Trump’s envoy to Greenland, Jeff Landry, left Nuuk saying it was time for the USA to leave its mark on Greenland again, after a visit that exposed how differently Washington and Greenlandic leaders read the future of their relationship.
Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana and President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Greenland, spent several days in Nuuk meeting politicians, business figures and residents. His visit coincided with the opening of the USA’s new, larger consulate in the Greenlandic capital, but it also renewed concerns about American pressure on Greenland’s self-determination.
Landry says Greenland wants closer ties with the USA
Speaking to DR before leaving Greenland, Landry said his mission had been to “find new friends” and argued that he had heard a recurring desire for more relations with the USA. He said he had spoken with a broad range of people and claimed that nobody had told him directly that the USA was not wanted in Greenland.
Landry also questioned whether the small groups criticising the visit represented most Greenlanders. In his view, the conversations he had in Nuuk showed that many people want closer ties with Washington, even if the public tone around the visit has been tense.
His comments sit uneasily beside the political signals from Greenland’s leadership. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, chair of Naalakkersuisut, Greenland’s government, said after meeting Landry that Greenland’s position towards the USA had not moved “one centimetre”. He also stressed that Greenland has clear red lines and does not intend to change them.
The prosperity argument revives old concerns about pressure
Landry’s strongest claim was that Greenland’s prosperity depends on Trump and on the decisions the USA president now takes. He told DR that Trump had “put Greenland on the map” since first speaking about it in 2016 and had recognised that previous USA administrations had neglected the island.
The remark reflects Washington’s current framing of Greenland as a strategic space where security, economic opportunity and geopolitical influence overlap. Landry linked Greenland’s future prosperity to Trump’s recognition of the island’s importance for the USA and the Western Hemisphere.
For Greenlandic leaders, however, that language risks reinforcing the central problem in the relationship: the idea that Greenland’s future can be defined externally. In recent months, Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly rejected Trump’s statements about wanting control over the island. Nuuk has insisted that cooperation with foreign partners must respect Greenlandic democratic decisions and self-determination.
Sovereignty remains the unresolved word in the room
Asked whether the USA’s approach was based on full respect for Greenlandic sovereignty, Landry gave an answer that is likely to draw further scrutiny. He said the issue begins with the question of whether Greenland currently has sovereignty, adding that it was a question he would ask Greenlanders.
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark but has extensive self-government under the Self-Government Act. It controls most domestic affairs, while foreign policy, defence and security remain areas where Denmark still plays a central role. That constitutional position makes sovereignty a sensitive and precise term in Greenlandic politics.
Landry also referred to the Monroe Doctrine, saying the mission was to bring Greenland into it in a way that would be positive for Greenland. The doctrine, historically used by the USA to define a sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, carries a heavy political meaning when applied to an Arctic territory whose elected leaders have repeatedly underlined their right to decide their own future.
Landry denied that anyone should fear an American takeover. “No one should be afraid,” he told DR. But his refusal to give a simple answer on sovereignty, combined with Trump’s previous statements about taking control of Greenland, makes reassurance difficult.
A chaotic visit with limited political openings
Landry described the visit as productive and said he would report back to Trump that there is a path forward to bring Greenland and the USA closer together. He also wrote on social media after leaving that he was grateful for the welcome and looked forward to returning to see more of Greenland beyond Nuuk.
Danish and Nordic media offered a more cautious reading. TV 2’s Greenland correspondent described the visit as chaotic and said it remained unclear what Landry had actually hoped to achieve. The envoy met Greenlandic politicians, individuals and some business figures, but there was little evidence that the visit had created a political opening for Washington.
The symbolism was also difficult to separate from the USA’s expanded physical presence in Nuuk. Landry travelled alongside Ken Howery, the USA ambassador to Denmark, and took part in a week marked by the opening of the new 3,000-square-metre American consulate in the city centre. Greenland’s head of government was invited to the inauguration but did not attend.
The USA footprint will be judged by respect, not visibility
Landry’s visit shows the limits of diplomatic messaging when trust is already weak. Washington says it wants deeper relations, more exchanges and greater cooperation. Greenland’s leaders answer that any future relationship must start from respect for Greenland’s red lines.
That distinction is decisive. Greenland is strategically important for Arctic security, mineral resources and North Atlantic defence, but it is also a society with its own political debate, democratic institutions and independence movement. A larger USA footprint cannot be treated as neutral when the USA president has repeatedly spoken about taking control of the island.
Landry says he wants to return. If he does, the question will not only be how many Greenlanders he meets, or how visible the USA becomes in Nuuk. It will be whether Washington can show that its presence is built on consent, not pressure, and that Greenland’s future will be shaped by Greenlanders.
