Listen to the article
A bipartisan delegation of U.S. lawmakers traveled to Denmark this weekend to reassure the NATO ally amid escalating tensions over President Donald Trump’s renewed push for U.S. acquisition of Greenland, the semiautonomous Danish territory.
The delegation, led by Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), included Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and several House Democrats. The group met with Danish and Greenlandic officials in Copenhagen as thousands of protesters gathered across Denmark in solidarity with Greenland.
“A great day leading our bipartisan delegation to Copenhagen meeting with Danish and Greenlandic officials to reaffirm Congress’ commitment to one of our oldest, strongest NATO allies,” Coons wrote on social media. “In an increasingly unstable world in which our adversaries are cooperating, our alliances are more important than ever.”
The timing of the visit proved particularly sensitive, as Trump announced on Saturday plans to impose escalating tariffs on Denmark and other European nations in a bid to force a deal for the U.S. purchase of Greenland. The delegation’s trip was planned before this announcement but coincided with widespread protests where demonstrators chanted “Greenland is not for sale” and carried banners reading “Hands off Greenland.”
Senator Shaheen directly addressed Trump’s approach during a speech at the University of Copenhagen. “That rhetoric doesn’t just undermine our bilateral relationship, it undermines the NATO alliance at a time when our adversaries seek to benefit from division,” she said, arguing that the U.S. already has established pathways to secure its interests in the Arctic.
“Anything the president might want — whether it is U.S. bases to defend against Arctic threats or critical minerals deals — the leaders of Denmark and Greenland have made clear they are happy to partner with us,” Shaheen added. “So, the threats are not only unnecessary, they are also counterproductive.”
Trump has justified his interest in Greenland as a matter of national security, claiming that Russia and China have shown interest in the territory. The island has strategic military value and contains significant deposits of rare earth minerals essential for modern technology.
U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker defended the administration’s focus on Greenland in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, saying that Arctic security represents a core American defense interest and suggesting that Europe “has a tendency to overreact” to U.S. policy positions.
The controversy has stirred significant debate domestically as well. According to a Quinnipiac University poll, 86% of American voters would oppose military action to take over Greenland, while 55% oppose any U.S. effort to buy the territory, suggesting limited public support for the administration’s approach.
Julie Rademacher, chair of Uagut, an organization representing Greenlanders in Denmark, expressed gratitude for the public support during the protests. “I am very grateful for the huge support we as Greenlanders receive… we are also sending a message to the world that you all must wake up,” she told Reuters. “Greenland and the Greenlanders have involuntarily become the front in the fight for democracy and human rights.”
The delegation’s visit underscores the complex diplomatic challenges facing the United States as it navigates relationships with longstanding European allies. Some members of the delegation are expected to continue on to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, next week, where the Greenland issue may further complicate international discussions on global cooperation and security.
The situation highlights growing tensions within the NATO alliance at a time when unified Western response to global threats is increasingly seen as vital. Denmark, one of America’s oldest NATO allies, has maintained sovereignty over Greenland since 1814, though the territory gained home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009.
As protests continue and diplomatic efforts intensify, the future of U.S.-Danish relations and Greenland’s status remain uncertain amid competing geopolitical interests in the increasingly strategic Arctic region.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, so any acquisition would need to be negotiated carefully with both the Danish and Greenlandic governments. I’m interested to see how this situation develops and whether a mutually beneficial compromise can be reached.
The timing of the visit and Trump’s threat of tariffs on Denmark seem rather heavy-handed. While the US may have strategic interests in Greenland, pressuring a long-standing NATO ally through economic coercion is an unusual and concerning approach.
I agree, the tariff threat seems like an unnecessary escalation. Diplomacy and cooperation would be a wiser path forward for all parties involved.
While the US may see advantages in acquiring Greenland, the historical context and complex dynamics between Greenland, Denmark, and the US make this a delicate situation. Careful, transparent diplomacy will be crucial to reaching a mutually acceptable outcome.
The bipartisan nature of the US congressional delegation is encouraging, as this issue requires a thoughtful, nuanced approach that transcends partisan divides. Maintaining strong alliances like the one with Denmark should be a priority, even as the US explores its strategic interests.
Greenland’s location and natural resources make it a geopolitically important region, but the rights and interests of the Greenlandic people must be at the forefront of any discussions. I hope the US and Denmark can find a way forward that respects Greenland’s autonomy and sovereignty.
Interesting to see the US delegation visiting Denmark to discuss the Greenland acquisition controversy. It’s a complex geopolitical issue with economic and security implications for both countries. I’m curious to hear more about the discussions and any potential resolutions.