Rubio Signals Talks With Denmark as Trump Renews Push for U.S. Control of Greenland

BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he plans to meet with Danish officials next week amid renewed tension over President Donald Trump’s insistence that the United States should ultimately take control of Greenland, the vast and strategically located Arctic island that governs itself while remaining part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Rubio’s planned talks come as the Trump administration has again elevated Greenland’s role in U.S. national security strategy, arguing that growing Chinese and Russian activity in the Arctic makes American control of the territory increasingly necessary. The issue has gained fresh momentum following the recent capture of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, an event that Trump has cited as evidence of shifting global power dynamics and the need for a more assertive U.S. posture abroad.

Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and Greenland’s foreign affairs minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, formally requested a meeting with Rubio after earlier attempts to engage Washington went unanswered. In a statement published by Greenland’s government, officials said they welcomed Rubio’s willingness to finally hold direct discussions, viewing the meeting as essential given the seriousness of U.S. statements about the island’s future.

Behind closed doors in Washington, Rubio has already outlined the administration’s thinking. During a classified briefing with a small group of U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill, he said the administration’s long-term goal was to acquire Greenland through a purchase rather than military force. The comments were disclosed by a person familiar with the briefing, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussion was private.

Speaking publicly later in the week, Rubio emphasized that Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new. He noted that Trump has spoken openly about acquiring the island since his first term in office and argued that previous U.S. presidents had also explored ways to expand America’s presence there. Rubio declined, however, to offer details on how the administration might pursue such a goal or how it would address fierce opposition from Denmark and Greenland.

European leaders have reacted with alarm. The heads of government of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in a joint statement reaffirming that Greenland belongs to its people and warning against any attempt to change its status by pressure or force. Frederiksen has said that a U.S. takeover of Greenland would effectively signal the collapse of trust within the NATO alliance.

Security analysts across Europe say the unusually blunt language reflects deep concern. Some have warned that repeated suggestions of annexation or coercion against a NATO ally undermine the alliance’s core principles and risk setting a dangerous precedent at a time of global instability.

Rubio has been careful in public comments to avoid directly addressing whether military action remains an option. Asked if the administration would risk damaging NATO by pursuing control of Greenland by force, he said only that such matters would be discussed privately with Danish leaders during his upcoming visit. He added that every U.S. president retains the authority to use military means to address threats to national security, without specifying how that principle might apply to Greenland.

The White House has struck a similar tone. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that while all options remain on the table, diplomacy is the administration’s preferred approach. Still, her acknowledgment that military action had not been ruled out has fueled anxiety in Europe and among some members of Congress.

Several Republican senators said they recognized Greenland’s strategic importance, particularly its location along Arctic and North Atlantic routes and its potential mineral wealth, but stopped short of endorsing the use of force. Some expressed hope that a negotiated agreement could be reached, while others suggested that Trump’s rhetoric was intended to keep adversaries guessing rather than signal an imminent policy shift.

Not all lawmakers were reassured. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she found the repeated talk of acquiring Greenland, whether by purchase or force, deeply unsettling. Leaders of the bipartisan Senate group that monitors NATO affairs issued a joint statement warning that any attempt to pressure a fellow alliance member would violate the principles of self-determination and mutual respect that NATO was created to defend.

Military experts in Denmark have also questioned the logic behind a U.S. takeover. Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, argued that Washington already enjoys extensive access and cooperation in Greenland and would gain little by formally changing the island’s flag. He said Denmark and Greenland have consistently granted the United States whatever security arrangements it has requested, making annexation unnecessary from a defense standpoint.

Denmark has, in recent years, expanded military cooperation with Washington. Its parliament approved legislation allowing U.S. forces to establish bases on Danish territory, building on an earlier agreement that granted American troops broad access to air bases. Danish officials have made clear, however, that these agreements could be terminated if the United States attempted to annex Greenland or any part of it.

The U.S. military already operates the Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, a critical installation for missile warning and space surveillance. In theory, American personnel stationed there could be mobilized quickly in the event of a crisis. Crosbie said such a move would likely avoid direct confrontation with local residents or Danish forces but warned that the broader consequences would be severe.

According to Crosbie, the true danger of an American annexation would not lie in violence on the ground but in the damage done to international law and global norms. He said that even a symbolic takeover would send a message that borders and sovereignty can be altered by power alone, eroding protections for smaller nations worldwide.

“The real impact,” he said, “would be changing the map and changing expectations about what is acceptable behavior between allies.”