President Trump and Greenland: Frequently asked questions

In January 2026, United States President Donald Trump has intensified pressure on Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, to become part of the United States. He has argued Greenland is vital to US security.

While he has often spoken of purchasing Greenland, he has also said the US would obtain it “one way or the other” and up till 21 January refused to rule out using military force. President Trump had said the US would impose tariffs on several European countries including the UK, who had been part of a military preparation exercise in Greenland, until an agreement to cede the island had been made. Following discussion with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as the World Economic Forum at Davos, he changed his mind and said tariffs would not be imposed.

Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty states that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. Were the US to use force against another NATO member, Denmark, to secure Greenland, then the mutual defence foundation on which NATO rests would be jeopardised.

Leaders in Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale. The UK Government has echoed these remarks, and criticised President Trump’s threat of tariffs while emphasising that it wishes to maintain good relations with the United States.

For more on Greenland and Arctic security see Commons Library briefings:

• Greenland: Home rule, international relations and US interest
• UK defence in 2025: Renewed interest in the Arctic

What is the situation in January 2026?

In January 2026 President Trump has increased pressure on Greenland, a constituent part of Denmark, to become part of the United States of America.

On 17 January Mr Trump announced he would apply an extra 10% tariff on Denmark the UK and six other European countries (Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden). This would begin on 1 February, and increase to 25% on 1 June 2026. The tariffs he said would apply “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland”.

He said he was applying tariffs to these countries because they had “journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown”, that this was “a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet”, and that “these Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable”.

In mid-January, all eight countries sent small numbers of military personnel as part of what they called a reconnaissance mission, to prepare for a larger exercise called Operation Arctic Endurance, which according to the Times newspaper will “include soldiers, naval vessels and aircraft from Denmark”. The Defence Secretary, John Healey, said the UK had sent just one UK military officer as part of the reconnaissance group, and they were there at the request of the Danish Government. The Ministry of Defence said that this did not amount to a “deployment”.

The eight countries, all part of the NATO military alliance, released a joint statement on 18 January saying they were, as NATO members, “committed to strengthening Arctic security as a shared transatlantic interest” and that “the pre-coordinated Danish exercise Arctic Endurance conducted with Allies, responds to this necessity. It poses no threat to anyone”.

On 21 January during a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump appeared to rule out using force to take Greenland. He said “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force. All the US is asking for is a place called Greenland. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember.” He also called for “immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States”.

Later that day, following discussions with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Mr Trump announced he would no longer be imposing the tariffs after “a very productive meeting” in which they “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and (…) the entire Arctic Region”. The President said additional discussions were “being held concerning the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland”, (the Golden Dome is an initiative to develop an integrated air and missile defence system for the US).

Has President Trump expressed interest in Greenland before?

Yes, Donald Trump raised the idea of Greenland becoming part of the US during his first term as President (2017 to 2020). On 18 August 2019, responding to reports he wanted the US to purchase Greenland, the President said he was “looking at it”, but that the idea was “not No1 on the burner”. A few days later he cancelled a planned visit to Denmark when the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, said Greenland was “not for sale”.

President Trump declared a new and more assertive interest in the USA acquiring control of Greenland following his re-election for a second term at the end of 2024.

In January 2025, he said that the USA “would tariff Denmark at a very high level” if it blocked the US from taking over Greenland, and said he could not rule out the use of military force.

In his State of the Union speech in early March 2025, President Trump said that he supported Greenlanders’ “right to determine [their] own future” but also said that the USA would get Greenland “one way or the other” and would make Greenlanders rich.

In December 2025, Mr Trump announced he had appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as his special envoy to Greenland. Asked by the BBC about Mr Landry’s role, the President said the US needed Greenland for “national protection” and that “we have to have it”. On X (Twitter) the Louisiana Governor thanked President Trump for the appointment saying: “It’s an honour to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US”.

On 9 January 2026, President Trump said: “We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not”. He added “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way”.

Why does President Trump want the US to control Greenland?

