Recently, we published profiles of most of the 31 members of Greenland’s Parliament, the Inatsisartut, as part of an investigation seeking to understand whether Greenland’s autonomous parliament might be swayed by American overtures and yield to Trump’s demands. American pressure on Greenland is not new; Donald Trump made “offers” to purchase it from Denmark in 2019 and has recently become very insistent. According to him and some American elites, Denmark has no legitimacy over Greenland, not even historically, while the USA allegedly needs Greenland… officially for “the security of the United States.” Trump claims the world’s largest island is even crucial for the USA, though he avoids much public discussion on Greenland’s vast resources, which some deem unexploitable or whose exploitation would be complicated by Arctic climate and conditions. Since last year, Denmark has denounced attempts to manipulate the inhabitants, influence operations, entryism, and meetings with Greenlandic politicians. Could Greenland’s Parliament ultimately negotiate directly with the USA, sidelining Denmark? How might the USA use the parliament to achieve its ends? This is what we will attempt to clarify.
Origins of the Dispute and Conflict. During World War II, Denmark was invaded by Nazi Germany, and its territory became a strategic stake. In the Battle of the Atlantic, Iceland and Greenland gained great importance, with Americans and Britons establishing air bases there. These bases enhanced protection for Allied convoys in the North Atlantic by allowing aircraft to cover a large part of the ocean. The Arctic was also coveted for meteorological bases, which allowed for more precise weather forecasting to obtain accurate information for launching military operations. All belligerents sent commandos and expeditions there. After the war, the Americans had difficulty… leaving Greenland. As early as 1946, President Truman offered Denmark the ridiculous sum of $100 million to buy the large island… The proposal was, of course, refused. But during the Cold War, the USA negotiated with Denmark to establish American bases (1951). Several were built, sometimes secretly, but their presence later became harder to justify. However, through a series of agreements, Denmark and Greenland’s autonomous parliament have to this day validated the presence of an American military base in Greenland. In 2019, President Trump reiterated a purchase proposal, causing a stir and also being refused. Since then, Donald Trump has repeatedly declared that Greenland is “necessary for the USA,” recently claiming that within two months… Greenland would be American, including by force and a military operation.
Greenland’s Parliament, the Inatsisartut. Long having colonial status, Greenland gradually made Denmark aware of the need for autonomous representation for the island. This first involved parliamentary representatives, then autonomous status and the creation of a Greenland Parliament. It has full powers at the local level, and a Greenland Government exists (with a Prime Minister), while the Inatsisartut comprises 31 seats. Greenland also won the right to send 2 representatives to the Folketing, the Danish parliament. It has played an important role since the 1970s, notably by initiating a referendum that decided Greenland’s exit from the EEC. Indeed, with Denmark’s entry into the European Union (1973), Greenland automatically followed. This referendum saw the emergence of a new political formation, Siumut, advocating eventual independence. Founded in 1977, it led the successful campaign between 1982 and 1985. Currently, 5 political formations exist in Parliament. The first is the Democratic Party of Greenland, a pro-European, Atlanticist formation, in principle loyal to Denmark. It is a social-democratic formation, dominating parliament with 10 seats, founded in 2002. The second party is the Naleraq Party, a nationalist formation loudly demanding Greenland’s independence as soon as possible. This party is the newest on the Greenlandic political scene, founded in 2014 but having surged in the last elections of March 2025 to 8 seats. The third political formation is the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, also advocating independence but with adjustments and over a longer timeframe. It is a party of the socialist left, founded in 1976, whose aspirations also include ecology and environment. The party holds 7 seats. The fourth formation we already mentioned is the Siumut Party, long a dominant party in Greenland. Crowned by its victorious struggle to leave the EEC, it is a center-left formation, also desiring independence but again after careful, long consideration, sometimes envisioning a sort of Commonwealth with Denmark and the Faroe Islands. Bringing up the rear, the Atassut Party holds only two seats. Founded in 1978, it is a conservative and, above all, unionist party, proclaiming its unwavering attachment to Denmark.
