At the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Donald Trump brushed off questions about Denmark's refusal to discuss a possible U.S. acquisition of Greenland by saying he prefers to deal directly with the Dutch leader present and that the Dutch figure was “more important” than Denmark’s representatives. He told reporters he does not like to learn of such matters secondhand and would wait for someone to tell him in person, singling out Mark Rutte as the person he would speak with.
Trump reiterated earlier comments that Greenland represents a “core national security interest” for the United States and said Washington wants to open immediate negotiations over a potential purchase, adding explicitly that the U.S. would not seize the island by force. After meeting the Dutch prime minister, he also said Washington would for now drop plans to impose higher tariffs on eight European countries that oppose U.S. acquisition of Greenland.
Copenhagen has firmly rebuffed the idea. Danish officials declared there will be no discussion about handing Greenland to the United States, while Danish political figures including Anders Fogh Rasmussen—himself a former prime minister and NATO secretary-general—said Trump’s ambition to acquire the island remains “very clear.” European leaders moved quickly to consult: an urgent EU leaders’ meeting was scheduled for the evening to coordinate a response to the remarks and the tariff threat.
The flap resurrects familiar strategic and political tensions. Greenland sits astride vital Arctic sea lanes, hosts U.S. military facilities such as Thule Air Base, and is increasingly significant because of melting ice that opens resource and transit opportunities. Talks of transfer of sovereignty, even in jest, cut into NATO cohesion and raise questions about U.S. respect for allied sensitivities and the political autonomy of Greenland, which enjoys home rule within the Danish realm.
Practically, an outright transfer of Greenland from Denmark to the United States is extraordinarily unlikely: legal, political and popular obstacles are immense in Copenhagen and Nuuk. The more immediate consequence is diplomatic damage—renewed transatlantic irritation, a test of European unity, and an incentive for Arctic and European states to harden their positions on sovereignty, regional security cooperation, and foreign investment in the High North. The episode also underlines how presidential rhetoric can force European capitals into rapid collective responses even when concrete policy change is improbable.