President Trump has principally framed his pursuit of Greenland in terms of US national security, saying the island is under threat from Russia and China and that Denmark cannot secure it from these dangers. Some have suggested he may also be motivated by access to Greenland’s critical minerals.

National security concerns

On 14 January 2026, President Trump said: “Greenland is very important for the national security, including of Denmark”. He added “there’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there’s everything we can do. You found that out last week with Venezuela”.

Reiterating this on 20 January, Mr Trump posted on Truth Social “Greenland is imperative for National and World Security. There can be no going back — On that, everyone agrees!”. He said that “We are the only POWER that can ensure PEACE throughout the World — And it is done, quite simply, through STRENGTH!”. Mr Trump has also said that the US needed Greenland as a site for its Golden Dome defence system.

Legal experts have said that framing the Greenland issue on national security grounds may be motivated in part by the President trying to prevent legal action in the US. The President’s role in the US Constitution as Commander in Chief of America’s armed forces, and through powers granted by Congress following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have given the executive broad authority on issues relating to national security, and Congress’s war powers are said to have decreased over the last few decades.

On 17 January Major General Søren Andersen, the commander of Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in Greenland, asked in an interview if he saw an imminent threat from Russia or China responded: “No. We don’t see a threat from China or Russia today. But we look into a potential threat, and that is what we are training for”.

Speaking on 20 January, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov appeared to question Denmark’s sovereignty over Denmark saying that “in principle, Greenland is not a natural part of Denmark, is it?”. He also said that Russia had no plans to take control of the island.

Critical mineral resources

However, some commentators have suggested that President Trump’s interest in Greenland comes in part from opportunities to exploit its mineral wealth. In 2019, during Mr Trump’s first term, the United States signed a memorandum of understanding with Greenland to “jointly survey the region and exchange scientific and technical knowledge to develop rare earth and critical mineral resources”.

In January 2025 shortly before President Trump re-entered office, his incoming national security adviser, Mike Waltz, talked about Greenland in the context of Arctic security and the need to secure natural resources. He told Fox News “This is not just about Greenland. This is about the Arctic. You have Russia that is trying to become king ... this is about critical minerals, this is about natural resources … it’s oil and gas. It’s our national security. It’s critical minerals”.

Greenland has indicated it is open to greater investment from China over the last several years, including in its minerals and mining sectors, but despite initial interest Chinese companies have not completed any significant projects. Denmark has the legal authority to block investments in Greenland on national security grounds – and did so in 2016 and 2018 to block investments in Greenland’s infrastructure, including in a former Danish naval base. Denmark also blocked proposals by China to open a scientific observatory on Greenland.

What security presence does the US have on Greenland?

The US operates Pituffik Space Base in north-west Greenland (formerly Thule Air Base having been renamed in 2023). It is the US military’s northern-most installation. According to the Congressional Research Service (PDF), Pituffik “supports space domain awareness and surveillance, missile warning and defence, and related functions”, and it also hosts a deepwater seaport and airfield.

As of September 2025 approximately 130 active-duty servicemembers were permanently assigned to Greenland according to the US Department of Defense. The size of the US forces in Greenland did not change significantly during President Trump’s first term (there were 160 active-duty servicemembers in March 2017 and 146 in December 2020), and the current total is less than at the end of the Biden administration in December 2024 (143).

Historical relationship between the US and Greenland

There has been longstanding US interest in acquiring Greenland, with the USA proposing to purchase the island in 1867 and again in 1946 (a land swap was also proposed in 1910). The idea was floated again by military chiefs in 1955, though no formal request was made. A treaty between the USA and Denmark in 1916, confirming the purchase of the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) by the USA, also included a declaration that the US Government would not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland (PDF).

The USA has a military presence in Greenland dating back to the Second World War. Following the occupation of Denmark in 1940 by Nazi Germany, the USA concluded an “Agreement relating to the Defense of Greenland” with the Danish ambassador to the USA which allowed the US to establish military bases on the island (PDF). The USA considered Greenland’s strategic location vital to countering German submarines and securing shipping routes.

