Fundamental Disagreement Over Greenland Persists Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said after a meeting with Vice‑President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that President Trump continues to press for a U.S. takeover of Greenland, a demand he called “totally unacceptable” [1][2][3]. Trump reiterated that acquiring Greenland is essential for U.S. security and missile‑defence, framing the push as a strategic necessity [1][2][3]. Rasmussen emphasized that Denmark’s sovereignty and Greenland’s self‑determination are non‑negotiable red lines [1][2][3].

Working Group Created to Bridge Security and Sovereignty Gaps The United States, Denmark and Greenland agreed to establish a high‑level working group that will examine American security concerns while respecting Denmark’s red lines [1][2][3]. The group is slated to meet within weeks and will produce recommendations on possible U.S. military basing or other cooperation [1][2][3]. Danish and Greenlandic officials described the arrangement as the first concrete step toward dialogue after the stalemate [1][2][3].

Denmark Expands Arctic Military Presence With NATO Allies Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced an increase in Danish Arctic forces, including additional aircraft, ships, and troops to operate around Greenland [1][2][3]. Sweden pledged armed forces, Germany a reconnaissance team, the United Kingdom an officer, and France a consular‑military liaison, complementing the roughly 100 U.S. personnel already stationed at Pituffik [1][2][3]. Joint exercises with NATO allies are planned for the coming months to reinforce regional security [1][2][3].

Greenlanders and Experts Doubt U.S. Threat Claims Interviews in Nuuk revealed that many Greenlanders do not see Russian or Chinese warships near the island and view the U.S. threat narrative as exaggerated [1][3]. Residents highlighted economic opportunities in minerals and oil as more pressing than the alleged security danger [2][3]. Experts echoed this skepticism, noting the lack of observable foreign naval activity and questioning the strategic urgency claimed by Trump [1][3].