The Arctic’s frozen waters became the scene of both a medical emergency and intensifying geopolitical drama this weekend, as Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command evacuated an ill crew member from a United States submarine operating in Greenlandic waters. The rescue, conducted by helicopter under challenging polar conditions, underscored the logistical complexity of military operations in the High North — and unfolded just as former U.S. President Donald Trump reignited debate about American ambitions in the Arctic.

According to an official statement posted on social media, Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command, which oversees Danish military and search-and-rescue operations in Greenland and surrounding waters, responded to a request for assistance after a U.S. submarine reported a medical emergency onboard.

The unidentified crew member was airlifted by helicopter and transported to a hospital in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, for further treatment. Officials did not disclose the nature of the medical condition, nor did they provide details about the submarine’s mission or its class. The waters around Greenland are routinely traversed by NATO naval vessels, including American submarines, as part of Arctic patrol and deterrence missions.

The Arctic environment poses unique risks for submarine crews. Extreme cold, isolation, limited daylight during winter months, and vast distances from major medical facilities can complicate emergency response. In this case, Danish authorities — responsible for Greenland’s defense and foreign affairs under the Kingdom of Denmark — acted swiftly, demonstrating the close operational cooperation between NATO allies in the region.

Greenland, though geographically part of North America, remains an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its strategic significance has grown markedly in recent years as melting sea ice opens new shipping routes and exposes untapped natural resources.

The rescue coincided with a striking announcement from Donald Trump, who declared on his Truth Social platform that he was dispatching a U.S. hospital ship to Greenland to assist what he described as “many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there.”

“We are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick,” Trump wrote. “It’s on the way!!!”

The post featured what appeared to be an AI-generated image of the USNS Mercy, an 894-foot hospital ship typically stationed in Southern California. The image showed the white vessel with red crosses sailing toward snowcapped Arctic mountains. It remains unclear whether the ship depicted is the actual vessel being deployed or whether any hospital ship has formally departed.

The USNS Mercy and its sister ship, the USNS Comfort, are floating medical facilities operated by the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command. They are generally used for humanitarian missions, disaster response, and wartime medical support. Deploying such a vessel to Greenland would represent a significant logistical undertaking, given the harsh maritime conditions and limited port infrastructure in Arctic waters.

Trump said the move was being coordinated with Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, whom he named as his envoy to Greenland in December. The appointment of Landry — whose experience is rooted in U.S. state-level politics rather than Arctic affairs — drew both curiosity and skepticism from diplomatic observers.

Danish and Greenlandic authorities have not publicly confirmed receiving notice of a U.S. hospital ship deployment, and no official health emergency has been reported in Greenland that would necessitate such large-scale intervention.

Trump’s renewed focus on Greenland revives a controversy dating back to his presidency, when he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island from Denmark — a proposal Copenhagen firmly rejected.

Greenland occupies a critical geostrategic position between North America and Europe. It sits astride key maritime routes in the North Atlantic and hosts the U.S. Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), an essential node in America’s ballistic missile early warning system.

As Arctic ice retreats, the island’s potential mineral wealth — including rare earth elements — has also attracted global interest. China, Russia, the United States, and European nations increasingly view the Arctic not merely as a remote frontier but as a future economic and military corridor.

“The Arctic is no longer a quiet corner on the map,” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, said at a conference in Tromsø earlier this month. “It is the front line of the global power competition.”

Beyond Greenland, speculation has swirled about the future of Norway’s Svalbard archipelago — another strategically vital Arctic territory.

In Longyearbyen, the administrative center of Svalbard, residents have been asked an unsettling question: “Today Greenland, tomorrow Svalbard?”

Mayor Terje Aunevik says he hears the query frequently. Yet he insists that locals remain calm.

Longyearbyen is one of the northernmost towns in the world, located roughly halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole. Home to around 2,500 residents from nearly 50 countries, the former mining outpost has evolved into a research hub and tourist destination.

Life in Svalbard is unlike anywhere else. The town endures four months of polar night in winter and continuous daylight in summer. Residents venturing beyond its limits are legally required to carry rifles in case of polar bear encounters.

