The recent statements from the US president regarding a potential Greenland annexation have sparked disapproval from Denmark and the broader European community.
Following the US operation in Venezuela that led to President Nicolás Maduro’s arrest, Trump reiterated his plans to incorporate Greenland into the US, prompting the strongest statement so far from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who demanded an immediate halt to such claims.
Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a NATO member and part of the European Union. Since regaining power at the start of 2025, Trump has frequently advocated for its acquisition, and after Maduro’s removal, he publicly revisited the idea.
“Greenland is essential from a national security perspective,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday. “It holds great strategic value. Currently, Greenland is swarmed with Russian and Chinese vessels.”
“Do you know what Denmark has done recently for security? They added another dog sled,” he added.
The day before, during an interview with The Atlantic, Trump affirmed: “We absolutely need Greenland. Its defense role is crucial.”
In response, the Danish prime minister emphasized that America’s threats must cease at once.
“There is no justification to discuss the US taking over Greenland. The US holds no right to annex any of the three countries within the Danish Realm,” Frederiksen stated on Sunday.
Why is Trump interested in Greenland?
Shortly before Christmas, Trump appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy to address Greenland-related matters. Landry expressed on social media his honor to serve in a «volunteer capacity aimed at integrating Greenland into the US.»
Trump frequently cites national security as the primary motive for his Greenland strategy. The island, situated in the Arctic Ocean amid major maritime routes, is the world’s largest and is geographically part of North America.
As climate change advances, new shipping lanes in the Arctic will emerge, increasing Greenland’s strategic significance.
The US has maintained a defense agreement with Greenland since 1951 and currently stations approximately 150 personnel at the Pituffik Space Base, which monitors missile activity and space surveillance.
Ian Lesser, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US, notes that Washington already has a sufficient security presence in Greenland, suggesting the Trump administration’s interest likely revolves more around the island’s natural resources.
“The president places considerable emphasis on minerals, energy assets, and commercial prospects,” Lesser told Euronews. “Even if extraction is challenging, concerns about these resources are expected.”
How has Europe responded?
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen firmly rejected Trump’s remarks during a televised address.
“There is no rationale for the US to consider taking control of Greenland,” she stated. “Legally, the US cannot annex any of the three nations within the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen described linking Greenland’s status with Venezuela’s military intervention as disrespectful, while French Foreign Ministry spokesman Pascal Confavreux expressed France’s support for Denmark.
“Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and Denmark. Decisions about the territory belong to them exclusively. Borders cannot be altered by force,” Confavreux told France’s TF1 broadcaster.
Similarly, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson affirmed his country’s backing of Denmark.
“Only Denmark and Greenland have the authority to decide their territorial matters,” Kristersson remarked.
The EU condemned the US proposals to take over Greenland multiple times last year.
Lesser commented that while a forceful takeover of Greenland is improbable, it cannot be ruled out entirely.
“It seems unlikely that the United States would employ force in Greenland, but considering the Venezuela situation, many may interpret the president’s words literally,” he explained.
He suggested such pressure could result in Denmark granting the US greater access to Greenland.
“This might not manifest as military intervention but could take the form of commercial, diplomatic, or economic measures to secure favorable terms for the US in Greenland.”
What options do Europeans have now?
Although Denmark remains resolute in asserting that Greenland is not for sale, Lesser notes that both Denmark and Europe possess strategic leverage.
“The US administration appears to prioritize economic and commercial interests. There is potential for a comprehensive transatlantic agreement involving multiple facets,” Lesser commented.
The EU faces two challenges in negotiations: the US president’s objectives lack clarity and the EU’s processes are slower than those of the Trump administration.
“It is not that the EU or NATO cannot respond to these issues, but the speed of decision-making in Europe is considerably less than in Washington,” Lesser said.
Could the Greenland dispute harm NATO?
Responding overnight to Trump’s comments, Frederiksen reminded that as a NATO member, Denmark benefits from the Alliance’s collective security commitment.
“I strongly urge the United States to halt its threats against a historically close ally and a people who have clearly stated they are not for sale,” she asserted.
Disputes among NATO allies are not new; for example, Greece and Turkey have had tense encounters. However, this situation involves the protector of European security potentially clashing with one of the countries it is obliged to defend.
“This incident fundamentally undermines cohesion within the alliance,” Lesser stated. “There is an expectation that allies will not act in this manner.”
He added that such threats severely disrupt the transatlantic security partnership, which is already fragile.
“Any escalation beyond the current rhetoric about Greenland would provoke a serious crisis within NATO.”