A new American delegation is due to arrive in Nuuk this week amid growing speculation surrounding the future of Greenland and renewed signals from U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Washington’s strategic ambitions for the island.
This latest visit, officially characterised as a “private” trip, will be led by Usha, the wife of U.S. Vice President Vance. The delegation will also include National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
While the White House has not released a detailed itinerary, the composition of the group has raised eyebrows among European observers, with some noting that such senior officials rarely travel together for reasons unconnected to state interests.
The trip comes against a backdrop of increasingly frequent and assertive statements by President Trump and members of his administration on Greenland. Trump has repeatedly said that the United States “will establish control” over the island “one way or another”, though the administration has not publicly elaborated on what such control might entail.
This is not the first signal of the Trump administration’s renewed focus on Greenland. Last year, Donald Trump Jr visited Nuuk in what was also described as a private visit. At that time, local participants were reportedly invited to a meeting intended to illustrate popular Greenlandic support for potential alignment with the United States.
However, the subsequent parliamentary elections in Greenland painted a different picture. Parties supporting closer ties with the United States, or outright incorporation, failed to gain even 1% of the vote. The victors were parties advocating for greater autonomy and eventual independence from Denmark.
Greenland, currently an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has long held strategic significance due to its location and resource potential. While Copenhagen remains formally responsible for defence and foreign policy, Nuuk governs internal affairs. The island is also home to U.S. military installations, including the Thule Air Base.
President Trump’s reported ambition is for Greenland to first declare independence and then accede to the United States as a sovereign nation. This model, according to some commentators, draws comparisons with Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, which was preceded by a controversial local declaration of independence under military pressure, followed by a disputed referendum.
Steve Witkoff, a special representative of the Trump administration and an official who has held several direct conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is reported to have cited the Crimean process as a model of legitimacy. This has further raised concerns among EU policymakers about the implications of American strategy for Greenland.
Locally, the prospect of American absorption is met with considerable scepticism. Residents of Greenland have voiced concerns about cultural preservation and political self-determination. Comparisons are frequently made to the indigenous peoples of Alaska, whose demographic and cultural identity was significantly altered following U.S. statehood.
The question remains what realistic pathways might exist for the realisation of Trump’s ambitions. Given the clear absence of local political support and the legal barriers to any non-consensual change of status, analysts suggest that the only remaining options would be further economic inducements or, in a more extreme scenario, direct military intervention—an outcome regarded as highly unlikely, but not completely discounted in current discourse.
European leaders have largely refrained from public criticism of Trump’s remarks, apparently to avoid further diplomatic escalation. Nevertheless, the European Commission has issued a formal statement affirming the EU’s commitment to upholding the sovereignty of both Denmark and Greenland.
Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte B. Egede has said that key voices expected to speak out in defence of Greenland’s autonomy have been “speaking so softly they can barely be heard.” This has prompted concern in Brussels, particularly over the EU’s limited capacity to influence developments should the United States pursue a more aggressive posture.
While there is no indication that Washington is preparing military action, the arrival of senior American officials is interpreted by some as a continuation of what might be called “coercive diplomacy”, with financial offers and symbolic gestures aimed at shifting public and political sentiment on the island.
Critics of the Trump administration’s approach argue that it underestimates non-material considerations such as national identity and local governance preferences. The belief that economic incentives alone will suffice has met resistance in Nuuk, where many voters continue to prioritise independence over any external alignments.
At a broader level, the situation poses risks for transatlantic cohesion. Should tensions escalate, the potential fallout could include a rupture in NATO unity and a re-evaluation of U.S. commitments in Europe. For the time being, European policymakers are attempting to tread a careful line, hoping that dialogue and diplomacy will prevail.
The outcome of the American delegation’s visit is likely to serve as an indicator of how far the United States is willing to go in pursuit of strategic gains in the Arctic—and how the EU and its member states will respond in defence of their own geopolitical interests.
Read also:
Relations Between Greenland & U.S. Plunge Amid Diplomatic Spat