Svalbard’s strategic importance, however, extends far beyond its picturesque isolation. The archipelago lies near the so-called “Bear Gap,” a maritime corridor between the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. This passage is crucial for Russia’s Northern Fleet submarines based on the Kola Peninsula, which must transit through these waters to access the Atlantic Ocean.

According to security analysts, control of the surrounding seas — rather than the islands themselves — is the key strategic consideration.

Russia seeks to safeguard its nuclear deterrent by ensuring its submarines can operate undetected, while NATO forces aim to monitor and, if necessary, constrain their movements.

Svalbard’s legal status is governed by the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which grants Norway “full and absolute” sovereignty while allowing citizens of signatory states equal rights to engage in commercial activities.

Russia maintains a longstanding presence in the mining settlement of Barentsburg, where approximately 350 Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians reside. The town features Soviet-era iconography, including a prominent bust of Lenin.

Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Norway has tightened administrative controls over Svalbard, restricting land sales and modifying local governance rules. Moscow has accused Oslo of violating the treaty and has staged symbolic gestures, including military-style parades and the installation of an unauthorized Orthodox cross in the abandoned settlement of Pyramiden.

Yet experts caution that a direct Russian takeover attempt remains unlikely. With Moscow heavily engaged in Ukraine and facing economic sanctions, analysts believe Russia’s Arctic posture is currently limited to hybrid signaling rather than overt aggression.

Some observers argue that unpredictability from Washington poses a more destabilizing variable.

“With the current Trump administration, anything can happen,” said polar geopolitics researcher Mikaa Blugeon-Mered, suggesting that abrupt policy shifts could unsettle the delicate balance governing Svalbard.

For decades, policymakers spoke of “Arctic exceptionalism” — the idea that the region was insulated from broader geopolitical rivalries and governed by cooperation through bodies such as the Arctic Council.

Military exercises have increased. Submarine patrols are more frequent. Satellite surveillance, missile defense installations, and infrastructure investments are accelerating.

Melting sea ice is opening the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s Arctic coast, shortening shipping distances between Asia and Europe. The prospect of year-round navigability has drawn global commercial interest, while also raising environmental concerns.

Climate change has transformed the Arctic into both a warning sign of planetary warming and a theater of strategic competition.

Despite global attention, residents of Longyearbyen appear unfazed.

“Maybe we talk a bit more about what’s happening in Greenland and with Trump and everything,” said Charlotte Bakke-Mathiesen, a local shop employee. “But at the same time I feel like we’re not more anxious than we usually are. We’re just in our own bubble.”

“I strongly believe that both our allies and our neighbours are living very well with Norway having sovereignty over this island,” he said, gesturing toward his office decor, which includes a polar bear femur.

For now, life in Svalbard continues as usual — beneath the aurora-lit skies of the polar night.

The dramatic rescue of an American submariner and Trump’s hospital ship announcement may appear unrelated. Yet together they reflect a broader truth: the Arctic is no longer peripheral.

From submarine patrols beneath icy seas to social media declarations of floating hospitals, the High North has become a stage where military preparedness, humanitarian narratives, and geopolitical ambition intersect.

Whether the hospital ship materializes or not, the message is unmistakable. The Arctic’s once-quiet waters are now central to global strategy.

As Kaja Kallas warned, the period of “High North, low tension” has ended.

In its place emerges a new reality — one in which every evacuation, every patrol, and every political statement resonates far beyond the ice.

Donald Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States must take control of Greenland to protect the Arctic from what he describes as growing security threats posed by China and Russia. Framing the issue in stark geopolitical terms, the US president has warned that the strategic territory is at the centre of a global power struggle that could shape future world peace.

“World peace is at stake! China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it,” Mr Trump wrote on social media earlier this year, reigniting a debate that has simmered for nearly a decade.

China has made no secret of its ambitions to expand its influence in the Arctic region, presenting itself as a long-term stakeholder in the area’s economic development, shipping routes, natural resources, and governance structures. Yet analysts say the gap between Beijing’s stated ambitions and its actual footprint on the ground in Greenland remains wide.

