Denmark’s prime minister has issued a firm rebuke to US President Donald Trump, urging him to stop threatening to take over Greenland after he again insisted that the United States “absolutely” needs the vast Arctic territory for national security reasons. The escalating war of words has deepened anxiety across Europe and the Arctic, coming amid heightened global tensions following a dramatic US military operation in Venezuela and increasingly explicit rhetoric from Trump and figures close to his administration.
Speaking on Sunday, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejected Trump’s claims outright, calling them legally and politically indefensible. “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland,” she said. “The US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom.” Denmark’s kingdom comprises Denmark proper, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, all of which enjoy varying degrees of autonomy under Danish sovereignty.
Frederiksen’s remarks followed renewed comments by Trump, who has revived a long-standing fixation on Greenland since returning to office. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One just hours after the Danish leader’s statement, Trump doubled down. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” he said when pressed on whether he still believed the territory should become part of the United States.
The latest flare-up comes against a volatile international backdrop. The US bombardment of Venezuela and the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro, has sent shockwaves through Latin America and beyond, while also energising Trump’s hardline supporters at home. In the wake of the operation, figures aligned with the president’s Make America Great Again (Maga) movement openly celebrated what they saw as a decisive assertion of American power — and some turned their attention back to Greenland.
Within hours of the US military action in Venezuela, rightwing podcaster Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller, Trump’s powerful deputy chief of staff for policy, posted an image on X showing Greenland draped in the US flag. The single-word caption — “SOON” — was widely interpreted as a threat of annexation. The post sparked outrage in Denmark and Greenland, where officials condemned it as provocative and disrespectful.
Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, responded sharply but sought to calm public fears. Calling the post “disrespectful,” he wrote on X: “Relations between nations and peoples are built on mutual respect and international law – not on symbolic gestures that disregard our status and our rights.” At the same time, he stressed that Greenland was not in immediate danger. “There is neither reason for panic nor for concern. Our country is not for sale, and our future is not decided by social media posts,” he said.
Denmark’s ambassador to the United States, Jesper Møller Sørensen, also weighed in, reposting Miller’s image alongside what he described as a “friendly reminder” of the close defence relationship between Copenhagen and Washington. “We are close allies and should continue to work together as such. US security is also Greenland’s and Denmark’s security,” he wrote. “The Kingdom of Denmark and the United States work together to ensure security in the Arctic.”
Sørensen underlined Denmark’s recent efforts to shoulder more of the burden for Arctic defence, noting that Copenhagen had significantly increased military spending. In 2025 alone, Denmark committed $13.7bn (£10.2bn) in additional defence funding, much of it earmarked for the Arctic and North Atlantic. “Because we take our joint security seriously,” he said, adding pointedly: “And yes, we expect full respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Despite these assurances, Trump has continued to send mixed and often alarming signals. In a move that further unsettled European allies, he recently named Jeff Landry, the governor of Louisiana, as a special envoy to Greenland. Landry, a former state attorney general, openly embraced the appointment, thanking Trump in December and describing it as “an honour to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US.”
Landry has also emerged as a vocal supporter of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy. On Saturday, he applauded the forcible removal of Maduro, framing it as part of the war on drugs. “Having served as a sheriff’s deputy and AG, I have seen the devastating effects of illegal drugs on American families,” he wrote on X. “With over 100k opioid-related deaths annually, I am grateful to see a President finally take real action in the war on drugs.” He concluded by thanking Trump “for holding individuals like Maduro accountable.”
Since taking office a year ago, Trump has repeatedly rattled European allies with his stated designs on Greenland, which is widely seen as strategically vital. The world’s largest island occupies a crucial position in the Arctic, a region rapidly gaining importance as melting ice opens new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of minerals, oil and gas. Greenland is already home to the US military’s most northerly base, at Pituffik, formerly known as Thule Air Base, a cornerstone of American missile defence and space surveillance. Trump’s vice-president, JD Vance, visited the base in March, a trip that drew close scrutiny from Danish and Greenlandic officials.
Most controversially, Trump has refused to rule out using military force to gain control of the territory, fuelling fears of an unprecedented rupture within Nato. The United States, China and Russia are all jockeying for influence in the Arctic, and analysts warn that Greenland could become a flashpoint in an emerging great-power rivalry.
“I don’t rule it out. I don’t say I’m going to do it but I don’t rule out anything,” Trump told NBC in May when asked whether he might use force to take Greenland. “We need Greenland very badly,” he added. Attempting to downplay concerns about the island’s population, he said: “Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security.”
Such remarks have prompted a profound reassessment in Copenhagen. In a dramatic signal of deteriorating transatlantic trust, the Danish defence intelligence service last month formally labelled the United States a potential security risk. The move marked a sharp departure from decades of close alignment between the two Nato allies.
At the time, Frederiksen and Nielsen issued a rare joint statement, underscoring their shared position. “We have said it very clearly before. Now we say it again,” they declared. “National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law … You cannot annex other countries.”
Public opinion in Greenland adds another layer of complexity. While the vast majority of the island’s roughly 57,000 inhabitants favour eventual independence from Denmark, there is little appetite for becoming part of the United States. A poll conducted in January found overwhelming opposition to US annexation. Greenland has had the legal right to declare independence since 2009, though economic dependence on Denmark has so far made that step difficult.
For some analysts, Trump’s rhetoric, once dismissed as bluster, now looks more ominous. Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a Washington-based thinktank that advocates restraint in US foreign policy, said recent events had changed her assessment. “I had long dismissed Trump’s sabre-rattling toward Greenland,” she said. “Now I’m not so sure. It wouldn’t be that hard for the US to put a couple hundred or a couple thousand troops inside of Greenland, and it’s not clear to me who could do anything about it.”
As tensions simmer, Denmark and Greenland are seeking to project calm and unity, insisting that international law remains on their side. Yet Trump’s insistence that the US “needs” Greenland — combined with a willingness to use force elsewhere — has injected a new sense of unease into Arctic politics, raising questions about the future of Nato solidarity and the stability of a region once seen as a model of cooperation.
