At the World Economic Forum in Davos on 21 January, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would not use military force to seize Greenland but reiterated that the United States views the island as a “core national security interest” and is seeking negotiations to acquire it. He framed the effort as an immediate, transactional deal and warned European leaders that Washington would remember any refusal. Later the same day he said, after talks with Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte and discussions about an Arctic framework, that planned tariffs on eight European countries would be suspended indefinitely.
Copenhagen responded with alarm rather than appeasement. Danish foreign minister Lars Rasmussen said the desire to transfer Greenland to the United States was not under discussion and that the ambition to acquire the island remained “very clear.” The Greenland government issued an emergency-preparedness leaflet advising residents to store five days of supplies — even recommending hunting weapons and ammunition — a signal of local anxiety. Danish planning documents cited in Chinese media also suggest Copenhagen is considering a substantial military reinforcement of Greenland, with up to 1,000 combat troops and possible naval and air components in 2026.
Brussels moved quickly to maintain a united front. An emergency EU leaders’ summit scheduled for 22 January remained on the agenda to discuss what officials framed as an American threat to European interests. French president Emmanuel Macron condemned the rhetoric at Davos as a revival of imperialist instincts and warned that international law and norms were being trampled. Other European leaders argued the episode exposes a choice point for the continent: continue accommodating Washington’s erratic tactics or demonstrate greater strategic autonomy.
The episode matters because Greenland sits astride key Arctic sea lanes, hosts strategic U.S. installations, and sits closer to North America than to continental Europe. Melting ice is making the region more accessible for shipping and resource extraction, increasing its geopolitical value to Washington, Moscow and Beijing. U.S. interest in Greenland is not new: Washington has long sought basing access in the Arctic, including a post‑war bid to purchase the island, and the 2019 push to “buy” Greenland was a reminder that such ideas have political staying power.
Beyond the immediate drama, the story illuminates deeper tensions in the transatlantic alliance. The use of tariffs and public threats to extract geopolitical concessions from European partners is a departure from normal alliance disciplining and risks undermining mutual trust. For Denmark and Greenland, the dilemma is acute: Copenhagen must defend Danish sovereignty and the autonomy of Greenlandic institutions while managing allied pressure and local political sensitivities that include a growing independence movement in Nuuk.
What to watch next: the outcomes of the EU emergency summit, any formal Danish decisions on troop deployments or civil‑defence measures, and whether Washington follows up its Davos rhetoric with concrete offers or continued economic coercion. The episode also raises the likelihood of harder security competition in the Arctic, prompting NATO partners and EU members to reassess their regional posture and legal protections for overseas territories.