As Washington sharpens its rhetoric and pushes closer security ties with Denmark and NATO allies, questions are growing over how well-founded claims of a Chinese “security threat” to Greenland really are.

China’s Arctic strategy formally took shape in 2018, when Beijing released a sweeping policy paper outlining its vision for deeper engagement in the region. In the document, China controversially declared itself a “Near-Arctic State,” arguing that climate change and global trade gave it legitimate interests in the Arctic’s future.

The policy laid out plans to expand scientific research, participate in environmental protection, invest in infrastructure, and play a role in governance mechanisms. Central to the strategy was the idea of a “Polar Silk Road,” an Arctic extension of China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative aimed at developing new shipping routes and transport corridors.

Beijing argued that melting ice would unlock faster maritime passages between Asia and Europe, potentially reshaping global trade. The policy paper encouraged Chinese companies to invest in Arctic shipping infrastructure and conduct trial voyages to pave the way for regular commercial operations.

At the time, Western security officials warned that economic engagement could evolve into strategic leverage, particularly in small Arctic communities with limited infrastructure funding options. Greenland, a vast but sparsely populated autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, quickly emerged as a focal point.

Despite its grand vision, China’s progress on Arctic shipping has been slow and cautious. The harsh environment, unpredictable ice conditions, and heavy reliance on Russian cooperation along the Northern Sea Route have constrained expansion.

A notable milestone came last October, when a Chinese commercial vessel travelled from a port in eastern China to Suffolk in England via the Arctic, skirting Russia’s northern coastline. Chinese state media hailed the voyage as a breakthrough, noting it took around 20 days—roughly half the time required for a traditional route through the Suez Canal.

However, the achievement also underscored the challenges. According to state media reports, the single journey took three years of planning, extensive coordination, and favourable ice conditions. Chinese officials have said similar voyages are being considered for 2026, but there is no evidence of regular Arctic shipping traffic by Chinese firms at present.

Mr Trump has repeatedly asserted that Chinese and Russian ships are operating in large numbers near Greenland, portraying the island as being encircled by rival powers.

“Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” he told reporters in early January.

Those claims have been flatly rejected by Greenlandic authorities and questioned by independent analysts. Publicly available maritime tracking data shows no Chinese or Russian vessels operating near Greenland’s coastline during the winter months, when sea ice makes navigation virtually impossible.

Analysts say seasonal realities alone undermine the president’s statements. “In winter, the waters around Greenland are largely frozen,” said one Arctic security researcher. “There simply isn’t the shipping activity being described.”

Over the past two decades, China has repeatedly attempted to establish a stronger economic presence in Greenland, but most major initiatives have been blocked or abandoned.

In 2018, a Chinese state-owned company sought to invest in upgrading and expanding a network of Greenlandic airports. Danish authorities ultimately intervened, citing security concerns amid reports of strong US diplomatic pressure. Denmark later stepped in to help finance the projects itself.

Another proposal to purchase a decommissioned Danish naval base in Greenland was similarly quashed, reportedly to prevent China from gaining a potential military foothold. Beijing has also expressed interest in acquiring satellite ground stations and financing large-scale infrastructure projects, but these efforts have met resistance.

While China has successfully established and operates several research and space-related facilities across the broader Arctic, analysts note that its overall investment footprint remains modest compared with its ambitions.

Greenland’s vast mineral wealth is one area where Chinese interest has been particularly persistent. The island holds significant deposits of rare earth elements, uranium, and other critical minerals essential for advanced technologies.

Greenland is generally ranked among the top 10 jurisdictions globally for rare earth reserves. These minerals are vital for everything from electric vehicles and wind turbines to fighter jets, precision-guided weapons, and laser systems.

China already dominates the global rare earth industry, controlling roughly 70 per cent of production and processing, according to Chinese state media. Reducing that dominance has become a strategic priority for the United States and its allies.

China holds a stake in an Australian company that was granted an exploration licence for one of Greenland’s few rare earth projects. However, political opposition, environmental concerns, and regulatory hurdles have stalled the mine, limiting Beijing’s access.

Despite years of interest, China has not secured direct control over Greenland’s mineral resources.

