Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US elections mean for Washington and the world
Donald Trump insisted he was serious about his determination to seize Greenland in an intense phone call with Denmark’s prime minister, according to senior European officials.
The American president spoke with Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, for 45 minutes last week. The White House has not commented on the call, but Frederiksen said it had emphasized that the vast Arctic island – a self-governing part of the kingdom of Denmark – was not for sale, although he noted the United States’ “strong interest” in it.
Five current and former senior European officials briefed on the call said the conversation had gone very badly.
They added that Trump had been aggressive and confrontational following the Danish prime minister’s comments that the island was not for sale, despite his offer of greater cooperation on military bases and mining.
“It was horrible,” one of the people said. Another added: “He was very firm. It was a cold shower. Before it was difficult to take it seriously. But I do think it is serious and potentially very dangerous.”
Details of the call are likely to deepen European concerns that Trump’s return to power will strain transatlantic relations more than ever, as the US president increases pressure on allies to cede territory.
Trump has begun his second term mulling over the possibility of seizing Greenland, the Panama Canal and even Canada.
Many European officials hoped that his comments about seeking control of Greenland for reasons of “national security” were a negotiating strategy to gain more influence over NATO territory. Russia and China are also jockeying for position in the Arctic.
But the call to Frederiksen has crushed those hopes, deepening the foreign policy crisis among NATO allies.
“The intention was very clear. They want it. The Danes are now in crisis mode,” said one person briefed on the call. Another said: “The Danes are completely scared by this.”
A former Danish official added: “It was a very tough conversation. “He threatened specific measures against Denmark, such as specific tariffs.”
The Danish prime minister’s office said it “did not recognize the interpretation of the conversation given by anonymous sources.”
Greenland, home to just 57,000 people, is an entry point to new shipping routes gradually opening through the Arctic; It also has abundant but difficult to access minerals.
“President Trump has made clear that the security of Greenland is important to the United States, as China and Russia make significant investments throughout the Arctic region,” a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said.
“The president is committed not only to protecting US interests in the Arctic but also to working with Greenland to ensure the mutual prosperity of both nations.”
Trump threatened in early January to impose tariffs on Denmark if it opposed him in Greenland. He also did not rule out the use of military force to take control of the island.
“People don’t really even know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security,” Trump said at a news conference days before taking office.
“I’m talking about protecting the free world,” he added. “There are Chinese ships everywhere. You have Russian ships everywhere. “We are not going to allow that to happen.”
Múte Egede, Prime Minister of Greenland, has repeatedly stressed that the island’s inhabitants want independence and not American (or Danish) citizenship. But he has welcomed American business interest in mining and tourism.
Frederiksen held a meeting with CEOs of large Danish companies, including Novo Nordisk and Carlsberg, last week to discuss Trump’s threats, including possible tariffs against their country.
On the day of Trump’s call, he told Denmark’s TV2: “There is no doubt that there is great interest in Greenland and the surrounding area. “Based on the conversation I had today, there is no reason to believe it should be less than what we have heard in the public debate.”
