Denmark has publicly criticized U.S. Vice President JD Vance's remarks about its role in Greenland, calling his comments during a visit to the Arctic territory "provocative" and diplomatically inappropriate. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen stated on X that while Denmark welcomes dialogue, the "tone" of Vance's critique was unacceptable between allies.
Diplomatic Tensions Over Strategic Territory
Vance, speaking at the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, accused Denmark of underinvesting in the region's infrastructure and security. Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory rich in minerals and strategic Arctic positioning, has drawn renewed U.S. interest under former President Donald Trump, who previously sought to purchase the island.
"Our message to Denmark is very simple: You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland," Vance said, emphasizing the need for a "Donald Trump-style" deal to secure U.S. interests. Trump recently reiterated Greenland's importance for "world peace" but denied plans for military intervention.
Denmark Defends Its Partnership
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejected Vance's claims, highlighting Denmark's historical military cooperation with the U.S., including deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The Vice President's reference to Denmark is not accurate," she asserted, underscoring the nations' longstanding alliance.
Analysts suggest the spat reflects broader geopolitical competition in the Arctic, where melting ice caps are unlocking new trade routes and resource opportunities. Greenland's rare earth mineral reserves and proximity to polar shipping lanes make it a focal point for global powers.
Balancing Regional Interests
While the U.S. seeks stronger Arctic partnerships to counter Russian and Chinese activity, Denmark maintains that Greenland's autonomy must be respected. The territory’s leadership has consistently opposed foreign ownership, complicating U.S. ambitions.
The dispute underscores shifting alliances in a climate-sensitive region critical to future energy and security strategies. For now, both sides emphasize a desire for continued cooperation despite rhetorical clashes.