Members of Greenland’s Parliament, Representatives of “A Small Village.” A prosopographical analysis of parliament members shows a significant presence of women. All generations are represented, from the 1940s to the early 2000s. It is a rather young parliament with its “stars.” Among them are a former Miss Denmark contestant, two businessmen who founded a local airline, a former Greenlandic rock star, Greenland’s most important influencer with a YouTube channel exceeding 500,000 subscribers (for a Greenlandic population estimated around 56,000). The current Prime Minister is also the founder of a rock band and a champion high-level athlete. With about 21,000 voters, it is possible to be elected… with 70 votes. This is the “village” effect of Greenland, where most people know or have crossed paths with each other. Only 6 members received over 1,000 votes, 3 over 2,000, and the top vote-getter (the current Prime Minister) alone garnered 4,850 votes. Due to the modest scale of Greenlandic political life, 23 of the 31 members are also part of the Greenland Government. On paper, pro-independence forces hold a majority with 19 seats against 12. The first key takeaway is that independence seems inevitable sooner or later.
Naleraq: Trump’s Trojan Horse. Profile analysis shows one political formation is already highly suspect. Several of its members have been approached by Americans or have even traveled to the USA on notable trips. But overall, the American cause does not seem popular among inhabitants. The dominant idea remains independence, but it is so significant that it is subject to conflicts within Greenlandic political opinion. Indeed, the Naleraq Party, which called for an independence referendum in 2025, would paradoxically not be followed by the two other pro-independence formations, Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumut. Debates focus on how to achieve independence and what comes next for Greenland. Naleraq would prefer separate negotiations with the USA, bypassing Denmark, and the other pro-independence formations share this view to an extent. However, Naleraq hopes specifically for significant financial concessions from the USA to anchor itself in Washington while retaining autonomy. According to this view, leasing bases to the USA, and granting mining concessions and resource exploitation to American or Anglo-Saxon companies, would achieve self-sufficiency and end dependence on Danish finances. For the other two, this possibility is excluded or partially excluded, favoring economic development and exploitation of Greenland with various partners to achieve economic, and only then political, independence from Denmark. It seems clear Americans are boosting the Naleraq Party, one of whose members is also under Israeli influence. The strategy would be first to help Greenland achieve independence, then turn it into a vassal state, or at least one on life support, hoping through successive influence campaigns to convince future generations to join the United States.
Pushing for Independence to Eventually Take Control of Greenland. This is probably the Americans’ best chance to achieve their aims. This strategy has the advantage of avoiding a military intervention that would be a huge shock, with consequences for NATO, relations with the EU, and internationally. It would also avoid appearing to Greenlanders as an occupation or aggression, which would complicate their perception of the USA over time. Finally, by pushing the pro-independence parties, which are already the majority, the USA would effortlessly obtain Greenland’s immediate exit from the European Union, sideline Denmark, and also remove it from NATO. The entity would then be very fragile, with an immense territory and only 56,000 inhabitants. For comparison, modest Monaco has about 40,000 inhabitants, San Marino about 35,000, Liechtenstein 40,000, some Pacific or Caribbean states between 10,000 and 300,000. The Principality of Andorra, for example, has nearly 80,000 inhabitants, highlighting Greenland’s modest population on an immense territory (over 3 times the total area of France, and over 4 times mainland France). Ethnically, the country is very cohesive, with nearly 90% Greenlanders and Inuit, and about 8% Danes. Religiously, it is also cohesive, with over 96% Christians, 95.5% of whom are Lutheran. This cohesion thwarted Chinese settlement plans on the island (2010s), which involved bringing thousands of Chinese to work in future mining operations. Greenlanders’ immediate and decisive opposition stopped it.
In light of this investigation and all I have read and compiled during it, it appears improbable, but not impossible, for the USA to launch a military operation against Greenland and, by domino effect, Denmark, the EU, and NATO. American influence already seems considerable among the population, with a settled will for the country’s independence. For now, details prevent unification of the three pro-independence political formations, while European and Danish influence are plummeting. Recently, a Greenlandic Minister of Culture proposed replacing Danish as the first foreign language with English… and she was not part of the radical Naleraq formation. Finally, with so few voters, proven contracts with USAID (pre-2025), and with other foreign influence structures (including a Japanese foundation), the means required for the USA to sufficiently Americanize Greenlanders would ultimately be modest. A few generous checks, environmental initiatives, economic development, funding for the Inuit cause, or promoting their culture and traditions could sway many voters. So… when a Greenlandic citizen needs only 70-80 votes to enter parliament, I leave you to conclude how easy it would be for experienced America to manipulate Greenlanders in the short or long term.