Mr Trump has made little effort to hide his interest in Greenland’s mineral potential. Analysts say access to critical resources is emerging as a central pillar of Washington’s renewed engagement with the territory.

A recent Greenland-related agreement announced by the US administration includes provisions aimed at securing supply chains and keeping strategic minerals out of Chinese hands. Some observers argue this reveals the deeper motivation behind Mr Trump’s rhetoric.

“Security concerns are part of the picture, but minerals are clearly a driving factor,” said one European policy analyst. “Greenland matters not just for military positioning, but for economic security in a world of great-power competition.”

NATO has also weighed in on the debate, with Secretary-General Mark Rutte saying the alliance would take steps to ensure that “the Chinese and the Russians will not gain access” to Greenland’s military or economic infrastructure.

Greenland already hosts the US-operated Pituffik Space Base, a critical node in missile warning and space surveillance systems. Western officials argue that maintaining control over such assets is essential as competition in the Arctic intensifies.

At the same time, many European leaders have pushed back against what they see as exaggerated threat narratives. They stress that while vigilance is necessary, policy decisions should be based on facts rather than speculation.

China has strongly rejected Washington’s accusations, describing claims of a looming security threat as unfounded. Chinese officials say Beijing’s Arctic engagement is focused on scientific research, environmental protection, and lawful commercial cooperation.

“The so-called China-threat is baseless,” a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said, accusing the US of using fear to justify strategic expansion.

Beijing continues to signal long-term interest in the Arctic, but analysts note that its approach has become more cautious as resistance from Western governments has hardened.

There is little doubt that China sees the Arctic as strategically important and would like to expand its role in the region over time. Climate change, new shipping routes, and access to resources make the area increasingly relevant to global power politics.

However, nearly a decade after unveiling its Arctic blueprint, China’s tangible progress in Greenland remains limited. Investment bids have been blocked, infrastructure projects stalled, and shipping activity remains sporadic.

For now, analysts say, Mr Trump’s warnings appear to be driven as much by future risk calculations and resource competition as by present-day realities on the ground.

“The Arctic is becoming more important, and China wants a seat at the table,” said one Arctic expert. “But the idea that Greenland is already under pressure from Chinese control just doesn’t match the evidence.”

As geopolitical competition moves northward, Greenland is likely to remain a symbol of both strategic anxiety and long-term ambition—caught between global powers looking decades ahead, rather than responding to an immediate threat today.

Gold and silver surged to fresh record highs on Monday as President Donald Trump’s escalating push to take over Greenland stoked fears of a deepening trade war between the United States and Europe, driving investors toward traditional safe-haven assets.

Spot gold jumped as much as 2.1% to trade near $4,700 an ounce, while silver rallied up to 4.4%, reflecting a sharp rise in risk aversion across global markets. The gains came as the US dollar weakened and investors reassessed the geopolitical and inflationary fallout from Washington’s growing confrontation with key European allies.

The rally follows Trump’s announcement that the United States will impose tariffs on eight European countries — including France, Germany and the United Kingdom — that have opposed his plan to acquire Greenland. Under the proposal, 10% levies will take effect on February 1 and rise to 25% by June, a move that has alarmed markets and policymakers alike.

Concerns over the potential economic damage from Trump’s bid to annex Greenland have added new momentum to an already historic rally in precious metals. Gold prices are now up roughly 70% over the past 12 months, marking one of the strongest annual advances in decades, as investors pile into assets seen as protection against political instability, inflation and currency depreciation.

Market participants have increasingly turned to gold and silver in recent weeks amid heightened geopolitical tensions and renewed attacks by the Trump administration on the independence of the Federal Reserve. Those concerns have raised questions about the central bank’s ability to rein in inflation without political interference, further boosting demand for hard assets.

European leaders are now weighing their response. According to people familiar with the discussions, the European Union is considering retaliatory tariffs on up to €93 billion ($108 billion) of US goods. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil struck a defiant tone on Monday, saying Europe must draw a clear line.

