USA President Donald Trump says he never planned to attack Greenland, despite repeatedly refusing to rule out military force during his attempts to gain control of the Arctic territory. His latest comments contrast with months of threats and diplomatic pressure that strained relations with Greenland, Denmark and other European allies.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Bullhead City, Arizona, on Wednesday, 14 October, Trump dismissed concerns that Washington had considered a military intervention against the autonomous territory, which remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
According to the transcript of his speech, Trump told supporters:
Remember, they thought I was going to send my military out to attack Greenland? I wasn’t.
He added that he had instead complained strongly to NATO about Greenland. During the same speech, however, Trump referred to Denmark’s sovereignty over the island in the past tense and portrayed Greenland as another addition to America’s growing territory.
The remarks revive a question that has dominated relations between Washington, Nuuk and Copenhagen since Trump’s return to the White House: whether his territorial ambitions can be reconciled with Greenland’s right to determine its own future.
Trump repeatedly refused to rule out military force against Greenland
Trump’s latest account of his intentions differs from the position he publicly maintained throughout much of 2025 and early 2026.
On 7 January 2025, before taking office, Trump refused to guarantee that he would avoid military or economic coercion to obtain control of Greenland and the Panama Canal.
The following March, during an address to the USA Congress, he reiterated his ambition to acquire Greenland, declaring:
One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
Trump maintained this position in subsequent interviews. On 30 March 2025, he told NBC News that military force was not off the table, although he believed an agreement could be reached without it.
During another NBC interview broadcast on 4 May, he again declined to exclude military intervention, saying that something could happen with Greenland because of its importance to American and international security.
The rhetoric intensified in January 2026. On 9 January, during a meeting with energy executives at the White House, Trump insisted that Washington would act over Greenland regardless of whether its inhabitants agreed.
According to the official transcript, he warned:
If we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.
A week later, on 17 January, Trump threatened tariffs on eight European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, over their opposition to American control of Greenland.
The proposed tariffs would have started at 10% and increased to 25% unless an agreement was reached for the USA to purchase the island.
Trump eventually softened his position on 21 January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he explicitly ruled out using military force and subsequently withdrew the tariff threats after announcing a negotiating framework with NATO.
His latest statement therefore goes further than his declaration in Davos: Trump is now saying that an attack was never planned, rather than simply ruling out force as a future option.
None of his earlier public threats establishes that an invasion plan was actually prepared. They do, however, explain why military intervention became a serious diplomatic concern for Greenland, Denmark and their European partners.
Greenland’s sovereignty remains unchanged
The dispute appeared to ease on 22 September, when the USA, Denmark and Greenland signed a new defence agreement expanding the existing security arrangements dating back to 1951.
The agreement provides for an increased American military presence, including additional military facilities and cooperation on missile defence.
However, it explicitly reaffirms Danish sovereignty and recognises the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination. It neither transfers ownership of the territory to Washington nor authorises the USA to determine Greenland’s political future.
The agreement also remains subject to parliamentary procedures.
On 12 October, Greenland’s parliament (Inatsisartut) held its first debate on the agreement. A majority of lawmakers expressed support for the arrangement, although disagreement remains over its economic benefits and long-term consequences.
Greenlandic Foreign Minister Múte Bourup Egede defended the deal as strengthening Greenland’s security and international standing, while opposition leader Pele Broberg, of Naleraq, questioned the absence of guaranteed financial compensation for expanded American military access.
Broberg also raised concerns about provisions that would continue to bind Greenland in the event of independence from Denmark.
The parliamentary debate illustrates that Greenland’s political representatives are not simply choosing between supporting or rejecting Washington. They are also assessing the consequences of a long-term security arrangement for their own autonomy and future independence.
A new dispute over Greenland’s natural resources
Trump’s comments about military intervention came shortly after another disagreement over the status of Greenland.
On Wednesday, the president announced that extensive oil, gas and mineral exploration was about to begin on the island, referring to Greenland as though it had already become American territory.
The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded by clarifying that Greenland retains authority over its natural resources and that any American exploration must comply with Greenlandic legislation.
The ministry also stressed that the September defence agreement gives American investors no preferential rights over investors from other NATO countries, EU member states or NATO partners.
Greenland has prohibited new oil exploration licences since 2021, while existing projects remain subject to local regulations and government approval.
Greenlandic officials have also challenged Trump’s suggestion that large-scale resource exploration is imminent, pointing to the early stage of existing projects and the considerable time required to develop them.
The disagreement highlights a distinction that remains central to the relationship between Greenland and Washington: military cooperation does not grant the USA political sovereignty or control over Greenland’s resources.
For Greenland and Denmark, Trump’s assertion that he never intended to launch an attack does not erase the diplomatic tensions created by his earlier threats. The September agreement has established a new framework for cooperation, but its implementation, and the extent to which Washington respects Greenlandic decisions, will determine whether the relationship can move beyond the territorial dispute.
