Denmark prepared for a possible USA attack on Greenland in January 2026, according to an investigation by Danish public broadcaster DR based on 12 anonymous sources in government, the armed forces and allied capitals. The report says Danish troops sent to Greenland carried explosives that could have been used to destroy runways in Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq, as well as blood supplies for possible casualties, after fears grew that President Donald Trump might try to seize the island by force.
The allegations are politically explosive because they suggest that, at the height of the Greenland crisis, Copenhagen was seriously planning for the possibility of a military confrontation with its most important ally. At the same time, the reporting does not say Danish officials had intelligence proving an imminent USA attack. The core point is different: Danish and European officials believed the threat had become serious enough to prepare for the worst-case scenario.
What DR says Denmark prepared for in Greenland
According to DR, Danish troops were flown to Greenland in January under what was presented publicly as the Arctic Endurance exercise. Behind that label, the deployment had a more urgent purpose. Sources told the broadcaster that soldiers brought explosives to block or destroy key runways if USA military aircraft tried to land troops on the island. They also carried blood from Danish blood banks to treat wounded personnel if fighting broke out.
DR says the Danish plan was meant to make any attempted takeover of Greenland far more costly. The logic was straightforward: if European and Danish soldiers were already on the ground, a USA operation would require an open hostile act against allied forces rather than a rapid fait accompli. Danish F-35 fighter jets were also reportedly sent north fully armed.
Why January became the most dangerous moment
The report links the sharp escalation to early January 2026, when the USA military operation in Venezuela convinced officials in Copenhagen and other European capitals that Trump’s threats on Greenland could no longer be dismissed as rhetoric. Several of DR’s sources said that was the moment when contingency planning accelerated and previously discussed allied deployments were brought forward.
The result was a rapid multinational build-up. According to DR, Danish forces were joined by personnel from France, Germany, Norway and Sweden, while a French naval vessel and additional air assets were sent towards the North Atlantic. The goal, according to multiple sources, was deterrence rather than any realistic expectation that Greenland could withstand a large-scale USA assault on its own.
Mette Frederiksen says Trump’s Greenland aim remains intact
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen did not directly confirm DR’s reporting, but she did not dismiss the gravity of the situation. Speaking to DR, she said Denmark is now trying to reach an agreement with Washington, with negotiations still under way. At the same time, she said she still believes that the American president’s wish to take over Greenland remains intact.
Frederiksen described the broader crisis as Denmark’s most serious foreign-policy situation since the Second World War. She also used the moment to underline a political lesson that has become central in Danish and European security debates: the reason Denmark stands in a stronger position now, she said, is the rapid support it received from European allies.
The USA still says cooperation continues
An important limitation remains. DR says its sources had no concrete intelligence showing that the USA had operational plans to attack Greenland. That matters. The story is therefore not proof that an invasion was imminent, but evidence that Danish decision-makers judged the risk too serious to ignore.
The public USA line is also different. In comments quoted by DR, USA ambassador to Denmark Kenneth Howery said Trump had made clear in Davos on 21 January that the United States would not use military force against Greenland. He added that Washington wanted to continue its long-standing diplomatic and security cooperation with Denmark and Greenland. Reuters has also reported that negotiations have since focused on revising the 1951 agreement governing USA military access in Greenland.
A crisis that changed Denmark’s view of alliance politics
The most consequential part of the story may be political rather than military. DR’s reporting suggests that, during the January crisis, leading figures in Denmark’s state apparatus no longer treated the USA only as a guaranteed protector. They also had to consider the possibility that Washington itself could become the source of the threat. That does not mean Denmark has formally stopped considering the USA an ally. Both countries remain NATO members, and official cooperation continues.
But the episode points to something more structural: a deep erosion of trust inside the transatlantic relationship. In practice, Danish officials appear to have concluded that alliance commitments were no longer enough on their own and that European backing was essential to the defence of the Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland.
This is one reason the Greenland crisis matters well beyond the Arctic. It has reinforced arguments in Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin and other European capitals that Europe must be better prepared to secure its own territory and interests, even in scenarios that once seemed unthinkable inside NATO.
What this means for Denmark, Greenland and Europe
For Denmark, the revelation is likely to sharpen an already heated debate during the final days of the election campaign before the 24 March vote. For Greenland, it is another reminder that the island’s future is now at the centre of a broader struggle over Arctic security, sovereignty and great-power influence. For Europe, it is one more sign that the old assumption of automatic strategic trust in Washington can no longer be taken for granted.
Whether the current negotiations with the USA reduce tensions or only postpone them remains unclear. What is already clear is that the Greenland crisis has pushed Denmark into a new strategic reality: one in which the USA is still formally an ally, but no longer viewed with the same certainty as before.