“We are constantly experiencing new provocations, we are constantly experiencing new antagonism, which President Trump is seeking, and here we Europeans must make it clear that the limit has been reached,” Klingbeil said in Berlin.

Analysts warn that an escalating tariff battle could have far-reaching consequences for global trade, inflation and growth. “The US’s tariff threats over Greenland are reminiscent of a mafia extortion racket,” said Peter Mallin-Jones, an analyst at Peel Hunt LLP. “The precious metal impact looks like a reaction to a move away from US dollar assets and the potential inflationary impact of a trade war between the US and EU, let alone a chilling effect on economic activity.”

Gold recorded its best annual performance since 1979 last year, supported by falling US interest rates, sustained central bank buying and growing geopolitical uncertainty linked to Washington’s foreign policy. Silver has outperformed even gold, with prices tripling over the past year as investors embraced the broader metals complex.

A significant driver of the rally has been strong buying from China, alongside renewed inflows into exchange-traded funds. Gold-backed ETFs saw holdings rise by more than 28 tons last week, the largest weekly increase since September, and have expanded in seven of the past eight weeks, underscoring the strength of investor demand.

Many analysts believe the rally still has room to run. Citigroup Inc. last week forecast that gold could reach $5,000 an ounce within three months, while silver may climb to $100 an ounce, citing strong investment flows, supply constraints and mounting geopolitical risks.

As of 12:42 p.m. in London, spot gold was up 1.7% at $4,671.97 an ounce after earlier touching a peak of $4,690.59. Silver gained 3.5% to $93.30, having earlier hit $94.12. Platinum and palladium also advanced, while the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index slipped 0.2%.

Investors are now closely watching the US Supreme Court, which is due to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding Trump’s effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The case is widely seen as pivotal for the future independence of the central bank — and could prove another critical catalyst for precious metals markets.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Sunday that Copenhagen is facing a “decisive moment” in its diplomatic standoff over Greenland after US President Donald Trump once again suggested that Washington could use force to take control of the vast Arctic island.

Speaking ahead of a series of meetings in Washington starting Monday, Frederiksen said the dispute was no longer theoretical, but part of a broader global struggle over strategic influence and critical raw materials in the Arctic. “There is a conflict over Greenland,” she said during a debate with other Danish political leaders, stressing that the stakes extended far beyond the future of the self-governing territory itself.

“This is a decisive moment,” Frederiksen added, framing the issue as a test of international norms at a time of intensifying geopolitical competition in the Far North.

In a post on Facebook later on Sunday, the Danish leader underlined her government’s position, saying Denmark was prepared to stand firm. “We are ready to defend our values – wherever it is necessary – also in the Arctic. We believe in international law and in peoples’ right to self-determination,” she wrote, in a clear rebuke to Trump’s renewed rhetoric.

Trump, who has repeatedly argued that Greenland is vital to US national security, has revived the idea of acquiring the mineral-rich island and has refused to rule out military action. The White House said earlier this week that the president still wants to buy Greenland, alarming European allies and prompting urgent coordination across the continent.

Germany and Sweden were among the first to publicly back Denmark following Trump’s latest remarks. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson condemned what he described as “threatening rhetoric” after Trump said the United States was “going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not”.

Speaking at a major defence conference in Sälen, attended by NATO’s top US general, Kristersson said Nordic and European unity was essential. “Sweden, the Nordic countries, the Baltic states, and several major European countries stand together with our Danish friends,” he told delegates.

Kristersson warned that a US takeover of Greenland would represent a serious breach of international norms. “It would be a violation of international law and risks encouraging other countries to act in exactly the same way,” he said, suggesting that such a precedent could destabilise global order far beyond the Arctic.

Berlin also reiterated its support for Denmark and Greenland ahead of high-level talks in Washington. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul was due to hold discussions in Iceland on Monday focused on what his ministry described as the “strategic challenges of the Far North”, before travelling on to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“The legitimate interests of all NATO Allies, as well as those of the inhabitants of the Arctic region, must be at the centre of our discussions,” Wadephul said in a statement. He has previously made clear that sovereignty over Greenland is not open to outside negotiation, telling Germany’s Bild daily that “it is exclusively up to Greenland and Denmark to decide questions of Greenland’s territory and sovereignty”.

