Military Action in Greenland? Trump Aide’s Remarks Deepen US-Denmark Tensions

Tensions between the United States and Denmark have intensified after a senior aide to former US President Donald Trump openly defended the idea of annexing Greenland, raising concerns across Europe about the future of territorial sovereignty and NATO unity. The remarks have triggered sharp reactions from Danish leaders, who warned that any hostile move against a NATO member would fundamentally disrupt the alliance.

Stephen Miller, the former White House deputy chief of staff for policy, questioned Denmark’s right to control Greenland while defending Trump’s long-standing interest in bringing the Arctic territory under US control. Speaking in a media interview, Miller argued that Greenland should be part of America’s broader security framework, particularly to safeguard Arctic interests and NATO’s strategic posture in the region.

The comments came shortly after Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen cautioned that Trump’s statements should not be dismissed as rhetorical posturing. She stressed that if the United States were to take military action against any NATO country, it would represent a breaking point for the alliance.

Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty, citing its strategic importance and vast natural resources. His rhetoric reportedly intensified following a high-profile US operation involving the capture of deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, an event that sent shockwaves across the global political landscape. Soon after, Trump hinted at sweeping geopolitical actions involving countries across the Americas, further fuelling speculation about Washington’s expanding ambitions.

The controversy deepened after Miller was questioned about a social media post shared by his wife, Katie Miller, which featured a map of Greenland coloured like the American flag and captioned “Soon.” Addressing the issue, Miller said the US position on Greenland had been consistent across Trump’s current and previous tenures, asserting that American control would enhance security across the Arctic.

When pressed on whether the US might use force to acquire the territory, Miller downplayed the prospect of military confrontation, stating that it would not constitute “military action against Greenland,” referencing the island’s relatively small population. However, he went on to challenge Denmark’s sovereignty outright, questioning the legal and historical basis of Copenhagen’s claim over Greenland and describing the territory as a Danish colony.

Miller further argued that US control of Greenland would strengthen NATO, claiming that no country would be willing to militarily oppose Washington over the island’s future. Greenland, the world’s largest island with a population of around 57,000, is not an independent NATO member but is covered under Denmark’s membership in the alliance.

Danish leaders reacted strongly. Frederiksen reiterated that Greenlanders have consistently rejected the idea of becoming part of the United States and warned that any aggression against a NATO ally would halt cooperation within the bloc. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen sought to reassure residents, saying there was no immediate threat of a US takeover and emphasising that Greenland is a democratic society, unlike conflict-ridden regions elsewhere.

Greenland’s strategic location between Europe and North America makes it a cornerstone of the US ballistic missile defence system. The territory is also rich in critical minerals, aligning with Washington’s efforts to reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains for rare earths and other strategic resources.

The exchange has underscored growing strains within Western alliances at a time of global geopolitical volatility. Analysts warn that aggressive rhetoric over Greenland risks destabilising NATO cohesion and undermining international norms governing territorial sovereignty.

As debates continue, the issue has evolved beyond diplomatic disagreement into a broader question about power, alliances, and the limits of strategic ambition in the Arctic region.