Both the USA and Denmark were founding members of NATO in 1949, and this was followed by the 1951 US-Denmark “Defense of Greenland” agreement which recognised, in the context of the NATO alliance, that Denmark may need assistance from the USA in defending Greenland and permitted the establishment of US military bases on the island. The agreement was updated in 1981 and again in 2004.

How is Greenland important for Arctic and UK security?

The security of the Arctic region is said to be moving from being one of “high north, low tension” to an area of increasing geopolitical competition, particularly for the major global powers: Russia, China and the United States.

An April 2025 analysis of Greenland’s role in the US’s security for the foreign policy comment website War On the Rocks said that “American national security depends on defeating Arctic-based threats to North America while blocking Russian and Chinese power projection into the North Atlantic and North Pacific”. It adds “Greenland is the geostrategic linchpin connecting the Arctic, North America, and Europe — a potential the United States and Denmark have yet to fully leverage”.

A January 2026 article for the same website argued that “while the president’s [Trump’s] emphasis on ownership is misplaced, his assessment that Greenland is a strategically critical territory for the United States is correct”.

Greenland’s position as part of the Greenland–Iceland–UK Gap (GIUK), means it is of is of particular strategic importance to the UK and its national security (PDF). The GIUK gap is one of two routes that Russian naval vessels (Northern Fleet) could take from the North Atlantic to reach Russian bases in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The other route is along the coast of Norway, through the North Sea and the English Channel. Transatlantic undersea cables linking the US and Canada with northern Europe also traverse the gap.

In its 2022 document on the UK’s defence contribution to the high north, the Ministry of Defence said that one of the UK’s key contributions to NATO defence was “ensuring freedom to operate in the North Atlantic, especially in the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap”.

What is the relationship between Greenland and Denmark?

Greenland has been Danish territory for centuries and part of the Kingdom of Denmark since 1953. It gained home rule in 1979, becoming self-governing in its internal affairs, while remaining part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It also then left the then European Community (now the European Union) in 1983.

A new self-government act was adopted in 2009, granting Greenland further autonomy. Denmark retains responsibility for Greenland’s foreign affairs and defence policy, and the Danish krone remains Greenland’s currency.

Greenland receives an annual subsidy from Denmark, which will be reduced if revenues from Greenland’s mineral resources exceed a certain level. The act also sets out a process for Greenland to gain independence, requiring consent from Greenland’s parliament (the Inatsisartut) and its people in a referendum, with independence terms to be negotiated with Denmark.

In April 2023, a constitutional commission comprising members of parties represented in the Greenland’s parliament presented a draft constitution for a post-independence Greenland, but there were no immediate plans to adopt it. In late September 2024, the government established a commission to draw up proposals for how to move forward with independence.

In January 2025, Greenland’s outgoing Prime Minister, Múte Egede, said it was time to take the next step towards independence. An opinion poll in the same month indicated that 56% of Greenlanders were in favour of independence, but that 45% were opposed if it meant a deterioration in their living standards.

How have leaders in Greenland and Denmark reacted?

Leaders in Greenland and Denmark have consistently said that the island is not for sale. In October 2025 Denmark announced it was committing £3.2 billion of extra defence spending “to boost security in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions, including Greenland”.

They have repeated this in January 2026 as the pressure from President Trump has increased.

On 4 January, Greenland’s Prime Minister Nielsen posted on social media that President Trump should give up his “fantasies about annexation” and accused the US of “completely and utterly unacceptable” rhetoric. This was in response to President Trump saying “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it”.

On the same day, Denmark’s Prime Minister Frederiksen called on the US to stop “threatening its historical ally” and said the US claims on Greenland were “absurd”.

On 20 January Ms Frederiksen told reporters “I am certainly not going to abandon Greenland, I made that decision a long time ago as Danish prime minister.” She added that “the American president has unfortunately not ruled out the use of military force. And therefore the rest of us cannot rule it out either, so it is a natural consequence of what the American president has said and has not said”.

