NUUK, Greenland—For the past year, Denmark’s plan for dealing with President Trump’s ambition to acquire Greenland was to tell him it wasn’t for sale, spend more on Arctic defense and hope the American president’s enthusiasm would melt away.
In the Greenlandic capital, there is a growing realization that Trump’s fixation on the world’s biggest island is here to stay and that Greenlanders are going to need to come up with a plan to engage with the U.S. “I believe that most Greenlandic people see that they need to have that dialogue,” says Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam, a Greenlandic pro-independence politician.
An American takeover of Greenland—once seen as a far-fetched idea—looms ever larger in Nuuk after Trump and some of his top aides renewed their demands for control of the island following the U.S. military incursion in Venezuela. The White House has declined to rule out taking the island by force.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers in a closed briefing Tuesday that recent administration threats against Greenland didn’t signal an imminent invasion and that the goal is to buy the island from Denmark. Rubio said Wednesday that he would meet with Danish and Greenlandic officials in Washington next week, after the Danes requested a meeting in the hope of addressing criticism directed at them by members of the Trump administration.
Trump has said the U.S. needs Greenland as a matter of national security and has criticized Denmark’s defenses on the island. Denmark has countered that the U.S. already has a military presence there and could work with Greenland and Denmark to expand it. Seeking to get the Trump administration to dial back its demands, Danish officials say they are ready to talk with Washington to address security concerns.
“It seems that asking for a meeting with Rubio is a step up in this strategy,” Ulrik Pram Gad, senior researcher with the Danish Institute for International Studies.
In Nuuk, people are divided over how best to engage and whether they can use Trump’s embrace as a means to gain independence from Denmark, a policy a majority of Greenlanders support.
Still, the brusque nature of Trump’s overtures hasn’t been welcomed by the government. Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, recently called Trump’s rhetoric “completely and utterly unacceptable.”
Trump’s threats so far have largely bolstered ties between Denmark and Greenland, with the former making strides to shower attention on the island, which is subsidized at $600 million a year. During Greenland’s elections last year, voters gave first place to Demokraatit, a center-right pro-business party that has never held power but is strongly opposed to an American takeover of the self-governing territory. Polls show that Greenlanders don’t want to be part of the U.S.
Members of Greenland’s second largest party, which is calling for a fast-tracked independence, says Greenland should open talks with the U.S. to see if there is a way to form partnership with Washington, should Greenland choose to leave Denmark.
A chunk of the population says it is agnostic over who owns the country. On the streets of Nuuk, views of Trump’s desire to control the island are split between those who want to maintain the status quo with Denmark and others who are open to going under the U.S. umbrella.
Leaning out of a fishing boat in Nuuk’s icy port, Tommy Larsen said that there is no need for Greenland to leave the Danish Kingdom. Trump’s overtures and threats to invade were “disrespectful,” he said.
Others could see upsides in building closer ties with the U.S. “I am 50/50” about Trump, said Simon Josefsen, 27 years old, a crane operator in the port, adding that Denmark hasn’t been particularly good to Greenland and that Trump could draw fresh investment. “Maybe the United States can help a little bit,” he said.
Trump first raised the idea of buying the island in his first term. He insists the U.S. must control Greenland to better safeguard the Arctic against Russia and China. He has spoken openly about the U.S. government and American companies needing greater access to the island’s critical minerals.
The Danish government, which has a longstanding defense agreement with the U.S., has said the U.S. could base more troops in Greenland and obtain new and improved mining rights. Denmark, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, has rapidly expanded military spending in recent years, including investing in the island’s security infrastructure. It plans to spend billions of dollars on new weapons such as ships and aircraft.
Greenland serves as a critical location for missile warning and missile defense for the U.S. Its melting ice sheet opens up the possibility for new commercial and military sea lanes, which Washington sees as a potential threat.
On Tuesday, a group of European leaders weighed in behind Denmark, saying that security in the Arctic is a collective task for NATO and that “it is for Denmark and Greenland and them only, to decide” on the island’s future.
In a radio interview Wednesday, French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Paris was discussing with partners how Europe would respond to an intervention from the U.S. “Greenland is neither up for sale nor is it up for grabs,” he said.
Some U.S. lawmakers have also been critical of the administration’s recent rhetoric. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said Wednesday that “threats and intimidation” by U.S. officials over potential ownership of Greenland were “as unseemly as they are counterproductive.”
Washington has several options to acquire control over the territory but each has steep drawbacks. Seizing control of Greenland militarily would be relatively easy but could draw sharp criticism at home and imperil NATO and other shared European-U. S. interests. Sale of the island would require the support of the governments in Denmark and Greenland.
A third option would be to endorse Greenland’s push for full independence from Denmark. If a political divorce were backed in a referendum, it would open the way for the U.S. to sign a compact of free association with Greenland, similar to arrangements Washington has with the Marshall Islands. Such an agreement would largely give the U.S. free rein over military operations in the territory in exchange for free trade, protection and the provision of basic services.
In Greenland, however, there is confusion over the Trump administration’s messaging. When members of the administration address Greenlanders, they say, “Oh, we love you, and we’re going to take care of you,” said Jeppe Strandsbjerg, an expert in Arctic security at the University of Greenland. “And then they speak to everybody else and say ‘we need to control this and then take it over.’”
Write to Max Colchester at Max.Colchester@wsj.com, Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com and Robbie Gramer at robbie.gramer@wsj.com