Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

Influence and pressure

The administration is working every angle to influence Greenland. In January 2025, the president-elect’s son, Donald Trump Jr., visited Greenland to shoot video for his podcast. He said he was just a tourist, but many saw it as part of a pressure campaign.

Danish media noticed that a lot of Trump supporters in his videos and photos were actually homeless and “socially disadvantaged” locals who’d been offered free meals and MAGA hats if they’d appear on camera. “They are being bribed, and it is deeply distasteful,” one Nuuk resident said.

Then came Vice President JD Vance’s visit in March. Second Lady Usha Vance planned to attend a dogsled race. U.S. representatives went door-to-door, asking if Greenlanders wanted to meet her. The answer, everywhere: “No, thank you.”

After local businesses and residents backed out from meeting with the Second Lady, the Vances had to limit their visit to the remote Pituffik Space Base, far from the rest of the population. There, Vance accused Denmark of failing to protect both Greenlanders and U.S. troops from “very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China and from other nations.”

Things got uglier in August. Danish media reported that American operatives were running “influence operations” in Greenland, trying to promote secession from Denmark. That prompted Denmark’s foreign ministry to summon the U.S. envoy for a dressing-down. A White House official said, “We think the Danes need to calm down.” U.S. intelligence agencies had reportedly been ordered to step up espionage in Greenland in May.

Meanwhile, the U.S. consulate in Nuuk is hiring interns who speak Danish and Greenlandic to help “communicate U.S. foreign policy priorities to Greenlandic audiences” on social media. Basically, they want Greenlanders to sell U.S. policy to their own communities.

The view from Greenland

Greenlanders aren’t having it. In a January 2025 poll, 85% said they’re against joining the U.S., while 6% were in favor and 9% undecided. Most Greenlanders do want independence from Denmark though, about 84%, but nearly half say only if it doesn’t hurt their quality of life.

The March 2025 parliamentary election in Greenland felt like a direct response to Trump’s rhetoric. The center-right Demokraatit party, which has strongly criticized Trump, won. Its leader, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, called Trump “a threat to our political independence.” According to Danish expert Ulrik Pram Gad, the election results showed that Greenlanders “are pushed away and more reluctant to engage with the U.S.”

After Trump's comments Sunday, Nielsen said in a statement: "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."

Is Greenland really a national security issue?

America’s legitimate security and economic interests can be better served through respectful partnership than aggressive acquisition. Thanks to the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, the U.S. already has broad military rights there.

This framework gives the U.S. access to Pituffik Space Base (previously Thule), a crucial missile-defense area. But when Trump talks about Greenland, he keeps lumping the whole island together with the base, insisting the only way to keep Pituffik safe is to own the land beneath it.

Crucially, Trump's argument for seizing Greenland shows a misunderstanding of Arctic security. When he says, “Russian and Chinese ships are all over the place” along Greenland’s coast, he’s mixing up different parts of the Arctic. Russia and China do send ships into the Arctic, but those ships are nowhere near Greenland. They’re way out in the Barents and Bering Seas, thousands of miles away.

The U.S. Coast Guard has encountered Chinese and Russian warships, bombers, and coast guard vessels operating together off Alaska’s coast. That’s where American attention would be better applied when it comes to Arctic security, not Greenland.

Taking a step back

Instead of threatening force or coercion, Washington should focus on deals that benefit both sides and respect Greenland’s right to govern itself. That means treating Greenland’s government as a partner, not a prize.

Denmark’s intelligence service points out that America’s unpredictable approach pushes countries to cut deals with China instead. Ironically, Trump’s push to buy Greenland to counter China could backfire, making Beijing seem like a more stable and reasonable partner compared to Washington’s existential threat.

The administration needs to drop the talk of annexation. Instead, it should work within current agreements, support Greenland’s own development goals, and show that America leads by building strong partnerships, not by issuing ultimatums.

If the U.S. wants access to Greenland’s critical minerals, it can get there through honest business deals and joint ventures that let Greenlandic communities benefit. Greenlanders have made their position clear: “Greenland is open for business but not for sale.”