COPENHAGEN—When the United States asked its friends for help earlier in this century, Denmark stepped forward, sending troops to fight and sometimes die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Danes face threats and intimidation from the United States in the form of President Donald Trump’s demand that Denmark sell or cede Greenland, against the apparent wishes of the Greenland people. That’s a shameful prospect for those who remember that the United States rose to world leadership by standing for something more than great-power bullying, à la greedy European kings and dynasties that the United States was founded to leave behind. Trump claims to put “America first.” There is a better way to advance US interests.
I spent the last days of January in Copenhagen, Denmark, meeting with Danish officials, experts, and old friends and veterans of happier days in US-Danish relations.
As rationale for its desire to acquire Greenland, the Trump administration has cited North Atlantic and Arctic security and, to lesser extent, access to Greenland’s mineral resources. Nevertheless, as my interlocutors explained, there are no outstanding US asks of Denmark in either area. The Danes made clear that if Washington were to make any requests for more or expanded US military bases in Greenland, then Denmark would likely approve them. Indeed, as the Danes I spoke with emphasized, they share US concerns about Russian and Chinese aggression in general and designs on the Arctic and North Atlantic in particular.
A new deal could give the United States the military access it needs (and already has) and provide a basis for shared costs.
Nor do there appear to be outstanding US industry or US government requests for mining or exploration rights. A Greenlander expert on mineral resources explained to me that Greenland’s supposed riches are less abundant than hype would have it. No oil or gas has been found (a much-cited United States Geological Survey estimate of large deposits is speculative, the expert said). Greenland does have deposits of rare earth metals, but processing capacity outside of China is not sufficient. And while a gold mine and some other mineral deposits exist, they are of secondary importance. Still, the expert and many of the other Danes I spoke with agreed: If the United States were interested in exploration and exploitation of oil and gas or rare earth deposits, or anything else, then Denmark would support it. If the United States were interested in long-term investment in rare earth processing capacity for strategic (read: anti-Chinese) reasons, Denmark would support that, too. But so far US private industry has not been banging on the door for access.
There is, in short, no material itch that needs scratching with respect to identified US interests in Greenland.
That leaves territorial expansion as a US motive for pushing Denmark to sell Greenland. The Danes emphasized to me that this was a “breaking point” for Denmark’s politicians: they felt they could not give in to such pressure legally or politically. Nor are they inclined to deal with the White House unilaterally, over the heads of the Greenlanders.
The Greenlanders themselves seem to favor independence in principle. However, support for independence drops when it is coupled with the likelihood of a decline in the Greenlanders’ standard of living, which is a likely result of severing ties with Denmark. It is unlikely that the United States would ever match Denmark’s support for Greenland, which includes not only a large annual subsidy but free health care in Denmark for all Greenlanders. A Greenlander told me that the island’s residents were initially flattered by the attention from the new US administration and by Donald Trump Jr.’s visit in early January. But that turned to anger, I was told, when Greenlanders got the idea that Trump Jr.’s trip was staged to depict Greenlanders as saying they supported US annexation. A recent poll revealed that 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States.
Unfairly or not, the United States could put pressure on Denmark. That could include tariffs and punitive taxes against Danish companies operating in the United States—e.g., Lego, Maersk, and the pharmaceutical firm Novo Nordisk—that employ tens of thousands of US workers in manufacturing plants. But there would be adverse consequences. Punishing Danish firms could put Americans out of work. It could disrupt supplies of medicines or cause their prices to jump, among other problems. The Danish company Maersk, for instance, is a major provider of shipping for the US Department of Defense, and its services cannot easily be replaced.
A clash with Denmark over Greenland leads to no good outcome. But there are ways out of this self-inflicted mess that would advance US interests. In an interview on January 30 with American journalist Megyn Kelly, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested dialogue to address both sides’ concerns about Greenland, a line that some Danes regarded as constructive.
The Truman administration once sought to acquire Greenland, too. But after the Danes said no, the administration pivoted and concluded the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement, which gave the United States extensive rights of military basing and access. The United States and Denmark could update that agreement—or conclude a new one and call it the Trump Greenland Security Deal. A new deal could give the United States the military access it needs (and already has) and provide a basis for shared costs. This would avoid new unilateral burdens on the United States for needed military infrastructure projects, such as a submarine base, that Washington would have to bear if Greenland were a US possession. Such an agreement might be negotiated with the Greenland government participating and even include provisions that would make sure US military access would continue if there were a change of Greenland’s status (e.g., independence).
The Danes want to maintain their alliance with the United States. They are happy to continue being a contributing, not a “freeloading,” ally. Their default mode is to stand with the United States. It’s good for the United States to have allies like that. The Trump administration shouldn’t throw that away for a cheap thrill of a land grab in the style of a warmed-over William McKinley.
Daniel Fried is the Weiser Family distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and former US assistant secretary of state for Europe.
Further reading
Thu, Jan 9, 2025
Land grabs, occupation, and threats will not make the US great again
New Atlanticist By Daniel Fried
The president elect’s threats may be bluster or tactical, but they reveal a dark side of power unworthy of any US president.
Wed, Jan 8, 2025
Everything you need to know about Trump’s Greenland gambit
New Atlanticist By
The incoming US president is adamant in his desire to acquire Greenland for the United States, which has angered Denmark and other US allies.
Mon, Jan 27, 2025
Dispatch from Davos: Trump is both symptom and driver of our new geopolitical era
Inflection Points By Frederick Kempe
At the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Switzerland, attendees responded to the new president with celebration, dread, and a range of emotions in between.
Image: Donald Trump Jr. visits Nuuk, Greenland, on Tuesday, January 7, 2025. Donald Trump Jr. is on a private visit to Greenland. Emil Stach/Ritzau Scanpix/via REUTERS