Greenlanders Want Independence from Denmark
U.S. troops in Greenland. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of War.
President Trump’s interest in Greenland is rooted in both history and strategic reality. The United States defended Greenland during World War II after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, and critics argue that Denmark later consolidated control over the island without the consent of Greenland’s population or formal approval from the United Nations. Today, some analysts believe Greenlanders could be open to a new political arrangement—potentially a Compact of Free Association with the United States—that would grant greater autonomy and reduce dependence on Denmark.
Greenland’s strategic value has grown rapidly as Arctic ice recedes, opening new sea lanes between North America and Europe. Russia and China have expanded their naval and research activities across the Arctic, including near Alaska, raising U.S. national security concerns. Greenland sits at the center of these emerging routes and is increasingly viewed as a key geopolitical chokepoint.
The United States already maintains a significant presence on the island through Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, which is essential to missile warning systems and space surveillance. In 2019, Naval War College professor Walter Berbrick described Greenland as the most important strategic location in the Arctic, arguing that control of the island equates to control of the region itself.
Beyond its location, Greenland holds vast natural resources. It has known reserves of oil, natural gas, and minerals critical to advanced technology and military applications. Of the 50 minerals the United States considers vital to national security, Greenland possesses deposits of 43, including rare earth elements used in weapons systems, electronics, and electric vehicles. China currently dominates global rare earth processing, making alternative supply sources a strategic priority for Washington. As Arctic ice retreats, large-scale extraction in Greenland is becoming increasingly feasible.
Concerns over Chinese and Russian activity in the Arctic have intensified in recent years. The House China Committee has asked the Secretaries of Defense and State to review Chinese dual-use research and surveillance operations at Arctic research stations in Iceland and Norway’s Svalbard, underscoring growing unease about Beijing’s regional ambitions.
Against this backdrop, Trump administration officials are expected to meet privately with Danish officials this week to discuss Greenland. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed President Trump’s interest in acquiring the territory, though he has downplayed suggestions that military force is being seriously considered. The White House has said it is reviewing a broad range of options.
Some U.S. lawmakers have pushed back. Senator Tim Kaine said both Democrats and Republicans would oppose any U.S. military action involving Greenland, emphasizing that Denmark is a NATO ally. Trump has repeatedly questioned NATO’s reliability, arguing that the alliance depends disproportionately on U.S. military power and suggesting that withdrawal could reduce American costs.
European diplomats told CBS News that Trump’s statements have further strained relations with NATO allies, with some questioning the durability of U.S. commitments. One diplomat described Greenland as a potential breaking point, particularly after Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that a U.S. military seizure of the island would effectively end NATO. Under Article 5, an armed attack on Denmark would obligate all alliance members to respond.
While a U.S. invasion of Greenland appears extremely unlikely, critics of the European reaction argue that the scenario is unrealistic. The United States accounts for roughly 80 percent of NATO’s military firepower, and NATO lacks the capacity to confront the U.S. militarily. Any such conflict, they argue, would devastate Europe, divert resources from Ukraine, and likely lead to a U.S. withdrawal from NATO and reduced support for Ukraine—burdens Europe would struggle to bear alone.
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, appointed by President Trump as special envoy to Greenland, has sharply criticized Denmark’s postwar annexation of the island. During World War II, Denmark was unable to defend Greenland after Germany invaded on April 9, 1940. On April 9, 1941, Danish Ambassador Henrik Kauffmann—acting independently while Denmark was under Nazi control—signed an agreement authorizing the United States to defend Greenland. From 1941 to 1945, the U.S. built an extensive military and logistical network across the island to prevent German use, protect North Atlantic shipping, support weather forecasting, and maintain air transit routes between North America and Europe. The Monroe Doctrine provided the legal basis for U.S. involvement.
After Denmark’s liberation in 1945, Copenhagen quickly reasserted control over Greenland. Although the 1941 agreement stated it would remain in effect until threats to the American continent ended, Denmark argued those threats ceased with the war, while the United States maintained they continued into the Cold War. The U.S. military remained, and in 1951 both countries signed a defense agreement formalizing the American presence. Two years later, Denmark declared Greenland an integral part of the kingdom and removed it from the UN list of non-self-governing territories without holding a referendum, despite UN guidance emphasizing the need for popular consent.
Denmark’s ambassador to the United States has argued that Greenland has been part of the Danish kingdom for centuries and notes that all major parties in Greenland’s parliament oppose becoming part of the United States. Critics counter that Greenlanders were never formally asked their preference and that Greenland’s own leaders have consistently emphasized a desire to remain Greenlanders—neither Danish nor American.
Polling on the issue is mixed. A Patriot Polling survey found that 57.3 percent of respondents supported joining the United States, though the poll’s small sample size of 416 people has raised questions about its reliability. Other research indicates that while Greenlanders overwhelmingly want greater autonomy or independence from Denmark, most reject U.S. statehood. Some, however, are open to a Compact of Free Association with Washington, similar to arrangements used by Pacific island nations, which could provide economic support and defense guarantees without full integration.
Greenlandic scholars note that free association has been discussed for decades. Rasmus Leander Nielsen of the University of Greenland has said that since the 1980s, Greenlanders have debated free association models, initially with Denmark and more recently with the United States. Following Greenland’s March 2025 election, the winning Democrats party stated that free association could be a viable option for a sovereign Greenland, naming Denmark and the United States as the only realistic partners. Naleraq party leader Pele Broberg similarly suggested that a U.S.-style free association could address Greenland’s defense needs after independence.
Greenland’s 2023 draft constitution explicitly allows for a future free association arrangement, under which Greenland could request assistance in areas such as defense, healthcare, currency, and diplomacy. While the document envisions such a relationship with Denmark, proponents argue that an agreement with the United States could offer even greater autonomy.
About Post Author
