Keeping you informed

.

France and Germany Coordinate European Response to Block U.S. Acquisition of Greenland

Paris / Berlin — January 7, 2026

France and Germany are coordinating with other European partners to craft a unified response to efforts by the Trump administration to acquire Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark, according to statements from European officials this week.

The renewed focus on Greenland follows Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela, which the White House has described as a demonstration of the Monroe Doctrine—asserting U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere. The action has intensified scrutiny over Greenland’s status, given that the vast Arctic island lies in North America but remains a self-governing territory under Danish sovereignty.

Although Greenland is not a member of the European Union and withdrew from the European Community in 1985, EU leaders have reacted strongly to statements from the Trump administration indicating that U.S. control of the island is a national security priority—and that military force remains an option.

On Tuesday evening, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated President Donald Trump’s position, stating that “acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States” and is essential to deterring adversaries in the Arctic. She added that while multiple options are under consideration, “utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal.”

European Coordination

In response, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Paris is working with Berlin and Warsaw to formulate a coordinated European position.

“We want to take action, but we want to do so together with our European partners,” Barrot said, according to Reuters.

A German government source told the news agency that Berlin is “closely working together with other European countries and Denmark on the next steps regarding Greenland.”

Denmark and Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, are reportedly seeking direct talks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned earlier this week that a U.S. military takeover of Greenland would effectively end NATO, a claim that has sparked debate given the overwhelming disparity between U.S. defense spending and that of other alliance members.

U.S. Strategy and Diplomacy

While the administration’s rhetoric has been forceful, senior U.S. officials have suggested the threats of military action are intended primarily as leverage. The Wall Street Journal reported that Secretary Rubio told lawmakers in a closed briefing that public references to force were designed to bring Denmark to the negotiating table.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller has also downplayed the likelihood of actual military intervention, suggesting diplomatic solutions remain the preferred route.

According to the Associated Press, Copenhagen and Nuuk are actively pursuing dialogue with Washington to clarify U.S. intentions and defuse tensions.

Historical Context and Strategic Interests

U.S. interest in Greenland dates back to the 19th century, when Secretary of State William H. Seward—who negotiated the purchase of Alaska—first proposed annexing Greenland and Iceland. Similar efforts resurfaced after World War II, but none succeeded. If successful, Trump’s initiative would mark the largest territorial expansion in U.S. history, surpassing even the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

Beyond territorial acquisition, alternative arrangements are reportedly under consideration, including a Compact of Free Association (COFA), similar to agreements the U.S. maintains with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. Under such agreements, nations retain sovereignty while granting the U.S. extensive military access in exchange for economic aid, free trade, and residency rights.

Any such arrangement would likely require a referendum among Greenland’s roughly 57,000 residents on independence from Denmark. Under the Self-Government Act of 2009, Greenland has the right to call such a vote, though final approval would rest with the Danish parliament—giving Copenhagen leverage to demand financial compensation.

Arctic Competition and Security Concerns

European diplomats have expressed concern that the United States may use leverage over European security—particularly guarantees related to Ukraine following a potential peace agreement with Russia—to soften opposition to American control of Greenland.

From Washington’s perspective, officials have warned that Greenland’s ability to pursue independence raises the risk of influence from rival powers, including China and Russia, both of which have shown growing interest in Arctic access and infrastructure.

The Trump administration has also cited Greenland’s vast deposits of rare-earth minerals as a strategic concern, particularly amid China’s dominance of global mineral supply chains and its use of resource access as leverage in trade disputes.

Some former U.S. officials have floated proposals to make U.S. involvement more attractive to Greenlanders. Alexander Gray, a former senior National Security Council official, has suggested establishing a sovereign wealth fund similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund, ensuring Greenland’s population directly benefits from revenues generated by resource extraction.

As European governments mobilize to block U.S. ambitions and Washington presses its strategic case, Greenland’s future has emerged as a central flashpoint in transatlantic relations and Arctic geopolitics.