On a recent broadcast of NBC's "Meet the Press," Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut delivered a stark warning regarding the possibility of the United States attempting to take control of Greenland by force. He stated categorically that such an operation would signify "the end of NATO," highlighting the profound diplomatic and strategic consequences it would provoke.
Greenland, an autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark, is also a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, clarified that any military engagement by the United States against Greenland would activate the alliance's mutual-defense provisions. This stipulation obliges NATO members to come to each other's defense if attacked, meaning that US actions would compel partner states such as the United Kingdom and France to oppose the United States militarily.
This caution from Murphy arises amidst renewed attention from President Donald Trump regarding the potential purchase or control of Greenland. The president has underscored the island's critical importance to US national security interests, stressing concerns about heightened Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic region. Notably, the United States has maintained a presence at Pituffik Space Base in northwest Greenland since 1943 through a defense agreement with Denmark. The base serves vital functions in missile warning and space surveillance operations.
While diplomatic efforts appear to be favored publicly, the White House has not excluded the option of military force. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt remarked last week that "utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander in Chief's disposal," although she emphasized the preference for negotiation and diplomacy. Similarly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has refrained from dismissing the use of force categorically. Rubio intends to engage Danish officials in discussions concerning American objectives in Greenland during meetings scheduled this week.
Complementing the cautious tone from some US government figures, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, appointed as President Trump's envoy to Greenland, advocated for a reception of the United States' interest with "hospitality, not hostility," in a public statement via X (formerly Twitter) earlier this Sunday.
Rejections of any transfer of sovereignty over Greenland have been firmly expressed by leaders in Greenland, Denmark, and broader Europe. The Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, along with leaders of various political parties, reiterated that the future governance of the island must be determined by the Greenlandic people themselves, underscoring principles of self-determination.
Further emphasizing this stance, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen offered a warning during an interview with Danish broadcaster TV2. She asserted that any military attack by the US against another NATO member would cause the alliance to cease operations completely. This sentiment mirrors Senator Murphy's declaration regarding the potential collapse of NATO should the United States pursue aggression against Greenland. Adding to these concerns, a joint statement issued by European leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, affirmed unequivocally that "Greenland belongs to its people." This collective declaration signals a united front in protecting Greenland's autonomy and warning against external aggression.
The debate over Greenland encompasses complex layers of strategic security imperatives, alliance coherence, and respect for territorial sovereignty. While the United States has long-standing strategic interests in the region, especially related to monitoring and defending against potential missile threats evident from activities at Pituffik Space Base, the implications of any forceful action risk severe diplomatic fallout. The activation of NATO's mutual-defense clause under such circumstances would place the United States in direct conflict with critical allies, undermining the transatlantic security architecture that has endured for decades.
US officials, while maintaining military options on the table, appear poised to prioritize diplomatic engagements with Danish and Greenlandic representatives in the forthcoming period. These discussions will be pivotal in balancing US security priorities against the legitimate sovereignty rights of Greenland and the broader interests of NATO cohesion.
The ongoing dialogue reflects the delicate balance between national security considerations and alliance solidarity, where impatience or unilateral actions could have far-reaching consequences beyond the Arctic region. The unified European response underscores the importance of dialogue and respect for democratic processes in navigating these complex geopolitical waters.