Greenlandic flags hang on a building in Nuuk, Greenland, January 14, 2026.
Alessandro Rampazzo | AFP | Getty Images
A high stakes meeting Negotiations between the United States, Denmark and Greenland over the future of the Arctic island ended without major progress, amplifying concerns about the prospect of a short-term solution.
On Wednesday, the White House meeting between US Vice President JD Vance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Vivian Motzfeldt lasted about an hour.
Denmark’s Rasmussen called the conversation “frank but constructive” but added that US President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to take control of Greenland were “totally unacceptable.”
CNBC looks at five key takeaways from the White House showdown.
A working groupFor some, the negotiations at the White House resulted in something important. The United States, Denmark and Greenland have agreed to create a high-level working group to try to determine a path forward for the self-governing Danish territory.
In doing so, Penny Naas, senior vice president of the GMF, a Washington-based think tank, said the three countries had avoided the worst-case scenario.
Learn more
“Greenland’s strategic importance has made it a focal point of sustained U.S. interest, including periodic pushes for acquisitions. Yet the Greenlanders have been unequivocal: They value their deep ties to Denmark, NATO and Europe, and do not see their future as part of the United States,” Naas told CNBC via email.
“Bridging this gap between a US administration that still demonstrates its desire to take ownership of Greenland and a Greenlandic population firmly committed to self-determination will require creativity and a realistic appreciation of the concerns of all parties,” she added.
Rasmussen said the task force plans to meet over the next few weeks to try to find a compromise. He said Denmark and Greenland were receptive to the possibility of the United States opening more military bases on the island – but insisted there were certain “red lines” that Washington could not cross.
Trump stands firmJust hours before Wednesday’s meeting began, Trump said anything other than Greenland’s membership in the United States would be “unacceptable.”
He later reiterated this position, telling reporters in the Oval Office: “We need Greenland for national security.”
Guntram Wolff, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, said Trump’s push to take control of Greenland is considered “totally unacceptable” for Europe and raises questions about the situation. the integrity of the NATO military alliance.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, U.S., Wednesday, January 14, 2026.
François Chung | Politics | Bloomberg | Getty Images
“If the American president says he can only defend what he has, well, what he’s basically saying is that he can’t defend Europe in any way because Europe doesn’t belong to him, right?” Wolff told CNBC “Europe First edition“So this means that NATO Article 5, the US president’s support for European security, can no longer be taken for granted,” he added.
NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause means that an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all allies. The United States and Denmark, responsible for the defense of Greenland, are both members of NATO.
What about Russia and China? Trump, who long coveted control of the mineral-rich island, has repeatedly said in recent weeks that only the United States can counter an alleged threat to Greenland from Russia and China.
“The problem is that Denmark can’t do anything if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but we can do anything,” Trump said Wednesday, referring to the U.S. military operation in Venezuela on Jan. 3.
It is true that Russia and China have deepened and broadened their areas of cooperation in the Arctic, particularly in the military domain and in the dual use of infrastructure and research, said Marisol Maddox, a senior fellow at the Dartmouth Institute for Arctic Studies.
A Greenlandic flag flies as people walk on the day of a meeting between senior U.S. officials and the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland, in Nuuk, Greenland, January 14, 2026.
Marko Djurica | Reuters
“However, it is not in Greenland where we are seeing this activity. Where we are seeing joint Russian and Chinese military activity is off the coast of Alaska, in which the United States remains underinvested,” Maddox told CNBC via email.
“Since President Trump initially expressed concerns about Greenland’s security, Denmark has stepped up its efforts and announced billions of dollars in groundbreaking investments in defense,” Maddox said.
“Through allied cooperation, we have successfully prevented predatory investments by Chinese state-linked companies in Greenland and other areas of the Arctic,” she added.
NATO to deploy troops to Greenland At the request of Denmark, several NATO members confirmed plans to send military personnel to Greenland this week as part of a joint exercise called “Operation Arctic Endurance.”
Before the White House meeting, Denmark announcement plans to strengthen its military presence in Greenland, saying activities could include guarding national infrastructure, deploying combat aircraft and conducting naval operations.
Germany, France, Sweden and Norway have all confirmed their intention to take part in a show of support in Copenhagen and Nuuk.
“As part of the NATO alliance, it is a key priority of the Greenland government to strengthen defense and security in and around Greenland, and that this is achieved in close cooperation with our NATO allies,” Greenland’s Motzfeldt said in a statement.
Where do we go from here? Looking ahead, analysts found it difficult to see the possibility of a solution to this impasse.
Rasmus Brun Pedersen, an associate professor at Aarhus University in Denmark, said he expects Denmark and its NATO allies to increase their military presence in Greenland as part of a campaign to convince the Trump administration that it takes Arctic security seriously.
“We will have a significant increase in NATO arms in the region and I hope we can say to the United States, well you had security concerns, look at this, we responded,” Pedersen told CNBC.Squawk Europe Box” THURSDAY.
“And I hope the United States will say: OK, there were no troops before, but now that President Trump has succeeded in forcing his reluctant NATO allies to increase their presence in the region, it can be considered a victory.”
Pedersen warned, however, that the US position shows they may not be convinced by this strategy. “So where the trade-off lies is a good question.”
