Trump’s threats push Greenland closer to Europe – but not to rejoin the EU

Brussels – In the first two surreal weeks of 2026, as the international order appears ever closer to collapse under the blows struck by US President Donald Trump, the question may well have crossed the minds of officials in Brussels and in several European capitals: what if Greenland were to decide to rejoin the European Union, 40 years after its withdrawal?

“I do see signs that Greenland is seeking closer relations with the EU, particularly in economic terms,” says Lin Alexandra Mortensgaard, a Research Assistant specialising in the international politics of the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), in an interview with The New Union Post. However, reopening the question of EU membership for the autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark is an entirely different matter.

Over the past year – since Trump’s first threats to annex Greenland by military force, dating back to early 2025 when he was still President-elect – “I have seen only a few signs of any real appetite” among Greenlanders for rejoining the European Union, Mortensgaard explains.

Recent US actions in Venezuela have underlined how far unpredictability in Washington cannot be taken lightly. In Nuuk, however, the prevailing view continues to be that the EU offers “an opportunity to access new markets,” while support for full membership “remains limited for a number of reasons”. Disputes over fisheries, which lay at the heart of Greenland’s withdrawal in 1985, is still a key source of scepticism, alongside what Mortensgaard describes as “significant” cultural differences.

All that said, US threats of annexation are making the Greenlandic population “less interested in working with the United States,” says Gabriella Gricius, a Senior Fellow at The Arctic Institute, speaking to The New Union Post. This suggests that “new economic partnerships” may be pursued with EU member states, other countries, or even with the US, but only on the basis of free choice and without any form of coercion.

As all five political parties represented in Greenland’s parliament have made clear, whatever path Nuuk chooses to take, “it is clearly its own decision and no one else’s,” Gricius recalls. DIIS’s Mortensgaard echoes this view, adding that, as an aspiring sovereign state that wishes to be neither American nor Danish, “Greenland’s values are closer to those of Europe than to those of the United States.”

As an Overseas territory associated with the European Union, Nuuk benefits not only from allocations under the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), but also from the mutual defence clause enshrined in Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This provision states that if a member state – Denmark, in this case – is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU members have “an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power.” The clause is binding, but it does not affect the neutrality of certain member states and is consistent with the commitments of NATO members.

While a direct confrontation between NATO members, with fighting on the streets of Nuuk, seems extremely unlikely – not least given the huge disparity in forces – the very fact that the implications of a potential US military intervention in Greenland are being discussed is telling of the current climate of uncertainty.

First, the Trump administration’s unpredictable behaviour means that US allies and the broader NATO alliance “can no longer count on the US,” Gricius warns. With regard to the political and military balance in the Arctic, she explains that European states active in the region would be “less able to convincingly deter Russia,” while China might reassess its stance, as both actors “may be willing to act without regard for a coherent NATO response.”

But above all, a US intervention in Greenland would represent the first direct military aggression against a member of the European Union since its foundation, as well as the annexation of part of a NATO member by another NATO ally. As Mortensgaard emphasises, such an act would strike at “the fundamental purpose” for which Western military and political alliances have been built over the past 80 years. The most immediate consequence would almost certainly be the collapse of NATO, “although no one knows what that would look like institutionally,” she adds, highlighting the response of the larger and militarily stronger European powers – the UK, France, and Germany – as the true game-changer.

Symbolic measures could include economic sanctions, “or at the very least very strong rhetoric from the EU and European leaders,” the DIIS Research Assistant suggests. After several days of silence, Brussels responded decisively to Trump’s threats. “Nothing can be decided about Denmark, or about Greenland, without Denmark, or without Greenland,” European Council President António Costa stated, describing Europe as “a firm and unwavering champion of international law and multilateralism.” His words were echoed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: “Our Union is not perfect, but it is a promise. That cooperation is stronger than confrontation, law is stronger than force.”

Ultimately, “only European leaders can determine how far they are willing to go in jeopardising their relationship with the US in such a scenario,” Mortensgaard concludes.

The state of EU-Greenland relations

Greenland joined the European Union in 1973 as part of the Kingdom of Denmark. However, after gaining autonomy in 1979, Nuuk withdrew its membership in 1985. The main reason for leaving was disagreements about the Common Fisheries Policy.

Despite no longer being a member, since then Greenland has maintained close ties with Brussels and is officially classified as an Overseas Territory associated with the EU. Nuuk has some integration with the EU’s internal market through association agreements. Its authorities and organisations are eligible for EU funding, and Greenlandic residents, as Danish citizens, hold EU citizenship.

Since 2021, the two partners have implemented a protocol under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA), which will remain in effect until 2030. EU cooperation with Greenland is governed by Part IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the 2021 Council Decision on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union.

In 2015, Denmark, Greenland, and the EU signed a joint declaration on closer relations. Following the UK’s Brexit in 2021, discussions in Nuuk about rejoining the EU have reignited. A survey published by Nasiffik – Centre for Foreign & Security Policy in December 2024 revealed for the first time that 60% of Greenlandic citizens would vote in favour of rejoining the EU, up from 40% in 2021.