On August 27, 2025, a diplomatic tremor rippled through Scandinavia as Denmark summoned the top U.S. diplomat in Copenhagen over allegations that Americans with close ties to President Donald Trump had been conducting covert influence operations in Greenland. The move, confirmed by Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, came within hours after Denmark’s main public broadcaster, DR, published a detailed investigation that set off alarms across the Danish political spectrum and reignited debate over Greenland’s future.
The DR report, which drew on eight unnamed sources from Denmark, Greenland, and the United States, alleged that at least three American nationals with connections to Trump had been actively working to sway Greenlandic society. These individuals, according to DR, weren’t just passively observing—they were compiling lists of U.S.-friendly Greenlanders, identifying Trump opponents, and encouraging locals to highlight cases that could be used to cast Denmark in a negative light in American media. Two of the men reportedly tried to build relationships with Greenlandic politicians, businesspeople, and ordinary citizens, with an eye toward pushing Trump’s long-standing goal: bringing Greenland under U.S. jurisdiction.
“We are aware that foreign actors continue to show an interest in Greenland and its position in the Kingdom of Denmark,” Rasmussen stated in a message sent to news organizations, including Fox News Digital and ABC News. “It is therefore not surprising if we experience outside attempts to influence the future of the Kingdom in the time ahead. Any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Kingdom will of course be unacceptable.”
Rasmussen characterized the meeting with the U.S. chargé d’affaires—a role currently held by Mark Stroh, as the U.S. has no ambassador in Denmark—as a “preventive conversation.” He emphasized, “The cooperation between the governments of Denmark and Greenland is close and based on mutual trust, just as there is close cooperation and dialogue between the relevant Greenlandic and Danish authorities.”
The timing and seriousness of the Danish response signaled just how sensitive the issue of Greenland remains. The island, a vast, mostly ice-covered expanse with fewer than 60,000 residents, is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its strategic location in the Arctic and its rich deposits of critical minerals have long attracted the attention of world powers, but few have been as blunt as Trump in stating their ambitions. The former president has repeatedly said he wants to “get” Greenland, even floating the idea of purchasing the island and, when that didn’t gain traction, refusing to rule out military action to achieve his aim.
According to The New York Times and Associated Press, Trump’s efforts have not been limited to rhetoric. The DR report alleges that the three Americans traveled back and forth to Greenland, gathering information and cultivating contacts as part of the covert operations. One of the trio allegedly compiled a list of Trump supporters in Greenland, aiming to recruit them to establish a secessionist movement. The other two focused on nurturing contacts with influential locals, apparently to create fissures between Denmark and Greenland and to support the idea of annexation by the United States.
DR’s sources believe the ultimate goal was to weaken ties between Denmark and Greenland from within Greenlandic society. However, the broadcaster was unable to determine whether these Americans were acting independently or under direct orders from others. DR chose not to publish the names of those involved to protect its sources, and the Associated Press noted that it could not independently confirm the report’s details. The White House, for its part, declined to comment immediately, and the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen directed queries to Washington.
The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) has been watching developments closely. In a statement to multiple outlets, PET said, “Particularly in the current situation, Greenland is a target for influence campaigns of various kinds that could aim to create divisions in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland.” The agency explained that such operations might exploit existing or fabricated disagreements or amplify divisive viewpoints regarding the Kingdom, the United States, or other countries with interests in Greenland. PET added that it has “continuously strengthened” its efforts and presence in Greenland in recent years, vowing to continue close cooperation with Greenlandic authorities.
For many Danes and Greenlanders, the allegations are not just an abstract concern—they hit at the heart of Greenland’s evolving identity and its relationship with Denmark. While most Greenlanders oppose joining the United States, according to recent polls cited by The New York Times, there is a strong current of support for full independence from Denmark. The renewed attention from Washington, especially under Trump’s administration, has only heightened these debates. The issue of independence was already a key theme in Greenland’s March 11 election, and the latest revelations have added fuel to the fire.
Denmark, a NATO ally of the U.S., has repeatedly and firmly rejected the idea that Greenland is for sale. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was blunt in May 2025, declaring, “You cannot spy against an ally,” following reports that American intelligence agencies were stepping up their activities in Greenland. Both Danish and Greenlandic officials have condemned the idea of selling the island and the reported U.S. intelligence gathering.
Greenland’s unique status—a blend of traditional Inuit culture and modern Scandinavian governance, with a small population and vast untapped resources—makes it a geopolitical prize. During World War II and the Cold War, the U.S. operated military installations on the island, and a small American presence remains today. The island’s mineral wealth, especially deposits of rare earth elements and other critical resources, has only increased its strategic value in a world hungry for new supplies and wary of global competition.
Despite the swirl of intrigue, both Danish and Greenlandic leaders have sought to project calm and unity. Rasmussen’s statements repeatedly underscored the “close” and “mutual trust” that defines the relationship between Denmark and Greenland. Authorities have also made clear that any outside attempt to sow discord will be met with vigilance and resolve.
Still, the episode serves as a stark reminder that in the Arctic, the boundaries between diplomacy, espionage, and influence operations are often blurred. As global interest in the region intensifies, so too does the need for transparency, trust, and careful stewardship of its future. For now, Denmark’s swift response signals that it intends to defend its sovereignty—and Greenland’s—against all comers, no matter how powerful or persistent.