German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil echoed that message, saying that Arctic security should be strengthened cooperatively within NATO. “We are strengthening security in the Arctic together, as NATO allies, and not against one another,” he said ahead of an international meeting on critical raw materials in Washington.

European concern has been mounting since Trump’s comments, with leaders scrambling to present a united front. On Tuesday, the leaders of seven European countries, including France, Britain, Germany and Italy, signed a joint letter emphasising that it is “only” for Denmark and Greenland to decide the territory’s future.

Trump has justified his stance by pointing to growing Russian and Chinese military activity in the Arctic, arguing that US control of Greenland is essential to counter those threats. The island sits astride key sea lanes and hosts important US military installations, including the Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base.

NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Alexus Grynkewich, speaking at the Swedish conference, confirmed that alliance members are actively discussing Greenland’s status. While he declined to address what he called “the political dimensions of recent rhetoric”, he said talks were ongoing within NATO’s main decision-making body.

“Those dialogues continue in Brussels. They have been healthy dialogues from what I’ve heard,” Grynkewich said. He added that there was “no immediate threat” to NATO territory, but stressed that the Arctic’s strategic importance was increasing rapidly.

The general noted that Russian and Chinese naval vessels have been observed operating together along Russia’s northern coast and near Alaska and Canada, a sign of closer cooperation as melting ice opens up new routes and access to resources. “They are working together to gain greater access to the Arctic,” he said, pointing to climate change as a key factor reshaping the region’s security landscape.

Greenland, a former Danish colony until 1953, was granted home rule in 1979 and later expanded self-government. While the island controls most domestic affairs, Denmark retains responsibility for defence and foreign policy. Greenlandic leaders have long discussed the possibility of eventual independence, but polls consistently show strong opposition among the population to any form of US takeover.

As Frederiksen prepares for talks in Washington, the dispute has become a defining test for Denmark’s diplomacy and for European unity more broadly, with Greenland emerging as a focal point in the widening contest for power and resources in the Arctic.

Greenland’s political leaders have delivered an unusually united and forceful rebuke to former US president Donald Trump after he warned that the United States would “do something whether they like it or not” to acquire the Arctic island, citing national security concerns. In a joint statement issued late Friday, leaders from across Greenland’s political spectrum said the island’s future must be decided by Greenlanders alone, rejecting pressure from Washington and reaffirming their desire for self-determination.

“We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders,” the statement said, capturing a rare moment of consensus in the self-governing Danish territory. “The future of Greenland must be decided by Greenlanders.”

The declaration was signed by the leaders of five parties represented in Greenland’s parliament, the Inatsisartut, including Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, former prime minister Múte B Egede, and senior political figures Pele Broberg, Aleqa Hammond and Aqqalu C Jerimiassen. Together, they stressed that no foreign power had the right to interfere in decisions about Greenland’s sovereignty or political trajectory.

“No other country can meddle in this,” the statement said. “We must decide our country’s future ourselves – without pressure to make a hasty decision, without procrastination, and without interference from other countries.”

The sharp response followed remarks by Trump earlier on Friday during a meeting with oil and gas executives at the White House, where he again described Greenland as vital to US national security. The former president said Washington could not allow rival powers to gain influence over the strategically located island.

“We’re not going to have Russia or China occupy Greenland,” Trump told reporters. “That’s what they’re going to do if we don’t. So we’re going to be doing something with Greenland, either the nice way or the more difficult way.”

The White House confirmed earlier this week that Trump is “actively” discussing the possibility of making a renewed offer to acquire Greenland with his national security team, reviving an idea he first floated in 2019. That proposal was swiftly rejected by both Greenlandic and Danish authorities at the time, who insisted the territory was not for sale.

Trump’s renewed rhetoric has triggered alarm not only in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, but also in Copenhagen and across Europe, where officials fear the comments could destabilise relations within Nato and undermine post-war security arrangements.

Public opinion in Greenland remains firmly opposed to joining the United States. According to a 2025 poll, 85% of Greenlanders reject the idea of becoming part of the US, despite the island’s heavy economic reliance on Denmark and growing debates about eventual independence.

