After the US raid on Venezuela that resulted in the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro, Trump repeated his intentions to annex Greenland for the US, as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued her strongest rebuke to date, saying his calls to claim the island must stop.
Greenland is a semi-autonomous region of Denmark, which is a member of NATO and the European Union. Since returning to power at the start of 2025, Trump has several times called for its annexation, and following the ouster of Maduro he has returned to the idea in public.
“We need Greenland for a national security situation,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday. “It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.”
“You know what Denmark did for security lately? They added one more dog sled.”
A day earlier, speaking to The Atlantic, Trump said: “We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defence.”
In response, the Danish prime minister said America threats must stop immediately.
“It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland. The US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish Kingdom,” Frederiksen said in a statement on Sunday.
Why does Trump want Greenland?
Just before Christmas, Trump appointed a special envoy, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, to deal with the issue of Greenland. Landry said in a post on social media that he is honoured to serve in a “volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US”.
Trump regularly cites national security interests as a reason for his intentions toward Greenland, which is strategically located in the Arctic Ocean in the midst of major shipping routes. The world’s biggest island, it is geographically speaking part of North America.
As global warming progresses, more shipping routes through the Arctic will open up, making Greenland even more important.
The US has had a defence agreement with Greenland since 1951, and has around 150 personnel stationed there at the Pituffik Space Base, which focuses on missile detection and space surveillance.
According to Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US, Washington already has the security foothold it needs in Greenland, and the Trump administration’s intentions almost certainly pertain more to natural resources.
“The president puts a lot of emphasis on resources, mineral resources, energy resources, and commercial opportunities,” Lesser told Euronews. “Even if these resources are not easy to extract profitably, it wouldn’t surprise me that there would now be a lot of concern.”
How has Europe reacted?
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rebuffed Trump’s latest comments in a televised statement.
“It makes absolutely no sense to speak of any necessity for the United States to take over Greenland,” she said. “The United States has no legal basis to annex one of the three countries of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
The prime minister of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said linking the issue of Greenland to the military intervention in Venezuela was disrespectful, while French Foreign Ministry Spokesman Pascal Confavreux said France stands in solidarity with Denmark.
“Greenland belongs to Greenland’s people and to Denmark’s people. It is up to them to decide what they wish to do. Borders cannot be changed by force,” Confavreux told French national broadcaster TF1.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, meanwhile, said his country stands behind Denmark.
“Only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide about their territories,” Kristersson said.
The EU denounced the US’s proposals to take over Greenland several times last year.
Lesser said that while a forceful annexation of Greenland is unlikely, it cannot be definitively ruled out.
“I don’t think it was ever likely that the United States would use force in Greenland, but obviously, looking at the experience in Venezuela, many will understandably draw the conclusion that the president in some sense needs to be taken at his word,” he said.
He added that the pressure might lead to concessions from Denmark to allow the US more access to the territory.
“It may not take the form of a kind of military intervention, but there could be all kinds of commercial, diplomatic economic pressure aimed at getting the United States a good deal in Greenland.
What can Europeans do now?
While the Danish government is in crisis mode and insists that the territory is not for sale, Lesser says Denmark and Europe have some cards to play as well.
“I do think there are a lot of things on the table because the US administration does seem to put a primacy on economic and commercial issues. I think there is the possibility of doing a package deal across the Atlantic in which many things are in play,” Lesser said.
The EU has two disadvantages in any attempted trade-off: one, the goals of the US president are not completely clear, and two, it moves significantly slower than the Trump administration.
“It’s not that the European Union or NATO is incapable of responding to these challenges, but the pace on this side of the Atlantic is a lot slower than it is in Washington.” Lesser said.
Could the Greenland row damage NATO?
In her overnight reaction to Trump’s latest comments, Frederiksen recalled that as a NATO member, Denmark is covered by the Alliance’s collective security guarantee.
“I therefore strongly urge the United States to cease its threats against a historically close ally, and against another country and another people who have stated very clearly that they are not for sale,” she said.
Tensions and hostilities are not unprecedented among NATO allies: Greece and Turkey, for instance, have had very tense exchanges in the past. But this time, the members in conflict could include the guarantor of European security and one of the nations it is ostensibly obliged to help protect.
“It’s obviously a very basic level corrosive of cohesion within the alliance,” Lesser said. “There is an assumption that allies simply don’t behave in this way.”
He added that threats are extremely disruptive of a transatlantic security relationship that’s already in jeopardy.
“Anything that would go beyond the kind of rhetoric we’ve already seen over Greenland would cause a real crisis inside the Alliance.”
