and Greenland, are very much open to discussing this.”
Denmark has recently stepped up its investments in Arctic security by devoting an additional $2.1 billion to Arctic defense spending, with a second spending package imminent. This money is directed towards strengthening surveillance that will enhance situational awareness of, for instance, potential Russian activities, which very much benefits U.S. security interests. It is worth noting, however, that the United States has also neglected its investments in Arctic security in recent decades, as it has dramatically scaled back its military presence in Greenland since the end of the Cold War. Now is the time to reverse this trend.
When it comes to critical minerals, Greenland has openly and consistently welcomed increased American investment. During the first Trump administration, the United States and Greenland agreed to strengthen cooperation in developing mineral resources. The new government’s coalition agreement identifies resource extraction as “a central part of Greenland’s future economy” and acknowledges that this requires large external investments. Greenland’s 2024 foreign policy strategy likewise emphasizes a strong interest in attracting foreign investment from the United States. If American companies want to mine, the door is wide open.
So far, however, this has not been the case. Among the 78 licenses provided to companies to explore mining in Greenland, only one has been provided to a U.S. company. Fortunately, American investment is about to increase. In June, the U.S. Export–Import Bank’s Supply Chain Resilience Initiative provided a $120 million loan to an Australian mining company seeking to extract critical minerals at a site in Southern Greenland. More investments like this are urgently needed.
Finally, there is the issue of Chinese and Russian influence. Previous attempts by Chinese companies and research institutions to establish a presence in Greenland have all been unsuccessful, in part because both Denmark and the United States discouraged them. In May, Greenland’s Minister of Mineral Resources Naaja H. Nathanielsen declined to categorically reject signing a hypothetical agreement with China. Yet she also stressed, “We have no interest in entering into a cooperation agreement with China, nor has there been any Chinese interest.” There can be no doubt that Denmark would strongly oppose any potential Chinese or Russian influence in Greenland. In 2021, Denmark passed a law to prevent foreign investments, primarily Chinese and Russian, from becoming a threat to national security.
Rather than contemplate purchase, conquest, or new institutional frameworks, the United States should sign a mutually beneficial tripartite deal with Greenland and Denmark that reflects the changing geopolitical situation in the Arctic.
As a minimum, the deal should address security, critical minerals, and the exclusion of China and Russia. It might also cover other areas of mutual interest like tourism, research, and education. The deal would build on existing agreements between the parties and draw on the constructive cooperation that brought these about.
On security, the deal should assess whether there is a need to amend the 1951 defense agreement still in effect, as has been done in the past, most significantly with the 2004 amendment. Denmark and the United States should also use the opportunity to strengthen military coordination in the Arctic.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
In the economic area, the deal should focus on expanding and intensifying the extraction of critical minerals. The three parties could establish a joint committee to help facilitate this. Washington could incentivize mining ventures by U.S. companies by creating a new investment fund and favorable loan schemes. To secure skilled labor, the United States and Denmark should establish a work-visa system that could provide jobs for both Danes and Americans in the mining industry and other expanding sectors. The deal might also include cooperation on hydropower to power data centers and other energy-intensive industries.
The deal should also address shared concerns about Chinese and Russian influence by banning foreign investments that can become a threat to national security. This could be done by extending the abovementioned Danish law from 2021 to Greenland. This would put to rest any uncertainty about hypothetical agreements.
A mutually beneficial tripartite deal is by far the best way to advance U.S. national interests in Greenland.
