Diplomatic relations between Denmark and the United States have entered a turbulent phase following revelations of alleged covert influence operations in Greenland, a vast Arctic territory with growing geopolitical importance. According to reports from Danish public broadcaster DR, at least three Americans with connections to former U.S. President Donald Trump have been conducting secret efforts to sway political sentiment on the island, with the apparent aim of loosening ties between Greenland and Denmark.
The Danish government responded swiftly and forcefully. On Wednesday, August 27, 2025, Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned the senior U.S. diplomat in Copenhagen, Mark Stroh, for urgent talks. The move came after DR’s investigative report, which cited information from eight sources, alleged that these U.S. citizens—whose names remain undisclosed—were involved in activities ranging from compiling lists of Greenlanders based on their views about U.S. control, to nurturing relationships with local politicians and businesspeople. The ultimate goal, sources suggested, was to weaken the relationship between Denmark and its semi-autonomous territory.
"Any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Kingdom will of course be unacceptable," Rasmussen said in a statement quoted by Associated Press. He added, “In that light, I have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to summon the U.S. chargé d’affaires for a meeting at the Ministry.” The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) echoed these concerns, warning that Greenland has become a target for influence campaigns designed to exploit or even fabricate disagreements between Denmark and Greenland. PET stated that it has "continuously strengthened" its presence and cooperation with Greenlandic authorities in response to these threats.
The U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen, when approached about the allegations, referred all queries to Washington. Meanwhile, the White House’s response was blunt: officials told Copenhagen to “calm down,” according to Dow Jones & Company. The terse reply did little to ease tensions, especially as Danish officials viewed the alleged interference as an affront to national sovereignty and a test of the trust between two NATO allies.
This episode isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Wall Street Journal previously reported that U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had instructed intelligence agency heads to gather insight into Greenland’s independence movement and local attitudes toward potential U.S. resource extraction. The timing of these efforts is notable, as President Trump has repeatedly and publicly expressed his desire for the U.S. to take over Greenland, citing its mineral wealth and its strategic position in the Arctic. He has gone so far as to say that he would not rule out the use of force to achieve this aim, calling the island vital for both national and international security.
Greenland, though autonomous in many respects, remains under Danish sovereignty. The island’s government manages most of its domestic affairs, but Denmark retains control over foreign policy and defense. Both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, have consistently rebuffed any suggestion that the territory is for sale or open to foreign takeover. Nevertheless, Greenland’s growing importance—due to climate change opening up shipping lanes and revealing untapped mineral resources—has made it a focal point for international interest, particularly from the U.S., China, and Russia.
The Danish public broadcaster DR’s report painted a detailed picture of the alleged covert campaign. One of the three Americans reportedly compiled lists of Greenlanders who were either supportive or opposed to the idea of U.S. control. This individual also sought out local cases that could be used to cast Denmark in a negative light in American media. The other two Americans, according to DR, worked to cultivate relationships with local politicians, businesspeople, and other influential figures, presumably to further the U.S. agenda on the island. While DR said it could not confirm whether these individuals were acting independently or at the direction of U.S. authorities, the implications were clear: foreign actors were actively seeking to shape Greenlandic society from within.
On GZERO Europe, commentator Carl Bildt highlighted the gravity of the situation, noting that the Danish prime minister had also weighed in with pointed remarks about how allies should conduct themselves. "It seems like the issue is still there, at least in certain circles, and likely to continue to arouse tensions between allies across the Atlantic," Bildt observed. The dispute, he argued, underscores the seriousness with which Denmark views any attempt to undermine its relationship with Greenland.
The diplomatic spat over Greenland is not occurring in isolation. Just days prior, France summoned the U.S. ambassador to Paris over a controversial editorial in The Wall Street Journal criticizing France’s efforts to combat antisemitism. This back-to-back summoning of American envoys by European nations signals a growing unease about U.S. actions and rhetoric on the continent, particularly when it comes to issues of national sovereignty and alliance trust.
For Denmark, the stakes are high. Greenland is not only a symbol of national unity but also a key player in the country’s strategic and economic future. Any suggestion of foreign interference is bound to provoke a strong response. As Rasmussen put it, “Cooperation between the governments of Denmark and Greenland is close and based on mutual trust.” Maintaining that trust, he implied, requires vigilance against outside attempts to sow discord.
The intelligence assessment from PET reinforced this message. The agency warned that, especially in the current climate, Greenland is vulnerable to influence campaigns from a variety of actors. These campaigns, PET said, could seek to create or amplify divisions within Greenlandic society, potentially destabilizing the relationship with Denmark. In response, Danish authorities have ramped up their intelligence and security operations on the island, working closely with local officials to monitor and counter any suspicious activity.
Despite the diplomatic fallout, the long-term impact of these alleged influence operations remains to be seen. While the U.S. has not officially acknowledged or denied the activities described in the Danish media, the episode has already cast a shadow over transatlantic relations. For many in Denmark and Greenland, the controversy serves as a stark reminder of the island’s growing geopolitical significance—and the risks that come with it.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the question of Greenland’s future is no longer just a matter of local or even national debate. It has become a flashpoint in the broader contest for influence in the Arctic, drawing in powerful players and raising difficult questions about sovereignty, security, and the rules of international engagement.
With both sides digging in, the Greenland affair is unlikely to fade from the headlines any time soon.