7 Explosive Reasons Denmark Warned Trump to Stop Threatening Greenland

7 Explosive Reasons Denmark Warned Trump to Stop Threatening Greenland after U.S. action in Venezuela.Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has issued an unusually direct rebuke to United States President Donald Trump, urging him to stop what she described as threats against Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.

The warning came just days after a dramatic U.S. military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, an event that has sent shockwaves through capitals far beyond Latin America.

Frederiksen’s message was blunt:

the United States has no right to annex Greenland, nor any of the three constituent countries of the Danish Kingdom.

Speaking in a statement released Sunday, she said Trump’s repeated assertions that Washington “needs” Greenland for national defense were unfounded, destabilising, and deeply concerning for a historically close ally.

The comments followed an interview with The Atlantic magazine in which Trump doubled down on his long-standing interest in the Arctic island, declaring, “We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defence.” For Copenhagen, the timing could not have been worse.

Trump’s remarks came immediately after the United States bombed Venezuela and forcibly removed its head of state, prompting fears in Denmark and across Europe that Washington is increasingly willing to use raw military power to achieve geopolitical goals.

7 Explosive Reasons Denmark Warned Trump to Stop Threatening Greenland

“Greenland Is Not for Sale,” Frederiksen Says

“I would therefore strongly urge the United States to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have very clearly said that they are not for sale,” Frederiksen said.

She also reminded Washington that Denmark and Greenland are already part of NATO and covered by the alliance’s collective security guarantee. Existing defence agreements already grant the United States extensive access to Greenlandic territory, including its key military installations.

From Copenhagen’s perspective, Trump’s rhetoric ignores both international law and the reality of long-standing U.S.–Danish security cooperation. Denmark has repeatedly increased defence spending in the Arctic, investing billions of dollars to bolster surveillance, naval presence, and infrastructure in Greenland and the North Atlantic.

Why Venezuela Triggered Alarm in Denmark

The U.S. operation in Venezuela marked one of the most controversial American military interventions in decades. U.S. forces carried out large-scale strikes on Caracas before abducting President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and flying them to New York to face drug-related charges.

Trump has described the operation as a law-enforcement mission. Critics, however, argue it amounted to an illegal act of regime change and a violation of international law.

For Danish officials, the spectacle of a foreign leader being seized by U.S. forces raised an uncomfortable question: if Washington is willing to do this to Venezuela, what restrains it elsewhere?

That concern intensified when Trump linked the Greenland question to national security and defence needs, language that many analysts see as laying rhetorical groundwork for coercive action.

Greenland’s Strategic Importance Explained

Greenland occupies a uniquely important position on the global map. Located between North America and Europe, it sits astride the Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, a strategic maritime corridor that was central during the Cold War and is regaining prominence amid rising tensions with Russia and China.

The island hosts the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a cornerstone of the U.S. ballistic missile early-warning and space surveillance system. American military planners view Greenland as essential for monitoring missile launches and tracking activity in the Arctic.

Beyond defence, Greenland is rich in rare earth elements and critical minerals vital for modern technologies, from electric vehicles to advanced weapons systems. As Washington seeks to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains, Greenland’s mineral wealth has become increasingly attractive.

Trump’s Longstanding Interest in Greenland

Trump first floated the idea of acquiring Greenland in 2019, reportedly exploring whether the United States could buy the territory outright. The proposal was swiftly rejected by both Denmark and Greenland, with Frederiksen at the time calling the idea “absurd.”

Since returning to office, Trump has revived the issue with renewed intensity. In December, he appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry—an outspoken supporter of annexation—as special envoy to Greenland. The move was widely interpreted as a signal that Washington’s interest had shifted from rhetoric to action.

Landry has openly said he would help Trump “make Greenland part of the U.S.,” further fuelling unease in Copenhagen, Nuuk, and Brussels.

Social Media Post Sparks Diplomatic Backlash

Tensions escalated further after Katie Miller, the wife of Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, posted an image on X depicting Greenland draped in the colours of the U.S. flag. Above the image was a single word: “SOON.”

The post went viral almost instantly, drawing sharp condemnation from Danish and Greenlandic officials.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen called the image “disrespectful,” saying relations between nations must be built on mutual respect and international law, not symbolic gestures that disregard sovereignty.

“Our country is not for sale, and our future is not decided by social media posts,” Nielsen said, adding that there was no reason for panic but every reason to insist on dignity and legality.

Denmark’s Ambassador Issues a “Friendly Reminder”

Denmark’s ambassador to the United States, Jesper Møller Sørensen, responded publicly to the post, stressing that Denmark expects “full respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.”

