Jens-Frederik Nielsen | In the eye of the storm

“We choose Denmark over the United States if asked to make such a choice here and now.”

The words came from Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Prime Minister of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, during a joint press conference with Danish PM Mette Frederiksen in Copenhagen as U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his threats to annex the Arctic territory. The threat of a U.S. takeover receded after Mr. Trump said at Davos that he had agreed to a framework deal with European nations over Greenland, though he offered few details. But the crisis is far from over. With an unpredictable Mr. Trump insisting that the U.S. needs Greenland for ‘national and global security’, Mr. Nielsen, leader of the island’s 55,000 people, has been caught in the eye of a rare transatlantic geopolitical storm.

Mr. Nielsen, a former badminton champion and the head of the Demokraatit (centre-right) party, is the first member of his party to hold the premiership. He previously served as Minister of Labour and Mineral Resources in the Kielsen VII Cabinet from May 2020 to February 2021, a portfolio that now seems strikingly relevant given the crisis engulfing his tenure. Those mineral resources are exactly what have placed Greenland at the centre of a geopolitical storm.The Trump administration’s interest in the world’s largest island is hardly whimsical. Beneath the island’s ice sheet lie vast deposits of rare earth elements, which are essential for everything from smartphones to military technology. Greenland potentially holds significant reserves of neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and other elements crucial for electric vehicles, wind turbines, advanced weaponry, and electronics. China currently dominates global rare earth production, controlling approximately 70% of mining and 90% of processing. Greenland, therefore, represents one of the few viable alternatives for Western nations seeking supply chain independence.

Adding to this is climate change, which has increased the island’s strategic value. As Arctic ice melts, new shipping routes are opening that could reshape global trade, cutting weeks off journeys between Asia and Europe. What was once impassable ice is becoming navigable water, and whoever controls Greenland’s waters and ports could control these crucial new routes.

Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, home to a key U.S. early-warning radar system tracking Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. The base has operated since 1943 and remains vital to North American aerospace defence. Its strategic location also makes it vital for NATO’s collective defence, as the alliance relies on early-warning capabilities in the Arctic to safeguard North America and Europe. As great power competition intensifies in the Arctic, with Russia militarising its coast and China declaring itself a “near-Arctic state”, control over Greenland has become a strategic priority for the U.S.

Mr. Trump first floated the idea of buying Greenland in 2019, offering what he described as a “large real estate deal”. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the idea “absurd”. Mr. Trump’s return to office, however, has brought renewed pressure. While earlier reports suggested possible economic or military coercion, Mr. Trump told the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21 that he would not use force or impose tariffs on European allies, but called U.S. control of Greenland an “absolute necessity” for American and global security.

For Mr. Nielsen, who came to power last year, this represents a crisis that cuts to the heart of Greenlandic identity.

Colonial memories

For Greenlanders, these overtures have revived painful colonial memories. The island’s Inuit population endured centuries of Danish rule that included forced assimilation, family separations, and community displacements. The territory has been on a decades-long journey toward greater autonomy from Denmark, which colonised the island in the 18th century. Greenland achieved home rule in 1979 and expanded self-governance in 2009, controlling most domestic affairs while Denmark handles foreign policy and defence. Many Greenlanders dream of full independence, but economic reality complicates that aspiration, and Denmark provides annual subsidies of approximately $600 million, roughly a third of Greenland’s GDP. That, precisely, is Mr. Nielsen’s long-term goal: independence for Greenland, achieved through economic self-reliance rather than trading one form of dependence for another.

The population’s response to the Trump overtures is nuanced. While Greenlanders don’t want their island to become an American territory, there is a growing frustration with Denmark’s oversight-driven approach. Greenland’s economy remains heavily dependent on fishing. Some younger Greenlanders see American investment, on Greenland’s terms, as potentially beneficial. But investment is very different from annexation.

This is the tightrope Mr. Nielsen must walk. He cannot appear weak before Mr. Trump’s threats, which would embolden American pressure and undermine Greenlandic dignity. Yet he cannot afford to completely alienate the U.S., whose investment and military presence remain facts of Arctic life. Simultaneously, he must manage relations with Denmark, which has its own fraught relationship with its former colony, while navigating domestic politics.