On 22 January, following President Trump’s announcement that he had reached an understanding with Mark Rutte on a “framework” deal on Greenland, Danish leaders emphasised their negotiating red lines on the sovereignty of the island, and their role in any future agreement. Mette Frederiksen said, “we can negotiate all political aspects – security, investment, the economy – but we cannot negotiate our sovereignty”. Troels Lund Poulsen, the Danish defence minister, said Mr Rutte “cannot negotiate” on Denmark’s or Greenland’s behalf, though he said the secretary general was working “loyally to maintain unity within NATO” and it was “very positive” that the alliance wanted to do more to strengthen Arctic security.

How has the UK reacted?

The UK government has stressed that Greenland’s future should be decided by Greenland and Denmark. It has criticised the tariffs but has said it wants to maintain a good relationship with the US.

Prime Minister’s statement

On 19 January the Prime Minister Keir Starmer made a statement on Greenland. On the UK’s relationship with the US, he said it “matters profoundly - not just to our security, but to the prosperity and the stability that people here at home depend on”, and that “under President Trump, as under previous Presidents, we are determined to keep that relationship strong, constructive, and focused on results”.

On Greenland, he said “the right way to approach an issue of this [seriousness] is through calm discussion between allies”:

Let’s be clear, the security of Greenland matters and it will matter more as climate change reshapes the Arctic… Any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. That right is fundamental, and we will support it.

He called the President’s threat to use tariffs against allies “completely wrong”, saying “it is not the right way to resolve differences within an alliance. Nor is it helpful to frame efforts to strengthen Greenland’s security as a justification for economic pressure”.

Mr Starmer also referred to calls he had made the day before including with Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen; President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen; NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte; and President Trump.

Foreign Secretary’s statement

Also on 19 January, the Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper made a statement to the House of Commons. She reiterated the Prime Minister’s points that the UK must continue to pursue strong relations with the US, while also expressing solidarity for Greenland and Denmark, and criticising President Trump’s threat of imposing tariffs.

Ms Cooper addressed directly the UK’s sending of one military officer to Greenland, saying they are currently based in Denmark, and visited “in an observational capacity”. “These sorts of visits” she said, “are a regular part of military planning ahead of exercises and operations—work among allies to strengthen Greenland’s security that should be recognised for its importance, not used as a reason to impose economic pressure”.

The Foreign Secretary focused on Arctic security in her statement, saying it “is a shared concern and a shared responsibility for both sides of the Atlantic”, and that “it can be effectively addressed and maintained only through co-operation between transatlantic allies and, crucially, through NATO”.

Ms Cooper also detailed further diplomatic engagement, saying she had met with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen in London that day, and the Europe Minister, Stephen Doughty, had been in touch with the Greenland Foreign Minister. She said she had “also been in direct contact with the US, Canada, France, Germany and other European colleagues”, and announced that the Defence Secretary John Healey, would visit Denmark on 21 January.

How have other European leaders reacted?

French President Macron has strongly rejected President Trump’s statements on Greenland. On 17 January 2026 he posted on X (Twitter) that “No intimidation nor threat will influence us, neither in Ukraine, nor in Greenland”. He added “Tariff threats are unacceptable and have no place in this context. Europeans will respond in a united and coordinated manner should they be confirmed. We will ensure that European sovereignty is upheld”.

Sweden’s Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, similarly said “We will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed”.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has emphasised focusing on talks with the US, saying on 19 January “we know from the experience of the last 12 months that Trump repeatedly threatens to impose tariffs”, adding “but often enough, talks and negotiations with him lead him to refrain from doing so. And that has been my strategy (…) since I took office. And I will continue to pursue it in exactly the same way”.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said on 19 January that “the prospect of higher tariffs for those contributing to the security of Greenland is in my view a mistake and I obviously do not share that position”. However, she said she agreed with “the focus the US administration has on Greenland and the Arctic in general” and that “clearly it seems that there’s been a problem of understanding and communication”.

Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said on 19 January that his government is against the EU issuing a joint statement on Greenland, saying “We consider [Greenland] a bilateral matter, where the solution is possible through negotiations between the two parties. I do not consider this to be a European Union matter”.

