The prospect of high-level discussions between Danish and US officials in Washington regarding Greenland has been preceded by a renewed and assertive claim on the Arctic island by former US President Donald Trump. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump insisted the United States requires Greenland for national security reasons, citing the planned “Golden Dome” project as a critical factor. He controversially suggested that NATO should facilitate the acquisition, warning that failure to do so could result in the island falling into the hands of Russia or China.
Trump’s statements have reignited a debate regarding US influence and sovereignty in the Arctic and more broadly, underscore questions about the transatlantic alliance’s future. His assertion that NATO lacks “effective military strength or deterrence” without the United States’ “enormous power” represents a direct challenge to the organization’s foundational principles of shared responsibility and collaborative security. Linking NATO’s effectiveness to US control of Greenland is a provocative move, potentially signaling a transactional view of the alliance, where benefits must be demonstrably aligned with US interests.
The scheduled meeting, involving US Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Motzfeldt, is expected to be fraught with tension. While Danish officials have consistently rejected previous US overtures regarding Greenland’s purchase, Trump’s repeated claims, coupled with his forceful linkage to NATO security, are likely to intensify pressure.
The situation highlights a growing concern among US allies about the unpredictability of US foreign policy under a potential Trump administration. The move risks alienating Denmark and potentially other Arctic nations, fostering distrust and undermining the cooperative framework essential for addressing the region’s unique geopolitical challenges, including climate change, resource management and security concerns. The inclusion of Greenland’s Foreign Minister in the discussion – a symbolic gesture – suggests an awareness within Washington of the importance of engaging directly with the island’s self-governance aspirations, though the forceful rhetoric from Trump casts doubt on the sincerity of such engagement. The implications of this renewed push extend beyond Greenland, signaling a potential shift toward a more unilateral and assertive US foreign policy posture.