U.S.-Denmark relations suffered a major blow in August 2025 after revelations of covert influence efforts in Greenland. Copenhagen expelled the U.S. ambassador, citing verified reports that associates of former President Donald Trump sought to manipulate Greenland’s political discourse to foster pro-American sentiment and weaken its ties with Denmark.
Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen denounced the foreign interference as “completely unacceptable,” and a clear sign of disrespect for Danish sovereignty. He stated that Greenland’s constitutional relationship with Denmark was between the citizens of the Kingdom of Denmark only, of which Greenland was a self-governing territory. The Danish response was an unusual diplomatic rebuff of its traditional partner, the United States.
Navigating future relations amid competing ambitions
The episode is an intersection of classic alliance structures and the requirements of great power competition in the twenty-first century. The assertive diplomatic response of Denmark reveals how even friendly allies have to cope with shadow initiatives blurring lines between private initiative and strategic interference.
For Washington, the challenge is how to maintain strategic interests in Greenland and the Arctic without alienating a useful NATO ally or appearing to undermine democratic self-determination. With the stakes in geopolitics increasing across the Arctic—everything from mineral exploration to military maneuvering—respect for sovereignty and open communication will be essential to avoiding miscalculation.
For Greenland, the incident can trigger political debates on independence, foreign intervention, and economic strategy. Its politicians must now battle the double test of asserting their sovereignty while struggling with external pressures from contending powers.
While the United States, Denmark, and Greenland reshuffle their affairs in the aftermath of this scandal, the question then becomes bigger: how do small strategically located places exert influence without being vulnerable to foreign meddling in a more disputed world?
The covert operations and their objectives
Three Americans, two of them former Trump aides, had been operating in secret in Greenland since mid-2024, Danish intelligence sources reported. They were reported to have engaged with local activists, tried to influence the media narrative, and surveyed Greenlandic politicians, classifying them according to how welcoming they were to U.S. intervention or complete independence.
The general aim appeared to be building a local separatist movement nearer to U.S. strategic and economic interests. The mood for independence in Greenland is widely reported, but the native population has no desire for American annexation or protectorate.
Building a pro-US political narrative
The covert campaign reportedly nurtured stories about Greenland’s wealth potential without Danish domination and increased ties to America. Certain materials which were disseminated by the agents promoted American investment assurances, improvement of infrastructure, and gains in the resources, all preceded by the alleged U.S. support of independence.
However, these efforts were prone to ignore the complexity of the Greenlandic identity and the past political, cultural, and economic ties with Denmark. Internal sovereignty debates have been warned repeatedly by native leaders against the manipulation of outsiders.
Historical context and strategic importance of Greenland
Greenland’s geopolitical significance has grown as the Arctic has emerged onto the world stage. Melting ice has enabled new ocean routes to be realized, and the island holds untapped reserves of rare earth materials on which green technologies and the defense industries rely. As much as heightened climate change fuels the access to the resources, great powers have intensified rivalry for the region’s influence.
Its location—between Europe and North America—is a significant hub for military and commercial Arctic planning. The United States already has the base at Thule in northwest Greenland, as part of its missile defense system.
Trump’s previous ambitions
The Trump administration’s 2019 offer to purchase Greenland was dismissed by Danish and Greenlandic leaders as absurd, but it brought renewed attention to the island’s significance. Trump described the offer as a “large real estate deal,” while also citing national security interests. As a result of that episode, diplomatic ties were frosty and local perceptions of American intentions were sensitive.
Although Copenhagen and Nuuk may not seem comparable in many ways, such historical precedents put contemporary concerns in a broader context where covert actions are not rogue actions, but are the result of wider strategic thinking in parts of the American political spectrum.
Denmark’s regional and international response
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen underlined support for the autonomy of Greenland within the framework of the Kingdom and did not support any attempt of outside interference to influence the political development. She stated:
“We respect Greenland’s path to self-determination, but that path must be free from outside interference.”
The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) in a statement cautioned that influence operations – in particular including foreign actors – may play on existing cleavages and undermine national cohesion. PET also identified the potential for similar activities by other states with an interest in the Arctic.
Strengthening European and Arctic coordination
Copenhagen has expressed its concern to European allies and Arctic Council partners that territorial integrity should be respected in the region. Danish officials have urged Arctic cooperation to be based on mutual trust and international norms. Conversations in Brussels and NATO about the countering of hybrid threats and protecting informational sovereignty have added a layer of Arctic information security.
Statements from stakeholders deepen the divide
Greenlandic politicians were quick to counter the accusations. Greenland’s top parliamentarian, Aaja Chemnitz, accused US actors of trying to destabilize the island nation’s internal debate over independence. Such interference is in opposition to the right of self-determination by Greenland, and would promote divisions that will complicate the policy debate in the future, she said.
Foreign Minister Rasmussen also concurred, saying the Kingdom of Denmark’s solidarity would be “defended firmly” against foreign intervention. Both officials did not specifically criticize the U.S. government but appealed for guarantees that American friends would honor the sovereignty of the partner countries in all their diplomatic and informal activities.
The U.S. State Department, reacting to the summons, reaffirmed its respect for Denmark and Greenland’s domestic affairs, saying the meeting was “constructive.” It refrained from making any statement on the activities of private citizens who have been some of those suspected of being politically motivated actors with individual agendas instead of the representatives of existing U.S. policy.
She has written about the topic, noting how such incidents highlight the weakness and complexity of transatlantic partnership in light of increased geopolitical competition in the Arctic:
Navigating future relations amid competing ambitions
The episode is an interaction between the traditional alliances model and the reality of twenty-first-century great power politics. Denmark’s aggressive diplomatic action shows the degree to which even close friends have to deal with shadow operations which slide the line between private initiative and strategic intervention.
For Washington, the challenge is to protect strategic interests in the Arctic and Greenland without offending a close NATO ally or appearing to deny democratic self-determination. For geopolitical interests expanding from resource development to the deployment of military power throughout the Arctic-regional politics-attention to sovereignty and clear communication will be required to avoid miscalculation.
For Greenland, the occurrence could hasten political discussion regarding independence, foreign relations and planning. The leaders of Nuuk now had to create their independence, and accommodate forces from outside powers of opposing forces.
While exploring the implications of this scandal, as the United States, Denmark, and Greenland re-shape relationships in the aftermath of this scandal, the larger question emerges: how do strategically important regionally but geopolitically diminutive countries exert dominion without being obsequious to foreign pressure within an increasingly contested world order?
