For months, U.S. President Donald Trump has been reaffirming his ambitions for the takeover of the Danish territory of Greenland citing its importance for U.S. national security.

Various experts have speculated over the potential impacts this would have on NATO, and increased discourse has circulated following Trump’s repeated calls to seize Greenland at the recent World Economic Forum. As Elizabeth Melimopoulos has found, ‘United States President Donald Trump has said he would not take over Greenland by ​force, but he stuck firmly to his demand for control over the Danish territory during a speech in Davos, Switzerland. He also hinted at consequences if his ambitions were thwarted. “People thought I ‌would use force, but I don’t have to use force,” Trump said at the World Economic Forum annual meeting. He announced afterwards on his Truth Social platform that he had arrived at a “framework of a future deal” with respect to claiming Greenland, after meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. The details of that framework remain unknown, but Trump agreed to lift the tariffs he had threatened to slap on European allies starting February 1 … Earlier this month, White House officials said Trump was considering “a range of options” for acquiring Greenland, including military action. At Davos, Trump again issued a warning to Denmark, setting an ultimatum to hand over Greenland. “We’ve never asked for anything else. And we could have kept that piece of land, and we didn’t. So they have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember,” he said. Hours later, the US president announced the “framework” for a Greenland deal, though it is unclear to what extent Denmark or Greenland had input or what the deal might look like. Rutte later told Fox News that the issue of Greenland’s sovereignty did not come up in their conversation.’ (Al Jazeera.2026) As Melimopullos has asserted, Trump’s speech at the World Economic Forum confirmed that Greenland would not be taken by force but he has not given up ambitions for the control of the island, warning of consequences for Denmark if the nation refused. The U.S. President then claimed he had reached a “vague” framework for a future deal after meeting NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and agreed to lift tariffs on European allies. Regardless, no explicit details of these frameworks have been disclosed. Ultimately, Rutte asserted that Greenland’s sovereignty was not raised in the meeting. 

NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte has revealed more details surrounding his talks with the U.S. President. As Annabel Grossman, Maira Butt, Sam Kiley, Tara Cobham & Alisha Rahaman Sarkar report ‘Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte has revealed the initial details of a possible deal agreed with Donald Trump over Greenland, after the US president abandoned plans to impose tariffs on European countries.  Mr Rutte held discussions with Trump at Davos on Wednesday over the future of the Arctic territory, which belongs to Denmark, following repeated threats by Washington to seize it using force.Speaking to reporters at the World Economic Forum, Mr Rutte said that Nato allies would be required to step up their presence in the Arctic under the framework discussed with Trump. The extra details would be worked out with the alliance’s senior commanders “within months”, he added.  Key details of the framework have not been released but sources told The New York Times that a deal could see greater US freedom to build on the island, modelled on Britain’s overseas arrangements. Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, said her government “cannot negotiate our sovereignty” in a sign that territory would not be on the table in talks.’ (The Independent.2026) As the authors have noted, Rutte suggests that the proposals would involve NATO allies increasing their Arctic presence and could allow greater US activity in Greenland, though details are still being developed at this time. Denmark’s prime minister stressed that Greenland’s sovereignty is non-negotiable.

Whether this stalemate has dissuaded the U.S. from invading Greenland remains to be seen. The current trajectory of U.S. foreign policy erodes international law, national sovereignty, and the NATO alliance it helped create. This challenge must be addressed through collective action by international actors committed to upholding sovereignty and the rules-based international order.