The leaders of five larger EU states, together with Denmark and the UK, issued a joint statement on 6 January 2026, stressing the principles of “sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders” and that it was up to Denmark and Greenland to decide on matters concerning Greenland. The foreign ministers of the five Nordic countries adopted a similar statement on the same day.

The EU scheduled an “extraordinary” informal meeting of the European Council on 22 January “to discuss recent developments in transatlantic relations and their implications for the European Union”. Presenting the meeting’s conclusions European Council President António Costa said “Europe and the United States have a shared interest in the security of the Arctic region, notably working through NATO. The European Union will also play a stronger role in this region”. He added that “I want to be very clear: the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland have the full support of the European Union. Only the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland”.

What have politicians in the US said?

Some members of Congress have strongly criticised President Trump’s policy towards Greenland. Republican Senator for North Carolina, Thom Tillis, said on the Senate floor that “the thought of the United States taking the position that we would take Greenland, an independent territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is absurd”.

Co-Chairs of the bipartisan Congressional Friends of Denmark Caucus, Republican Representatives Blake Moore of Utah and Democratic Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland released a joint statement saying: “Sabre-rattling about annexing Greenland is needlessly dangerous”. Noting that Denmark is a NATO ally they said that “an attack on Greenland – a crucial part of that alliance – would tragically be an attack on NATO”. Adding “If we want to deploy more forces or build additional missile defence infrastructure in Greenland, Denmark has given us a green light to do so. Our ally has always accommodated us. Threatening to annex Greenland needlessly undermines that cooperation for no gain”.

Other members of Congress have made a distinction between any military action against Greenland, which they reject, and purchasing Greenland which they said should be considered.

Texan Republican Representative Michael McCaul, a former Chair of the House of Representative’s Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees, said “if he [President Trump] wants to purchase Greenland, that’s one thing. But for him to militarily invade would turn Article 5 of NATO on its very head, and in essence, put us at war with NATO itself”.

Mike Pence, Vice President during President Trump’s first term told CNN that the US taking control of Greenland “is absolutely in the interest of the United States of America”, but that he would rather see President Trump “use his persuasive powers and US investment in Greenland to lay a foundation for ultimately achieving that goal”. He added that “I do think that the current posture, which I hope will change and abate, does threaten to fracture that strong relationship, not just with Denmark, but with all of our NATO allies”.

What does this mean for NATO?

NATO is a mutual defence alliance. At the heart of the treaty establishing the organisation is Article 5, which states that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all.

It has been suggested that if the United States were to use force against another NATO member, Denmark, to secure Greenland, then the mutual defence foundation on which NATO rests would be jeopardised.

Statements on the future of NATO

In January 2026 Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said “If the United States decides to militarily attack another Nato country, then everything would stop – that includes NATO and therefore post-second world war security”. EU Commissioner for defence and space Andrius Kubilius, said he agreed with Ms Frederiksen’s assessment “that it will be the end of NATO”. Liana Fix, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says that a US annexation of Greenland would be “a crass breach of international law that would end the NATO alliance”.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated on 13 January 2026 that “the US is absolutely committed to NATO” and emphasised that greater defence spending and burden sharing by European nations, as well as collective action on Arctic security will help shore up the alliance.

When asked about whether his higher priority was preserving NATO, or obtaining Greenland by the New York Times on 7 January 2026, President Trump declined to answer directly, but acknowledged “it may be a choice”.

Asked by a reporter on 14 January if he was “willing to leave the NATO alliance in order to get what you want with Greenland?” and “what are the options right now?”, Mr Trump didn’t rule it out, saying “Well I wouldn’t be telling you what I’m willing to do certainly, I’m not going to give up options”.

Have there been tensions in NATO before?

There have been significant tensions between NATO allies in the past. In 1974, Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, came close to hostilities following the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus. Tensions were high between Iceland and the UK between the 1950s and 1970s over fishing rights.

