Greenland and Denmark are preparing for what officials describe as the most consequential talks of their careers as they head to Washington to confront renewed pressure from the Trump administration over the Arctic territory — a dispute that threatens to fracture NATO unity and upend long-standing norms of international order.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt are scheduled to meet US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House on Wednesday. The meeting comes amid escalating rhetoric from President Donald Trump, who has refused to rule out military action to secure control of Greenland, insisting the vast Arctic island is vital to US national defense.
The talks will take place just hours after Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen reaffirmed that if forced to choose, Greenland would remain within the Danish realm rather than align with the United States. His statement underscored Nuuk’s growing unease over Washington’s intentions and sharpened the stakes of Wednesday’s encounter.
Trump has repeatedly revived his long-standing interest in Greenland, describing its acquisition as a strategic necessity. While Secretary of State Rubio has attempted to soften the administration’s tone by framing the goal as a potential purchase rather than a seizure, both Copenhagen and Nuuk have drawn firm red lines.
“The island is not Denmark’s to sell,” Danish officials have said, while Greenland’s leaders insist no financial offer could compensate for what they call their “national soul.” Both governments have now publicly ruled out two scenarios: the sale of Greenland to the US, and a fast-tracked move toward independence as a way of appeasing Washington.
Instead, Rasmussen and Motzfeldt enter the White House talks seeking clarity on America’s ultimate objectives — and to convince the Trump administration that a takeover is unnecessary, legally fraught and strategically counterproductive.
Central to Denmark’s argument is a comprehensive 1951 defense agreement with the United States that already grants Washington extensive military access to Greenland. Under the pact, the US can operate and expand military installations on the island, including Thule Space Base, provided Copenhagen and Nuuk are notified.
Danish officials argue the agreement already meets America’s security needs, rendering any attempt at annexation redundant.
One of Trump’s core claims is that Denmark has failed to adequately defend Greenland, leaving it vulnerable to adversaries. Copenhagen is preparing a counterstrategy that could include boosting its own military presence on the island, increasing Arctic investment, and deepening coordination with NATO allies — while potentially offering Washington even broader access under existing frameworks.
Such moves would aim to neutralize Trump’s justification for control without conceding sovereignty.
Another option circulating among European diplomats is what some have labeled an “off-ramp” scenario: a commercial deal granting the US access to Greenland’s rare-earth minerals in exchange for long-term security guarantees. Modeled loosely on Ukraine-style resource agreements, such a pact could allow Trump to claim victory while avoiding annexation, shifting the focus from geopolitics to economic cooperation.
Greenland possesses vast untapped mineral reserves seen as critical for advanced technologies and defense manufacturing, making it an attractive prize amid growing competition with China.
Despite diplomatic efforts, officials privately acknowledge that if Washington decides it must have Greenland, escalation pathways remain.
One possibility is a significant expansion of US troop deployments under the 1951 agreement. The pact imposes few formal limits on force levels, provided notifications are made. Analysts warn that once additional forces are in place, the US could gradually extend control over key government functions and institutions — an occupation in effect, even without a traditional invasion.
Such a shift would be signaled not by troop numbers, but by a change in mission, allowing control to be established with minimal spectacle.
The most extreme and widely viewed as least likely scenario is outright military seizure. Trump has already demonstrated a willingness to use force abroad, including airstrikes in Nigeria and a covert raid in Caracas that removed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. While the US would almost certainly prevail militarily in Greenland, Danish forces would be legally obliged to resist, raising the risk of casualties and imposing severe political costs across Europe.
European anxiety has been heightened by the prominent role Vice President JD Vance will play in Wednesday’s talks alongside Rubio. While Rubio is seen as a traditional hard-liner who nonetheless favors private negotiations, Vance is widely regarded as an unpredictable figure who embraces Trump’s confrontational style.
At last year’s Munich Security Conference, Vance openly attacked Europe, accusing leaders of fearing their own voters. He has criticized Denmark for “not having done a good job by the people of Greenland” and previously sparked a heated Oval Office clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy — an exchange that nearly derailed bilateral relations.
For European diplomats, Vance’s presence signals that Washington may be less interested in compromise than in extracting concessions through pressure.
Greenland and Denmark head into the talks backed by an unusually broad coalition of European support.
France has announced plans to open a consulate in Greenland on Feb. 6, a move seen as both symbolic and strategic. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned that annexing Greenland would constitute a “grave violation of the fundamental principles of international cooperation.”
In a guest article for Die Zeit, Pistorius argued that jointly defending the Arctic and North Atlantic within NATO “best serves the legitimate interests” of the United States and its allies.
The UK has echoed those concerns. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said Arctic security is “a critical transatlantic partnership issue” and stressed that alliance unity is essential to confronting emerging threats in the region.
“Coming together as an alliance allows us to unify and tackle this emerging challenge,” she said in a statement.
The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s intentions has already begun to ripple through markets. The Danish krone has weakened to its lowest level in six years against the euro, fueling speculation that Denmark’s central bank may intervene. While officials caution that multiple factors are at play, the Greenland dispute has become a growing concern for investors.
Trump, for his part, has shown little inclination to soften his stance. Asked on Tuesday about Prime Minister Nielsen’s remarks rejecting US alignment, the president dismissed him outright.
“That’s their problem. I disagree with them. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him,” Trump said.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has sought to frame the confrontation as something far larger than a territorial dispute. Speaking Tuesday, she warned that while Greenland would bear the immediate costs, the implications extend to the foundations of international order.
“We are standing up not only for ourselves, but for the world order that generations before us have built — our democracy,” Frederiksen said. “This is not just about Greenland or about the Kingdom. It is about the principle that borders must not be changed by force, that peoples cannot be bought.”
As Rasmussen and Motzfeldt prepare to enter the White House, the outcome remains uncertain. What is clear, European officials say, is that the Greenland standoff has become a defining test — not just for Denmark and the Arctic island it governs, but for NATO’s cohesion and the rules that have underpinned global stability for decades.
