On January 17, 2026, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Denmark to voice strong opposition to President Donald Trump’s persistent calls for the United States to acquire Greenland. The protests, which saw participants waving Greenlandic flags and chanting “Greenland is not for sale,” coincided with Trump’s announcement of new tariffs on eight European nations, escalating a diplomatic crisis over the Arctic territory. This series of events highlights growing strains in transatlantic relations and raises concerns about the stability of NATO alliances.
In Copenhagen, a massive crowd marched from City Hall to the U.S. embassy, carrying signs with messages like “Make America go away” and “Hands off Greenland.” Similar rallies occurred across the Danish kingdom, including in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, where hundreds braved near-freezing temperatures to affirm their self-governance. Protesters expressed a mix of anger and fear, with many emphasizing that Greenland is not a commodity to be purchased. Naja Mathilde Rosing, a protester with family in Greenland, told NPR, “We are strong as we are, and we are not interested in having anything to do with America.”
President Trump responded to the resistance by imposing a 10% import tax on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland, effective in February. He stated that the tariff would increase to 25% by June 1 if a deal for the “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland” is not secured. Trump justified the move on national security grounds, claiming that control of Greenland is essential to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic, though U.S. officials have disputed this threat assessment.
The protests were fueled by Trump’s recent rhetoric, including his assertion that “one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.” This has alarmed residents in both Denmark and Greenland, who view the territory as an integral part of their identity and sovereignty. Thomas, a Copenhagen protester who withheld his full name due to work concerns, said, “I cannot express how deeply disappointed I am… How dare you turn your back on us in this way?” He highlighted the emotional and political uncertainty created by Trump’s threats.
Amid the tensions, a bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation visited Copenhagen to reassure Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), leading the group, emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Denmark relationship and called for de-escalation. “I hope that the people of the Kingdom of Denmark do not abandon their faith in the American people,” Coons said, acknowledging the damage caused by Trump’s comments. The delegation met with local officials and business leaders to affirm ongoing cooperation.
On the military front, Danish Maj. Gen. Søren Andersen of the Joint Arctic Command confirmed that NATO training exercises are proceeding in Greenland, with European troops recently deployed for Arctic defense. Andersen stated that he does not expect the U.S. to attack a NATO ally but noted that Danish law permits self-defense if necessary. The exercises are part of broader efforts to enhance security in the region, with discussions ongoing about Arctic strategy amidst potential Russian threats.
The situation has broader implications for international diplomacy and NATO’s cohesion. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that U.S. actions could “implode” the alliance, echoing concerns from protesters like Charlotte Holm, who said, “It’s going to reshape fundamentally the world order if he does.” European leaders have consistently asserted that Greenland’s status is a matter for Denmark and Greenland alone, rejecting external pressure.
As diplomatic channels remain open, including a newly formed working group between U.S. and Danish officials, the future of Greenland hangs in the balance. The protests and tariff announcements underscore a pivotal moment in U.S.-European relations, with the potential to redefine alliances and global security dynamics. The coming months will be critical in determining whether dialogue can prevail over confrontation in this Arctic dispute.