In a pointed but measured message, Sørensen reminded Washington that Denmark has significantly boosted its Arctic security efforts and has worked closely with the U.S. to safeguard the region.

“We are close allies and should continue to work together as such,” he wrote, underscoring that Greenland’s security is already deeply intertwined with U.S. and NATO defence planning.

Greenland’s Leadership: Calm but Firm

While rejecting Trump’s comments, Greenland’s leadership has sought to project calm. Prime Minister Nielsen emphasised that Greenland is a democratic society with self-government, free elections, and strong institutions.

He described Greenland as a “loyal friend of the United States,” noting that the island has long played a role in ensuring security in the North Atlantic and for North America itself.

At the same time, he made clear that threats and pressure have no place between allies. Dialogue, he said, is welcome—but only through proper diplomatic channels and in full respect of international law.

NATO, International Law, and European Anxiety

Trump’s Greenland rhetoric has reverberated across Europe, where allies are already uneasy about Washington’s increasingly unilateral approach to global affairs.

The European Union has repeatedly stressed that borders cannot be changed by force and that sovereignty must be respected. While some European leaders privately welcome Maduro’s removal, many fear the precedent set by the Venezuela operation.

For NATO, the issue is particularly sensitive. Denmark is a founding member of the alliance, and Greenland is already part of NATO’s strategic architecture. Any attempt by the U.S. to coerce or annex the territory would strike at the heart of alliance solidarity.

Jeffrey Sachs Warns: “Greenland Could Be Next”

Adding to the debate, economist Jeffrey Sachs has warned that the United States is dismantling international law “in real time.” Speaking on a European podcast, Sachs argued that the capture of Maduro shows how far Washington is prepared to go.

Turning to Greenland, he cautioned that the U.S. could one day invoke a national security emergency to justify occupying the island. Europe’s response, he suggested, might be muted, revealing the erosion of global norms.

Sachs’ remarks have been widely shared in European policy circles, reinforcing concerns that Trump’s statements should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as bluster.

Trump Doubles Down: “We Need Greenland”

Despite Denmark’s appeal, Trump has shown little sign of backing down. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he reiterated that Greenland is strategically vital and claimed it is currently surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships.

“We need Greenland from a national security standpoint,” Trump said, adding that Denmark is “not going to be able to do it” alone—a claim Danish officials strongly dispute.

Asked whether the Venezuela operation should be seen as a warning, Trump offered a cryptic response, telling reporters to “ask me in 20 days.”

Why Greenland Matters to U.S. Defence Planning

From Washington’s perspective, Greenland is central to Arctic strategy. Climate change is opening new shipping routes and increasing competition for resources in the High North.

Russia has expanded its military presence in the Arctic, while China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state.”

U.S. defence planners argue that maintaining dominance in the region is essential to preventing adversaries from gaining strategic advantages close to North America.

However, critics counter that these objectives can—and already do—exist within existing alliances and agreements, making annexation unnecessary and destabilising.

The Broader Pattern of U.S. Unilateralism

Trump’s Greenland comments cannot be viewed in isolation. In recent days, he has also issued threats against Colombia, warned Cuba that it is “going down,” and suggested the United States will “run” Venezuela indefinitely.

The administration’s National Security Strategy emphasises restoring American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, invoking doctrines dating back to the 19th century.

For many observers, this signals a return to a more overtly coercive form of U.S. power projection—one that prioritises strategic advantage over multilateral norms.

What Comes Next for Denmark and Greenland

For now, Denmark is seeking to defuse tensions while standing firm. Copenhagen continues to invest in Arctic defence and to emphasise cooperation rather than confrontation.

Greenland, meanwhile, remains focused on self-determination. Under a 2009 agreement, the island has the right to declare independence from Denmark, though it currently relies heavily on Danish subsidies.

Any future status change, Greenland’s leaders insist, will be decided by Greenlanders alone—not by foreign powers.

A Test for Alliances and Global Rules

The standoff over Greenland is shaping up as a critical test of international law, alliance cohesion, and the limits of American power.

Denmark’s message to Washington is clear:

allies matter, sovereignty matters, and threats—even rhetorical ones—carry consequences.

Whether Trump heeds that warning remains to be seen.

But as the fallout from Venezuela continues to ripple outward, one thing is certain:

Greenland has moved from a peripheral issue to the center of a much larger global debate about power, restraint, and the future of the international order.

Also Read: 9 Explosive Developments as Trump Taps Greenland Envoy

Also Read: What does Donald Trump’s threat to seize Greenland mean for the EU and NATO?