During the 2020 World Economic Forum in Davos, President Donald Trump touted a major diplomatic achievement regarding Greenland. He claimed the United States had secured “total access” to the Arctic territory at “no charge.” His aide, Stephen Miller, characterized this as a demonstration of “the art of the deal.” However, leaders from Denmark and Greenland promptly rejected the notion that there had been any change in sovereignty, raising questions about what was truly agreed upon.
Miller’s proclamation, made in Davos, highlighted how the administration viewed this arrangement as a strategic victory. “Now, through the art of the deal, the U.S. has everything it wants and everything it needs at no charge in Greenland!” he stated jubilantly. This assertion sparked confusion, as both Danish and Greenlandic leaders insisted that discussions about territory or ownership had not occurred.
At the core of this controversy lies a security framework agreement between Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who also serves as the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. This agreement is intended to strengthen cooperation in the Arctic, but it has been presented in a way that suggests a major victory for the U.S. The White House has framed the deal as a historic achievement, granting the U.S. broader access to Greenland without formal claims of ownership. In contrast, leaders in Denmark and Greenland have made it clear that no sale of territory was on the table.
“We’re getting everything we wanted—total security, total access to everything,” Trump declared during an interview in Davos. His emphasis on “total access” suggests an aggressive push for strategic leverage in the Arctic, a region increasingly vital for defense and resource exploitation as climate change alters its geography.
Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, finds itself under heightened geopolitical interest due to its strategic location. The U.S. operates Thule Air Base there, integral to missile defense systems in North America. Trump’s earlier ambition to purchase Greenland met stern resistance from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who termed the proposition “absurd.” Following these remarks, Trump even canceled a state visit to Denmark, indicating how quickly tensions escalated.
In Davos, Trump took a different approach, choosing diplomacy over threats. He rescinded tariffs on Denmark and other European nations, signaling a shift towards cooperation. However, his claim of achieving “everything at no charge” prompted skepticism from abroad, with leaders denying that concessions had been made.
Frederiksen affirmed, “Greenland is not for sale. A discussion about our status as a sovereign state cannot be discussed.” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen reinforced this stance, declaring that “sovereignty is a red line.” These remarks underscore the steadfast position of Greenland and Denmark regarding their territorial rights, regardless of U.S. claims.
The absence of any official documentation supporting Trump’s assertions regarding Greenland raises further doubts. NATO sources confirm that the security cooperation primarily involves intelligence sharing and collaborative monitoring efforts without granting the U.S. additional rights or ownership claims.
This disparity between the White House’s narrative and the positions held by Denmark and Greenland highlights the complexity of international diplomacy. Trump has labeled Greenland a national security priority, arguing that the U.S. merits greater control due to its historical contributions to European defense. “Now what I’m asking for is a piece of ice,” he reportedly told NATO leaders, advocating for a compelling case based on American contributions.
In typical fashion, Stephen Miller adopted a perspective that prioritizes power over legal frameworks. He asserted, “International law is nice when it aligns with national interest, but power is what defines reality.” This viewpoint clashes starkly with the long-established legal status of Greenland under Danish sovereignty, a claim backed by international treaties dating back to the 18th century, including a ruling from the International Court of Justice in 1933 that reaffirmed Denmark’s rights.
UN resolutions have also emphasized Greenland’s right to determine its political status. Recent U.S. engagements in the region have focused on economic development rather than challenges to sovereignty. This misalignment between Trump’s narrative and the reality faced by European partners has led to increasingly strained relations.
Swedish Finance Minister Elisabeth Evantesson described the situation succinctly: “It’s totally absurd… trying to get a bit of land from allies through threats or pressure.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy voiced his apprehensions about the U.S. distraction with Greenland, suggesting it was drawing focus away from more pressing geopolitical issues like Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Domestically, Trump’s portrayal of the Greenland arrangement resonates with segments of voters who value strength and unilateral action. His ability to shift narratives has often influenced public perception despite factual inconsistencies. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly described the situation as a testament to Trump’s negotiating skills, asserting it proved he could secure American interests without complicating processes or incurring costs.
This celebration of a diplomatic win clashes with the practical results, which remain unclear. Trump’s declaration of “everything at no charge” lacks the grounding of any legal agreement regarding Greenland’s status or access rights. The U.S. has seemingly managed to ease tensions with Denmark while achieving some diplomatic goodwill through tariff reductions. Yet, as the geopolitical landscape shifts with increased Russian activity, the deeper discord over territorial norms remains problematic.
The Greenland episode spotlights the discrepancy between how international alliances are perceived and the real undercurrents shaping them. For Trump and his advisors, public displays of achievement may be sufficient metrics. However, for European leaders and legal experts, the contrast between power dynamics and established international law underscores a significant divide. As it stands, Greenland continues to operate under Danish sovereignty, with no evidence substantiating Trump’s bold claims of expanded U.S. rights or control.
"*" indicates required fields
