What have Danish and Greenlandic officials publicly said in response to the U.S. proposal to negotiate over Greenland?

1. Danish leaders: open to talks, closed on sovereignty

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and other Copenhagen officials have publicly said Denmark is willing to discuss security arrangements and broader Arctic cooperation, but that sovereignty over Greenland cannot be negotiated away — "we cannot negotiate on our sovereignty," Frederiksen said, and Danish spokespeople stressed that any talks would not compromise territorial integrity ^{[1] [2] [4]}. After President Trump touted a "framework" with NATO and NATO’s secretary-general Mark Rutte, Danish officials and NATO spokespeople were at pains to say Rutte did not propose ceding sovereignty and that the matter remained with Denmark and Greenland ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Greenland’s government: sovereignty a red line and calls for calm

Greenlandic leaders have echoed Copenhagen’s language, describing sovereignty as a "red line" and insisting that Greenland is not for sale while urging a measured, lawful response rather than panic among the population ^{[1] [7] [8]}. Greenland’s prime minister said he did not know the full contents of the framework announced by others but emphasized the need for "respectful dialogue through the right channels" and that Greenland wants peaceful, negotiated engagement — not unilateral deals made behind its back ^{[2] [7]}.

3. Diplomatic posture: constructive talks but fundamental differences remain

Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers traveled to Washington for trilateral consultations with U.S. officials and described the meetings as constructive and positive in tone, yet publicly acknowledged that fundamental disagreements persisted and were not resolved in those sessions ^{[3] [9]}. Officials framed the process as a working-group approach aimed at safeguards — for example, ensuring no Russian or Chinese foothold — while insisting that any security arrangements must respect existing legal frameworks and the Self-Government Act that structures Denmark–Greenland relations ^{[5] [3]}.

4. Legal and institutional constraints underscored by Copenhagen and Nuuk

Greenlandic ministers have pointed to legal limits on their ability to negotiate directly with foreign powers, noting that foreign and security policy remains a Kingdom-level competence and that Greenland cannot unilaterally strike foreign deals without Denmark’s involvement ^[10]. Danish officials likewise have reminded audiences that NATO has no mandate to negotiate sovereignty transfers on Denmark’s behalf, underlining that constitutional and parliamentary procedures — not one-off executive agreements — govern any change to the status of the territory ^[2].

5. Defensive responses and signaling: practical measures as deterrence

Public statements from Copenhagen and Nuuk have been accompanied by concrete steps to shore up security and signal resolve: Denmark expanded military spending and deployments to Greenland and upgraded Arctic infrastructure in the months prior to the recent flare-up, steps officials frame as long-standing defence policy rather than reactive saber-rattling to U.S. rhetoric ^{[8] [3]}. Danish ministers emphasised that strengthening Greenland’s defence capabilities and closer co‑operation with allies are compatible with asserting that sovereignty itself is non-negotiable ^{[3] [9]}.

6. Alternative views, domestic politics and underlying agendas

While official lines stress sovereignty and legal process, internal Greenlandic politics are mixed: some local parties and leaders have historically signalled willingness to explore different security arrangements — including close US ties or “free association” models — as a way to accelerate development and autonomy, a nuance Copenhagen and Nuuk must balance publicly ^{[10] [11]}. Observers also note an implicit agenda on all sides: the U.S. frames access as strategic against Russia and China, Denmark seeks to preserve alliance ties while protecting its constitutional role, and Greenlanders pursue economic leverage and greater self-determination; public statements therefore mix deterrence, diplomacy and domestic signaling ^{[5] [3] [11]}.