Copenhagen/Nuuk – January 5, 2026
The leaders of Denmark and Greenland issued sharp rebukes on Sunday to U.S. President Donald Trump after he reiterated his desire for the United States to take control of Greenland, emphasizing its importance for national defense. The comments, made in a telephone interview with The Atlantic magazine published on January 4, come just one day after a controversial U.S. military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, raising fears in Europe that similar tactics could be applied to the strategically vital Arctic island.
In the interview, Trump stated unequivocally: “We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense.” He highlighted the presence of Russian and Chinese vessels in surrounding waters as a justification for U.S. control.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded swiftly in a public statement, declaring: “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the U.S. needing to take over Greenland. The U.S. has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish Kingdom.” She added, “I would therefore strongly urge the U.S. to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people, who have very clearly said that they are not for sale.”
Frederiksen noted that Denmark and Greenland are part of NATO, entitling them to the alliance's collective defense guarantee under Article 5. She also pointed out existing U.S.-Danish defense agreements that already provide Washington with extensive access to Greenland, including the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), the northernmost U.S. military installation.
Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen echoed Frederiksen's sentiments, calling Trump's remarks “not just wrong” but “disrespectful.” In a statement posted on social media, Nielsen said: “When the President of the United States says that ‘we need Greenland’ and links us to Venezuela and military intervention, it’s not just wrong. It’s disrespectful.” He further condemned related “disrespectful posts on social media,” referring to an image shared by Katie Miller, wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, depicting Greenland overlaid with the American flag and captioned “SOON.”
Nielsen emphasized Greenland's autonomy and democratic status: “Our country is not an object of superpower rhetoric. We are a people. A country. A democracy.” On Monday, he went further, declaring “enough is enough” and rejecting “fantasies about annexation,” while expressing openness to dialogue based on mutual respect and international law.
The renewed controversy follows Trump's appointment on December 21, 2025, of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as U.S. Special Envoy to Greenland. Landry, who has publicly supported integrating the island into the United States, was described by Trump as understanding “how essential Greenland is to our National Security.” The move drew immediate criticism from both Copenhagen and Nuuk at the time.
Greenland, the world's largest island, is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark with a population of approximately 57,000, mostly Indigenous Inuit. It gained expanded autonomy in 2009, including the right to declare independence via referendum, though it remains economically dependent on annual subsidies from Denmark. The island's strategic position in the North Atlantic makes it crucial for ballistic missile early warning systems and Arctic monitoring, hosting the U.S.-operated Pituffik base under a 1951 defense agreement.
Beyond defense, Greenland's vast untapped reserves of rare earth minerals, uranium, and other critical resources have drawn global interest, particularly as the U.S. seeks to reduce reliance on Chinese supplies amid escalating great-power competition in the Arctic. Melting ice due to climate change is also opening new shipping routes and resource extraction opportunities.
Trump's interest in Greenland dates back to his first presidency in 2019, when he publicly floated purchasing the territory, prompting Frederiksen to call the idea “absurd” and affirm that “Greenland is not for sale.” Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out military or economic coercion to acquire it, framing it as essential for U.S. security against Russian and Chinese activities.
The timing of Trump's latest remarks—immediately following the January 3 U.S. operation in Venezuela, where forces conducted strikes and extracted Maduro on narco-terrorism charges—has amplified concerns. The Venezuela action, described by Trump as a success in combating drug trafficking and instability, has been hailed by his administration but condemned internationally by some as an overreach.
European allies have rallied behind Denmark. Nordic neighbors and EU leaders reaffirmed solidarity, stressing that Greenland's future must be decided by its people. Analysts note that any U.S. attempt to seize Greenland would likely trigger a NATO crisis, given Denmark's membership.
Denmark has responded to heightened U.S. pressure by boosting Arctic defense investments in 2025, including additional F-35 fighter jets and enhanced military presence. Copenhagen has also worked to mend relations with Nuuk, increasing funding for health, infrastructure, and education amid ongoing discussions about Greenland's path toward greater independence.
Public opinion in Greenland overwhelmingly opposes U.S. annexation, with polls showing strong preference for independence from Denmark rather than integration with the United States. Residents and leaders alike stress sovereignty and self-determination.
As tensions simmer, diplomatic channels remain open. Danish officials have summoned the U.S. ambassador for explanations in the past, and experts suggest quiet negotiations on expanded cooperation—short of annexation—could defuse the situation. However, Trump's uncompromising stance continues to strain transatlantic ties at a time of global uncertainty.
This episode underscores the evolving geopolitics of the Arctic, where climate change, resource competition, and security concerns intersect. While the U.S. maintains significant influence through existing agreements, outright annexation remains a remote and highly contentious prospect.
