Greenland independence push grows amid US pressure

Greenland’s long-standing drive for full independence from Denmark is gathering renewed attention as political leaders and community voices weigh the implications of public remarks by United States President Donald Trump suggesting Washington could seek control of the Arctic territory. While calls for sovereignty have echoed across the island for decades, the latest geopolitical tension has prompted some Greenlandic Inuit to argue that the path towards independence must now unfold alongside efforts to counter external pressure.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, remains a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It gained Home Rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, when a referendum granted greater authority over areas including policing, courts and natural resources. Copenhagen retains responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and monetary policy, while providing an annual block grant that accounts for a substantial share of Greenland’s public finances.

Trump’s earlier proposal during his presidency to purchase Greenland was widely dismissed by Danish and Greenlandic officials. However, renewed rhetoric about the island’s strategic value has sharpened debate within Greenland about security, economic resilience and political autonomy. Some Inuit leaders and lawmakers argue that Washington’s interest underscores Greenland’s importance in a rapidly warming Arctic, where melting ice is opening shipping routes and exposing untapped mineral resources.

Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede, who leads the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, has consistently framed independence as a long-term aspiration grounded in cultural identity and self-determination. He has said Greenlanders must decide their own future, stressing that the island is “not for sale” and cannot be treated as a geopolitical asset. At the same time, Egede has acknowledged the economic challenges of severing ties with Denmark, noting that any move towards statehood would require a sustainable financial model.

Opinion in Greenland is not monolithic. Surveys conducted in recent years indicate broad support for eventual independence, but also reveal concerns about economic stability. Denmark’s annual subsidy, estimated at roughly 3.9 billion Danish kroner, underpins public services ranging from healthcare to education. Fishing remains the backbone of the economy, accounting for the majority of exports, while mining projects and tourism have been promoted as avenues for diversification.

Analysts say the island’s strategic importance has intensified as Arctic competition grows. The United States operates Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, under a defence agreement with Denmark. The base plays a role in missile warning and space surveillance. China has also shown interest in Arctic infrastructure and resource development, though Greenlandic authorities have at times rejected proposals involving Chinese state-linked firms, citing security considerations.

Within this context, Trump’s comments have been interpreted by some Greenlandic Inuit as a reminder of the island’s vulnerability to great-power rivalry. Community leaders in Nuuk and other towns have stressed that any future status change must prioritise Greenlandic voices rather than external agendas. “We are a people, not a property,” has been a recurring sentiment in public statements and local media discussions.

Denmark’s response has been firm but measured. Danish governments have reiterated that Greenland’s status is determined by its people under the Self-Government Act of 2009, which recognises Greenlanders as a distinct people under international law with the right to self-determination. Copenhagen has also increased engagement with Nuuk on foreign policy issues, seeking to present a united front in dealings with Washington.

Political observers note that tensions with the United States have, paradoxically, drawn Greenland and Denmark closer in the short term. Joint diplomatic messaging and defence co-ordination have underscored the practical interdependence between Nuuk and Copenhagen. For some Greenlandic politicians, this co-operation does not contradict the independence project; rather, it illustrates the need for careful preparation before any constitutional shift.

Economic self-sufficiency remains central to the debate. Greenland holds significant deposits of rare earth minerals, uranium and other resources essential to green technologies. Previous attempts to expand mining have faced environmental opposition and fluctuating commodity prices. Inuit Ataqatigiit has taken a cautious stance on projects involving uranium, reflecting both environmental concerns and public scepticism about rapid industrialisation.

Climate change adds another layer of complexity. As Arctic ice retreats, new shipping lanes such as the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route are drawing global attention. Greenland stands at the crossroads of these emerging corridors, amplifying its strategic profile. At the same time, climate impacts threaten traditional livelihoods, particularly hunting and fishing practices central to Inuit culture.

Scholars of Arctic governance argue that Greenland’s independence question cannot be separated from broader regional dynamics. The Arctic Council, though strained by geopolitical divisions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, remains a key forum for co-operation. Greenland participates as part of the Danish realm, and any change in status would reshape its representation in international bodies.