A senior envoy representing President Donald Trump has declared that a deal for the United States to take control of Greenland “should and will be made,” intensifying global unease and pushing the Arctic territory into the center of an unprecedented geopolitical confrontation.
Jeff Landry, Trump’s special envoy to Greenland, said the president is “serious” about acquiring the vast island, which remains part of the Danish kingdom while operating with broad autonomy. Speaking publicly, Landry stated that Washington had already made its expectations clear and that the next phase would involve high-level negotiations.
“I do believe that there’s a deal that should and will be made once this plays out,” Landry said. “The president is serious. He’s laid the markers down.”
He added that future talks would be led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, signaling that the White House views the matter not as symbolic posturing but as a concrete foreign policy objective.
The remarks came as a bipartisan group of American lawmakers traveled to Copenhagen in a show of support for Denmark and Greenland, amid growing concern over Trump’s repeated suggestions that the United States could use force if negotiations fail.
The delegation included eleven members of Congress from both parties, among them Republican senators Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski and Democratic senator Chris Coons. Their visit was designed to reassure Danish and Greenlandic leaders that large segments of the U.S. political establishment oppose coercive tactics and remain committed to diplomatic norms.
During meetings in Denmark’s capital, the delegation met with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s leader Jens-Frederik Nielsen. The Greenlandic flag was flown at Christiansborg Palace, a symbolic gesture underscoring unity between Copenhagen and Nuuk in the face of Washington’s pressure.
One senior Democratic lawmaker told Danish officials, “Keep the faith. You’ve got a lot of people with you,” reflecting unease in Congress over the administration’s aggressive posture.
Despite those gestures, Trump’s team has continued to frame Greenland as a strategic prize. The island’s location in the Arctic, its proximity to key shipping routes, and its mineral resources make it increasingly valuable as climate change opens new corridors and intensifies competition among major powers.
Landry announced plans to visit Greenland in March, a move that has unsettled residents and local officials alike.
In Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, residents say fear has become a daily reality. Some report watching the skies and coastline themselves, uncertain whether any emergency systems are in place should the situation escalate.
With limited guidance from authorities, people have begun discussing evacuation routes and contingency plans among themselves. Many say the idea that a foreign power could impose control by force was once unthinkable. Now, it feels disturbingly plausible.
This anxiety has prompted Denmark to bolster Greenland’s preparedness. Copenhagen announced new support measures aimed at strengthening emergency response and civil defense on the island.
Denmark’s minister for public safety and emergency preparedness, Torsten Schack Pedersen, said unity was essential. “It is important that we stand together,” he said.
Greenland’s minister for fisheries and self-sufficiency, Peter Borg, welcomed the move, stating that his government “appreciates the support from Denmark to strengthen preparedness in Greenland.”
The escalating rhetoric has also exposed deep contradictions between Washington and its European partners. Following a high-level meeting this week between Rubio, Vance, and the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland, the White House claimed that technical talks on the “acquisition of Greenland” had been agreed upon.
Danish and Greenlandic officials immediately pushed back.
Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, said no such agreement had been made. Instead, he described the outcome as the formation of a working group to explore how U.S. security concerns in the Arctic might be addressed without altering sovereignty.
Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, echoed that view, emphasizing that no commitment to transfer control had occurred. She described the process as the creation of a direct communication channel, not a pathway to annexation.
“The situation is still very uncertain,” she said. “There is a lot of work ahead.”
Prime Minister Frederiksen later stressed that Greenland’s defense was a shared NATO responsibility. As international troops began arriving in the region, she framed the issue as one of collective security rather than bilateral bargaining.
European allies have begun assessing their own role in the Arctic. German defense officials confirmed that reconnaissance missions are underway to evaluate whether advanced fighter jets could be deployed to the territory.
A spokesperson said the aim was to determine “whether the Arctic is secure and to what extent we can contribute together with our NATO partners.”
Behind closed doors, diplomats describe growing alarm that Trump’s approach risks destabilizing one of the world’s most strategically sensitive regions. What was once a theoretical debate about Arctic influence has rapidly become a live geopolitical crisis.
For Greenlanders, the implications are deeply personal. Many feel caught between superpowers, their homeland transformed into a bargaining chip. Although the island has long sought greater independence, most residents reject the idea of being absorbed into another nation against their will.
Community leaders warn that even talk of acquisition undermines trust and fuels fear. The prospect of military pressure, however remote it may appear in Washington, feels existential in small Arctic towns with limited infrastructure and resources.
Landry’s assertion that a deal “will be made” has therefore landed not as reassurance, but as a threat.
In Copenhagen, Danish officials have emphasized that Greenland’s future must be decided by Greenlanders themselves. Any change in status, they argue, must occur through democratic processes, not external pressure.
Yet the administration in Washington continues to frame the issue as one of necessity. Trump allies argue that the Arctic is becoming a frontline of global competition and that the United States cannot afford to leave such a critical territory outside its direct control.
Critics counter that this logic undermines international law and risks setting a dangerous precedent. If powerful nations begin openly claiming smaller territories, they warn, the postwar global order could unravel.
Even within the United States, unease is growing. Lawmakers in both parties have questioned whether the rhetoric is damaging alliances at a moment when unity is essential. Several have privately expressed concern that the administration is underestimating how seriously its words are being taken abroad.
What remains clear is that Greenland has become more than a distant, icy outpost. It is now a symbol of a shifting world order, where power is asserted more bluntly and long-standing assumptions are being challenged.
For the people who live there, the debate is not abstract. It is about whether their future will be shaped by their own choices—or by the ambitions of others.
As Landry prepares for his visit and diplomats scramble to contain tensions, the question facing the Arctic is stark: can this confrontation be steered back into the realm of dialogue, or is the world witnessing the opening chapter of a far more dangerous struggle?
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
