Is it true that Denmark has said it will cut all diplomatic connections with US?

1. The headline reality: firm protests, not a diplomatic severing

Denmark’s response to U.S. pressure over Greenland has been forceful: Copenhagen has summoned U.S. diplomats, publicly defended its sovereignty, increased coordination with European partners and described the moment as "decisive," but those are protest and de-escalation measures within normal diplomacy, not a statement to cut off relations wholesale ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Reuters and the BBC report Denmark seeking a diplomatic path while bolstering Arctic defenses and NATO cooperation rather than announcing a rupture ^{[1] [2]}, and AP describes talks in Washington that highlighted disagreements but aimed at resolution, not termination of ties ^[5].

2. What the sources say about concrete steps

Governments of affected European countries have signalled solidarity with Denmark — sending liaison forces to Greenland and issuing joint statements — and the EU has debated retaliatory tariffs, but those actions are collective European responses to U.S. threats, not evidence Denmark unilaterally cutting diplomatic relations with Washington ^{[3] [4]}. Coverage in Forbes, Euronews and The Guardian documents tariff threats from the U.S. and European counter-considerations and diplomatic activity, but none reports Denmark severing embassies or breaking formal ties ^{[3] [4] [6]}.

3. Why confusion and exaggerated claims spread

The intensity of rhetoric — including President Trump’s public statements about acquiring Greenland and not ruling out force — has produced alarm and strong language from Danish leaders, which can be misread as calls for extreme measures like cutting relations ^{[7] [8]}. Opinion pieces and analysis in outlets such as Foreign Policy and The New York Times treat the episode as potentially irreversibly damaging to transatlantic ties, amplifying the perception of a diplomatic rupture even when official actions remain within standard statecraft ^{[9] [8]}.

4. Competing agendas and how they shape the narrative

U.S. domestic political signaling, including the appointment of envoys and public threats, appears aimed at satisfying a particular constituency and asserting geostrategic claims, while Denmark and European partners emphasize rule of law, sovereignty and NATO cohesion — an interplay that produces highly charged reporting and reciprocal brinkmanship rather than an outright break in relations ^{[7] [10] [4]}. Some outlets foreground European unity and defence planning as a rebuttal, while U.S. commentaries push lease or acquisition solutions, revealing differing implicit agendas about who benefits from changing Greenland’s status ^{[11] [9]}.

5. Limitations of the available reporting

The assembled sources document summoning ambassadors, ministerial meetings, troop deployments to Greenland by allied states, and heated diplomatic language, but none contains an official Danish declaration to cut all diplomatic connections with the United States; reporting also notes the long history of U.S.–Denmark relations and that an outright break would be extraordinary and is not described in the cited material ^{[7] [1] [12]}. If a subsequent Danish decision to sever ties were taken, it is not reflected in the sources provided here, and this analysis cannot attest to developments beyond them.

6. Bottom line

Based on the available reporting, it is not true that Denmark has said it will cut all diplomatic connections with the U.S.; instead Denmark has escalated diplomatic protests, mobilized European support for Greenlandic sovereignty, and pursued defensive and diplomatic measures — actions indicating serious strain but not formal severance of diplomatic relations as reported by the cited outlets ^{[2] [3] [5]}.