The Greenland dispute, however, is the most serious threat to NATO’s integrity since its founding. The European NATO allies are near united in opposition to the US’s position, and as stated by the Economist magazine “American threats to Greenland are far more serious because America remains the political and military backbone of NATO”.

What potential impact might this have on wider European security and Ukraine?

If the US withdrew forces from Europe or from the NATO alliance due to the Greenland dispute, it would have serious implications for the continent.

US spending in NATO

NATO statistics of the 2025 estimated defence spending of its members (PDF) show that the US accounted for 60% of total defence spending by NATO countries (in 2023, the last year with actual rather than estimated spending totals, the US accounted for around 66% total defence spending).1

According to the United States European Command (USEUCOM), in its April 2025 annual posture statement to the US Congress (PDF), “USEUCOM currently commands nearly 80,000 American service members throughout the European theatre”. It notes “this is a reduction from the 105,000 service members postured in Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022”.

US forces and capabilities in Europe

The Congressional Research service states that US forces assigned to its bases in Europe include “Army ground units; Navy warships (including destroyers and an amphibious command ship, based in Spain and Italy); and Army, Navy, and Air Force aircraft (including rotary-wing, fighter, electronic attack, bomber, airlift, tanker, and other aircraft)”. It also says that “US basing in Europe is closely integrated with NATO activities and objectives. Many US bases host NATO organizations and perform NATO-related functions”.

The Economist similarly says of the US’s central role in NATO that “American military officers sit atop and are woven throughout every major command”. And “without American air power and intelligence, NATO forces would find it much harder and costlier to defeat Russian aggression”.

Nuclear deterrence in Europe

As well as armed forces personnel and conventional weapons based in Europe, the US also extends its nuclear deterrence – often referred to as a nuclear “umbrella” to the continent.

This deterrence, according to the Carnegie Endowment, is based on the presence of “about 100 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs (for which Washington retains sole use authority) in the territories of Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye as part of the Dual-Capable Aircraft (DCA) mission”, but also on the reach of its “nuclear triad” of a “sea leg (submarines), an air leg (bombers), and a land leg (intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs)”. NATO countries participate in various nuclear-related arrangements with the US, for more see this analysis by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The US’s bases and military presence in Europe, including the presence of tactical nuclear weapons, also allows it to project its power globally, particularly into the Middle East, North Africa, Russia and the Caucuses. If the US withdrew forces and capabilities from Europe, either at their own instigation or at the request of European countries, this would also weaken its military reach and deterrence.

Support for Ukraine

There are also concerns that a rift in the NATO alliance over Greenland may affect support for Ukraine.

Since President Trump re-entered office in 2024 the US has stepped back from directly funding new military assistance to Ukraine, asking it to be funded by European allies instead. But it has largely continued to deliver the aid committed by the Biden administration.

US military assistance and support is still critical for Ukraine’s military operations defending against Russia, and any significant withdrawal of aid or its military presence in Europe would have a powerful impact on the conflict.

What might happen next?

The details of what exactly was agreed between President Trump and Secretary General Rutte on 21 January 2026 are unclear, nor at the time of writing have further talks been officially confirmed.

President Trump in his Truth Social post on 21 January 2026 said: “Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me”.

Following that conversation Mr Rutte told Fox News that the question of the US taking control of Greenland did not arise, saying “That issue did not come up anymore” in his conversations with the President and that Mr Trump was “very much focused on what we need to do to make sure that that huge Arctic region, where change is taking place at the moment, where the Chinese and Russians are more and more active, how we can protect that”.

As mentioned above Denmark has made clear that it will not negotiate on Greenland’s sovereignty and that Mark Rutte cannot negotiate on its behalf.

General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (its top military commander in Europe), said NATO had yet to start planning for any changes to its mission in the Arctic, following the news of a potential framework agreement. General Grynkewich said “We've never received political guidance to move out. We're aware of discussions about this, of course, and therefore we're doing some thinking about how we would organise for it”. “But no, no planning has started yet”, he added.

Footnotes

• 1 Percentage figures are calculated using spending figures expressed in constant prices and exchange rates. NATO, Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2025), 28 August 2025, Table 2