Donald Trump’s recent announcement of a “ framework of a future deal” to buy Greenland was an embarrassing episode. This announcement has since started a tsunami of disbelief and derision amidst the island’s residents. The announcement comes after negotiations with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. With these ambitions, it aims to mitigate uncertainty over Greenland’s status and gives the United States the authority to mine rare earth minerals independently from the Danish crown. The greater mystery is why Trump might be making this apparent retreat from a tougher … Continue reading →
Interestingly enough, during his announcement, Trump hinted that this framework would allow U.S. sovereignty over some or all of Greenland. He specifically pointed to regions that host a large presence of military bases. Such a proposal led to comparisons with the UK military bases on Cyprus, which are still technically British territory. Most in Greenland are understandably wary of these claims. One local resident stated bluntly, “He’s lying,” reflecting a pervasive doubt about the authenticity of Trump’s intentions.
To make things even more confusing, President Trump’s recent agreement to withdraw those tariffs from the eight EU countries previously threatened has complicated matters. European leaders, not least Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, greeted this step with enthusiasm. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, indeed the day finished on a positive note. He understood that there was something different about the tone that changed after Trump’s announcement. He warned that the negotiations were in very early stages. Now, that is not real negotiations, right? It’s two men who’ve talked,” he said.
Even with the widely touted diplomatic breakthrough, sovereignty and mineral rights are still the key issues dominating the discussion. Or as Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, a Greenlandic member of the Danish parliament, tweeted in response. She has insisted that any NATO role in Greenland’s sovereignty or mineral wealth is “absolutely not on the table.” This emotional connection speaks to something very deep in Greenlanders, with many believing their control over their territory is not up for discussion.
The framework further questions what impact U.S. mining interests would have on the environment and autonomy of the Greenlandic people. As the community care worker Anak put it, this attitude is summed up by one Greenlander’s saying that, “Greenland only belongs to the Greenlanders.” Her quote reveals a deeper fear among residents that outside forces are looking to gain control over their lands and waters.
On top of these local aversions, responses at the international level have been mixed. Former Ambassador Michael McFaul underscored the importance of that public opinion/political pressure one-two punch. This dynamic duo’s efforts squashed Trump’s initial attempts to annex Greenland. He remarked, “United Europeans, the market, other US politicians, independent media, and public opinion combined to stop Trump’s crazy gambit to invade & annex Greenland.”
NATO Secretary-General Rutte noted that there remains “a lot of work to be done” to ensure that any potential agreement meets the needs and expectations of all parties involved.
As these debates are increasingly taking place within the Arctic Council, two key questions about Greenland’s future—and its relationship with the U.S.—remain unsettled. Local voices will be immensely important to making that narrative a reality. Greenlanders voice skepticism, foregrounding their pronounced wish for self-determination. They are looking for respect for their rights to their territory, land and resources.