While there is broad support within Greenland for increased autonomy and long-term independence from Denmark, political leaders have consistently emphasised that such a process must be gradual and driven internally, not imposed or accelerated by foreign pressure.

Greenland is a former Danish colony and remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, though it gained home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009. Denmark still controls foreign policy, defence and monetary affairs, while Greenland manages most domestic matters.

The leaders’ joint statement underscored that independence debates must not be hijacked by external actors. “Self-determination is not a bargaining chip,” one Greenlandic official said privately. “It is a right.”

Trump’s Greenland ambitions also lack strong backing at home. Polling shows that only 7% of Americans support the idea of a US military invasion of the territory, while a broader majority questions the practicality and legality of acquiring land inhabited by an unwilling population.

Nevertheless, Trump has framed the issue as a strategic necessity, pointing to Greenland’s location between North America and Europe and its proximity to Arctic shipping lanes that are becoming increasingly navigable due to climate change.

Greenland is also believed to hold vast reserves of rare-earth minerals essential for advanced technologies, as well as potentially significant oil and gas resources. These assets have heightened interest from global powers as competition intensifies in the Arctic.

Denmark warns of Nato fallout
Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has issued one of the strongest warnings yet in response to Trump’s comments, saying that any attempt by the US to annex Greenland would have devastating consequences for the transatlantic alliance.

She recently said such a move would mark “the end of Nato and therefore post second world war security,” calling on Trump to stop threatening the sovereignty of the Danish kingdom, which includes Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

“The United States has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom,” Frederiksen said, adding that Denmark remains committed to strengthening Arctic security through cooperation, not coercion.

Trump dismissed such concerns on Friday, claiming that Nato’s survival depended largely on him. “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t have a Nato right now,” he said.

When asked previously whether preserving Nato or acquiring Greenland was the higher priority, Trump told the New York Times: “It may be a choice.”

The head of Nato’s forces in Europe, US General Alexus Grynkewich, declined to speculate on whether the alliance could survive without US leadership but sought to calm fears of an imminent crisis.

“There’s been no impact on my work at the military level up to this point,” Grynkewich said on Friday. “We’re ready to defend every inch of alliance territory still today.”

He added: “So I see us as far from being in a crisis right now.”

Nato officials privately acknowledge, however, that Trump’s remarks have unsettled allies, particularly Denmark, which has long relied on close defence cooperation with the US in the Arctic.

The United States has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the second world war, most notably at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, on the island’s northwestern coast. The base plays a key role in missile warning, space surveillance and Arctic operations, with more than 100 US personnel permanently stationed there.

Existing defence agreements with Denmark allow the US to increase troop levels and military activity on the island if needed. But Trump has argued that such arrangements are insufficient.

“Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership, you don’t defend leases,” he said. “And we’ll have to defend Greenland.”

Trump has repeatedly claimed that Greenland is already under threat from Russian and Chinese encroachment, alleging that their ships are “all over the place” in surrounding waters. Greenlandic officials and civil society leaders strongly dispute those assertions.

In an interview with the Guardian on Friday, Jess Berthelsen, chair of SIK, Greenland’s national trade union confederation, said ordinary Greenlanders did not recognise Trump’s portrayal of the situation.

“We can’t see it. We can’t recognise it. And we can’t understand it,” Berthelsen said, dismissing claims of widespread foreign naval activity.

Greenlandic authorities acknowledge growing international interest in the Arctic but say existing monitoring and cooperation mechanisms are sufficient to address security concerns without undermining sovereignty.

As climate change accelerates Arctic melting and global competition for resources intensifies, Greenland has become an increasingly strategic focal point. But for its leaders, the message to Washington is clear: security cannot come at the expense of democratic choice.

“We are not for sale,” one Greenlandic politician said. “And our future will not be decided in Washington, Beijing or Moscow — only in Greenland.”

For now, the unified response from Greenland’s political leadership has drawn a firm line against Trump’s rhetoric, even as uncertainty over US policy and Arctic geopolitics continues to grow.