Donald Trump has reignited one of the most controversial foreign policy ideas of his political career, declaring that the United States “has to have” Greenland after appointing a special envoy to the Arctic island. The move has triggered sharp backlash from Denmark, firm resistance from Greenland’s leaders, and concern across Europe.
Speaking to the BBC, Trump defended the appointment of Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, as special envoy to Greenland, arguing that the island is critical for US “national protection.” According to Trump, Greenland’s strategic location makes it essential for American security, particularly in the face of growing Chinese and Russian activity in Arctic waters. He stressed that the motivation was security, not access to minerals, although Greenland is known to be rich in untapped natural resources.
Landry, who described the role as a voluntary position, said on social media that it was an honour to serve and openly stated his intention to help make Greenland part of the United States. Trump echoed this enthusiasm, saying Landry would “lead the charge” in advancing US interests on the island. Envoys, unlike ambassadors, do not require approval from the host country, which has further inflamed tensions.
Denmark’s reaction was swift and angry. The Danish government announced it would summon the US ambassador for an explanation, while Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen called the appointment “deeply upsetting.” He warned Washington that Denmark could not accept any actions that undermine its territorial integrity, stressing that Greenland remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark alongside the Faroe Islands.
Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, was equally clear. While emphasizing that Greenland is open to cooperation with the United States and other partners, he firmly rejected any suggestion of external control. He stated that Greenland’s future would be decided by Greenlanders alone and that its territorial integrity must be respected. Although many Greenlanders support eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls consistently show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.
The controversy has also drawn in the European Union. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen publicly expressed full solidarity with Denmark and the people of Greenland, reinforcing the message that European leaders see Trump’s move as a challenge to established sovereignty.
Trump’s renewed focus on Greenland is not new. During his first term, he famously attempted to buy the island in 2019, a proposal that was flatly rejected with the response: “Greenland is not for sale.” Since returning to the White House in January, he has revived this ambition with greater intensity, even refusing to rule out the use of force in earlier remarks—comments that shocked Denmark, a long-standing NATO ally.
The dispute comes at a time when the Arctic is becoming increasingly important geopolitically. Melting ice is opening new shipping routes and making mineral resources more accessible, while Greenland’s location between North America and Europe places it at the heart of US and NATO security planning. The US has maintained a military presence on the island since World War Two, when it established bases after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark. More recently, the US reopened its consulate in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, in 2020, signaling renewed strategic interest.
Vice-President JD Vance added to the controversy during a visit to the US base in Greenland earlier this year, where he urged Greenlanders to “cut a deal with the US.” These actions, combined with the appointment of a special envoy, suggest that Trump’s ambition to bring Greenland under American influence remains very much alive.
Overall, the episode highlights a broader pattern in Trump’s foreign policy, marked by aggressive rhetoric and a desire to expand US influence across what his administration has described as the Western Hemisphere. For now, Denmark, Greenland, and the EU have drawn a firm line, making it clear that sovereignty is not up for negotiation—no matter how strategically valuable the territory may be.