After public statements from the Trump administration about possible US control over Greenland, the subject has become a focal point of international policy. Donald Trump openly cited Greenland’s strategic importance for the United States and floated the idea of expanding the US military presence on the island.
Although there were hints at the use of military force, members of Trump’s team, such as Marco Rubio, denied such scenarios. Discussion now centers on proposals for investment or security partnerships with Denmark, but the possibility of Greenland leaving the Kingdom of Denmark is regarded as low.
European countries, notably France, Germany and the UK, have expressed clear support for Denmark’s territorial integrity and the need to uphold international law, wary of any shifts in the regional balance of power. The EU is considering various responses: increased funding for Greenland, enhanced NATO presence in the Arctic, or trade measures in response to US actions.
US rhetoric on the subject remains restrained and there is little communication with the American public on the benefits of controlling Greenland, likely due to political risks ahead of the elections. Observers predict more concrete plans may be made public in the near future, or if dialogue with Congress intensifies.
Experts agree the likelihood of military conflict between NATO states—especially the US and Denmark—is extremely low. Reactions from Denmark, NATO and Europe are geared towards diplomatic solutions without escalation. Greenland enjoys significant autonomy and has long sought greater sovereignty, but these questions remain open for ongoing discussion.
