Greenland Excluded From US NATO Deal Sparks Outrage

On a frigid January morning in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, the mood was anything but warm. Locals gathered in coffee shops and on icy sidewalks, their conversations swirling with frustration and disbelief. The catalyst? A surprise announcement from Davos, Switzerland, where U.S. President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had revealed a "framework agreement" about Greenland—negotiated without any Greenlandic representation at the table.

“If agreements are to be made about Greenland, Greenland must be invited to the negotiating table,” insisted Niels Berthelsen, a 49-year-old resident, in an interview with AFP. He repeated the phrase—"Nothing about Greenland without Greenland"—like a mantra, echoing a sentiment that now resonates throughout the island’s windswept communities.

According to AFP, the agreement, announced on January 22, 2026, at the World Economic Forum, left Greenlanders feeling sidelined in decisions about their own future. The island, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has long been a subject of international interest due to its strategic location and rich mineral resources. But this latest development hit a nerve, raising fears about diminished self-determination and a lack of respect from global powers.

Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, was clear in a press conference: “I do not know the exact contents of the agreement,” he told international journalists gathered in Nuuk. “First and foremost, only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark can conclude agreements concerning Greenland.” His words underscored a growing sense of alienation. “Try to imagine what it means for Greenlanders, for the people here—a peaceful people—to hear and see in the media every day that someone wants to take their freedom,” Nielsen added, his voice reflecting both resignation and resolve.

Even Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, speaking before the EU summit in Brussels, stressed that Danish sovereignty over Greenland “cannot be negotiated, cannot be changed.” She confirmed she had consulted both NATO and the Greenlandic government before and after the Davos meeting, but that assurance did little to quell the unease in Nuuk. “I think we have learned something in recent days and weeks,” Frederiksen told Politico. “When Europe is not divided, when we are united and strong, including in our desire to defend ourselves, then results will be seen.”

Yet, the details of the so-called framework agreement remain shrouded in mystery. According to a source close to the talks cited by AFP, the U.S. and Denmark are set to renegotiate their 1951 defense agreement regarding Greenland—a pact that has allowed American military presence on the island for decades. Currently, the U.S. maintains a single base at Pittufik in northern Greenland, a strategic outpost that played a key role during the Cold War and now supports America’s missile defense system.

The new agreement, as described by NATO’s Rutte to Reuters, will reportedly require NATO allies to contribute more to the security of the Arctic region, with concrete military details to be determined by commanders later this year. Importantly, the deal does not address the question of sovereignty—Greenland remains an autonomous territory under Danish rule, and both Danish and Greenlandic leaders have firmly rejected any notion of transferring sovereignty to the United States.

For many Greenlanders, the process—negotiations conducted largely behind closed doors—felt like a betrayal. “No one else apart from Greenland and Denmark has the right to conclude agreements about the island and the Kingdom of Denmark,” Prime Minister Nielsen reiterated. Esther Jensen, another resident of Nuuk, voiced her disappointment to AFP: “I am very disappointed that NATO concluded an agreement with Trump without Denmark and Greenland. If decisions have to be made, they must be made together with Greenland.”

The sense of exclusion is compounded by the broader geopolitical stakes. President Trump has made no secret of his desire to purchase Greenland, citing security threats from Russia and China as justification. In his Davos speech, Trump promised not to use force to annex the territory but called for "immediate negotiations" to buy it—a proposal that has been met with incredulity and, at times, outright anger both in Greenland and Denmark. “We can negotiate all political aspects: security, investments, economy. But we cannot negotiate our sovereignty,” Frederiksen affirmed, as reported by Agerpres.

Greenland’s strategic value is undeniable. The island is rich in mineral resources—including rare earth elements that are critical for advanced technologies and military industries. Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland, especially since returning to the White House, has only heightened local anxieties about outside exploitation and loss of control.

Meanwhile, the EU summit in Brussels—convened to discuss transatlantic relations from Greenland to the Middle East—highlighted the broader implications of the U.S. push. Trump’s ambition to obtain sovereignty over Greenland, Politico notes, threatens to destabilize NATO and could reignite trade tensions with Europe. Frederiksen, for her part, called for a “permanent NATO presence in the Arctic region, including around Greenland,” signaling a desire for collective security rather than unilateral moves.

For those living on the ground in Nuuk, the international maneuvering feels both distant and deeply personal. Arkalo Abelsen, an 80-year-old pensioner, reflected on the sense of instability that has gripped the island since Trump’s re-election: “Since Trump was re-elected president, we no longer know what might happen today or tomorrow. Especially when he targets our country, as if it were just a block of ice floating on the sea. It’s very destabilizing. We feel powerless.”

Others, like Susan Gudmundsdottir Johnsen, who works in tourism, simply long for a return to calmer times. “From now on, we need calm and serenity,” she said, echoing a widespread desire for stability and agency in shaping Greenland’s future.

As negotiations continue—now, reportedly, with all three parties at the table—the people of Greenland are watching closely. Their message is clear, and it’s one that leaders in Washington, Copenhagen, and Brussels would do well to heed: nothing about Greenland without Greenland.