Greenland standing its ground
Once overlooked, Greenland now shapes Arctic geopolitics and defies American territorial ambitions.
In a nutshell
- U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland are met with local and Danish outrage
- Pro-independence party won the March election and rejects U.S. pressure
- Arctic geopolitics are intensifying as global powers vie for dominance
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
On March 11, general elections were held in Greenland, a territory that according to international law belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark. Under normal circumstances, some 40,000 remote islanders voting to elect a local parliament would not have attracted much interest from anywhere. Even in Danish media, the local affairs of the Greenlanders have traditionally been viewed as a rather distant matter.
All that has now changed. Media that a few months ago would have struggled to even name the capital of Greenland, now inform their readers that it is Nuuk, that this is the world’s largest island, that it is among the most sparsely populated territories globally, that the local population is majority Inuit − related to the Inuit in Canada − and that the election concerned 31 seats in the Inatsisartut, the local parliament that forms an important part of the frozen island’s home rule.
The reason why media across the planet have suddenly taken such a keen interest in Greenland is obviously related to repeated statements by United States President Donald Trump, that one way or another, the island will end up belonging to the U.S. Unlike the government in Canada, which has reacted with furious resentment against provocative statements from the White House that it should become the U.S.’s 51st state, the government of Denmark has shown restraint amid the brazen U.S. demands that it should simply hand over part of its sovereign territory.
But pushback has been growing and is sometimes intense. Far surpassing the tempered anger from the government in Copenhagen, the local population has reacted with fury that is on par with that displayed by Canada. On March 5, Greenland’s then Prime Minister Mute Bourup Egede firmly rejected Washington’s demands: “We don’t want to be Americans, nor rather Danes, we are Kalaallit (Greenlanders). The Americans and their leader must understand that. We are not for sale and cannot just be taken. Our future will be decided by us in Greenland.”
The Trump administration’s provocations
What has been perceived by both the locals and Danes as especially galling is the audacity with which the American demands have been made.
On December 23, well before he took office, then President-elect Donald Trump claimed that “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” On January 7, the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., flew to Nuuk, on his father’s plane, on what he claimed was a “personal daytrip.” In a comment, President Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that “the reception has been great.” Adding pictures showing his son standing next to people wearing the red trademark “Make America Great Again” hats, the president concluded with “Make Greenland Great Again.”
Republican loyalists have been chiming in. On February 11, Georgia Republican Earl Carter, a member of the House of Representatives, submitted a two-page “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025” that would “authorize the President to enter into negotiations to acquire Greenland and to rename Greenland as ‘Red, White, and Blueland.’ ” Those who may have felt inclined to view it all as a mere joke, albeit in rather poor taste, have been given pause by President Trump refusing to rule out the use of military force.
As the election approached, some believed that economic incentives might suffice to swing the Greenlanders in favor of association with the U.S. For those who preferred to view the matter as a simple real estate affair, it was tempting to conclude that given the stakes involved, the cost of buying a total population of 56,800 people would represent small change for Americans.
It therefore came as a bit of a surprise that the clear winner in the election was the Democrat (Demokratiit) Party, which had campaigned on a gradual approach to independence. Having won around 30 percent of the vote, up by more than 20 percentage points over the result in the 2021 election, the party’s representation went from three to 10 seats.
Greenland’s sole party leader in favor of President Trump’s view was Karl Ingemann, whose newly registered Qulleq party won only 1 percent of the vote and no seats in parliament.
The big loser was Mr. Egede, whose Inuit Ataqatigiit party received only 21.8 percent of the vote. Its representation dropped to 7 seats, from 12 in 2021. At a press conference in early 2025, he had said that “work has already begun on creating the framework for Greenland as an independent state.” Following the American demands, Mr. Egede toned down his rhetoric, telling Fox News that Greenlanders had no wish to become part of the U.S. An opinion poll showed only 6 percent in favor. Many locals are now more inclined to stay under the Danish umbrella for protection against the U.S.
The leader of the Democrats, Jens Fredrik Nielsen, who became prime minister on March 28, meanwhile spoke in favor of gradual independence from Denmark, emphasizing that Greenland is not for sale to anyone. At the final televised debate before the election, Greenland’s sole party leader to come out in favor of President Trump’s view was Karl Ingemann, whose newly registered Qulleq party won only 1.08 percent of the vote and no seats in parliament.
Still more provocations
Although his efforts to cajole the Greenlanders had backfired badly, President Trump would not desist. At a meeting in the White House on March 13, he could be seen joking and laughing with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who expressed his understanding for the American position and smilingly joined in President Trump’s cavalier banter that matters would be sorted out.
To Danes as well as Greenlanders, this was an open demonstration of contempt, denigrating both the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a founding member of NATO, and the right to self-determination for the people of Greenland. The leaders of all five parties represented in the Inatsisartut made a forceful joint statement: “We – all party chairmen – cannot accept the repeated statements about annexation and control of Greenland. As party chairmen, we find this behavior unacceptable to friends and allies in a defense alliance.”
Facts & figures
Greenland at a glance
On March 15, a large crowd of demonstrators carrying the Greenlandic flag could be seen converging on the U.S. Consulate in Nuuk, where they sang Greenland’s national anthem. Some were carrying banners saying “Yankee Go Home!” that brought back memories of anti-American sentiments during the Vietnam war era. Consulate staff removed the U.S. flag, and Americans were advised to stay indoors. The event was broadcast on Danish television.
Tensions flared again later in the month when U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance planned a trip to Greenland with his wife and other American officials including multiple stops and photo opportunities. Locals pushed back strongly, and Mr. Vance was forced to scale back his visit to a single stop at the Pituffik space base in the island’s northwest. Nevertheless, Mr. Vance continued the pressure campaign. On March 28 he said: “Our message to Denmark is very simple: You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. You have underinvested in the people of Greenland and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass.”
Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark’s foreign minister, responded the next day. “We are open to criticisms, but let me be completely honest, we do not appreciate the tone in which it’s being delivered. This is not how you speak to your close allies, and I still consider Denmark and the United States to be close allies.”
Washington’s historical precedent of interest in Greenland
Looking beyond tempers that are presently running high, the American case rests on two claims of rather dubious merit. One concerns the legitimacy of Danish control, which is disputed by President Trump. The fact of the matter is that the island’s relations with Denmark date to the mid-18th century when a missionary from Norway, then part of Denmark, travelled west in search of descendants of the old Norsemen. There were none to be found. The Norse settlers had disappeared from Greenland by the mid-15th century. The local population was made up of Inuit settlers, presently recognized as the aboriginal population.
The main importance of the rediscovery of Greenland was that it triggered immigration from Denmark, which in turn led to the island being claimed as a colony in 1775. That claim was recognized by the U.S. in 1917, as part of a deal to purchase the Danish West Indies, later the U.S. Virgin Islands. International recognition followed in the 1930s. It is thus hard to see any legal merit in Washington’s questioning of the legitimacy of Danish control over Greenland.
For more on the Arctic, download a free reading sample from our latest GIS dossier
The second of the two claims used to support demands for U.S. control comes from President Trump’s stating that ownership and control of Greenland is an “absolute necessity” for Washington. Viewed against the background of heightened geostrategic tensions in the Arctic, this does have some merit.
Russia’s ambition to militarize the Arctic has been ongoing for close to two decades, including the formation of special-purpose Arctic brigades. Given its interest in the Northern Sea Route, China has also emerged as a seeker of Arctic power, pursuing plans for investment in Greenland and Iceland. Both Canada and the U.S. have responded by increasing their presence in the region.
Read more on Arctic geopolitics
- The transformation of Arctic security
- China’s cultural conquest of the Arctic
- Russia clears the path for China in the Arctic
A pivotal question is whether legitimate U.S. concerns about its need to have a more powerful presence on Greenland can be allowed to translate into violations of the sovereignty of a founding member of NATO.
As one the most loyal American allies, Denmark has been extremely forthcoming in accommodating U.S. demands for military basing rights. The U.S. Air Force operated a base at Thule, on the northwestern edge of the island, since the 1950s. Originally built to house the legendary B-52 bombers of the Strategic Air Command, over the years it has developed into a key part of the early warning missile defense system. In 2020, it was integrated into the U.S. Space Force. Under President Joe Biden, relations were also moving in a strongly cooperative direction and in 2023 his administration renamed the site Pituffik Space Base. The only demand from the Danish side has been that its flags must fly together with those of the U.S.
Scenarios
Looking forward, concerns about how the Greenlanders will adapt to the new circumstances are key. Although the current surge in anti-American sentiment has placed a damper on the prospects for a merger with the U.S., that does not reduce the strong desire for independence from Denmark. While the outcome of the recent election favors moving slowly, there is lingering resentment of past maltreatment.
Denmark is the last of the old European colonial powers. The story of its relations to the local population is familiar from other countries with indigenous populations that have been mistreated – like the brethren Inuit in Canada or the Saami in the Nordic countries. Women have been forcefully prevented from conception, children have been taken from their families to be brought up as good Danes, and language and cultural rights have been denied or grudgingly accepted.
The case for independence is boosted by 88 percent of the current population of Greenland being either direct descendants of Inuit or with mixed lineage. To many Greenlanders, independence could not come soon enough.
Formal Danish recognition of the colonial past was provided in 1953, when the status of Greenland was changed from a colony to a county. The first step toward independence was taken in 1979, when the island was granted home rule that included an elected parliament. Following a referendum in 2009, Greenland was granted limited self-government, leaving foreign and security policy, together with monetary policy and the judiciary, in the hands of Copenhagen. In early June 2023, a draft constitution was unveiled that boosted expectations for full independence to follow.
The main problem for those who are seeking independence is that despite its wealth of mineral resources, Greenland remains heavily dependent on fishing and on an annual grant from Denmark of 3.9 billion crowns (about $567 billion). The latter covers more than half of its public budget and accounts for approximately 20 percent of its gross domestic product. Onward developments are heavily conditioned by these facts.
Most likely: Greenland seeks independence and cooperates with Denmark
The most likely scenario is that Greenland continues its slow path toward independence, seeking closer cooperation with Copenhagen to attract investment and to ward off unwanted proposals both from the U.S. and from China. Past resentments of how Copenhagen has accepted U.S. demands for forceful removal of indigenous people to make room for U.S. military installations may now even translate into anti-American rather than anti-Danish sentiment.
Least likely: China becomes a leading influence in Greenland
Some have expressed concern that if Greenland does become independent, it will be a tempting target for Chinese investment and thus of Chinese influence. This is the least likely scenario. Although Chinese companies have shown interest in acquiring an old Danish naval base, and in modernizing the runways at Greenlandic airports, both bids have been blocked, and interest has cooled.
The same goes for Chinese involvement in mineral exploration that has been blocked due to environmental concerns. It is likely that this interest was driven more by Greenland actively seeking Chinese investment than by Beijing developing plans for an increased presence.
Wildcard: U.S. uses military force to take control
A wildcard scenario is the U.S. moving to seize Greenland by military force. Although no probability can be assigned to this outcome, even the threat of such a scenario will probably cause relations between Greenland and Denmark to become more rather than less cooperative, based on a common understanding that independence is inevitable but not in the near term.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
