How do Greenlandic political parties and public opinion view continued U.S. military presence on the island?
Executive summary
Greenlandic political parties have uniformly rejected any U.S. effort to take control of the island and framed Washington’s moves as an affront to Greenlandic sovereignty, even as they differ on tactics and the pace of independence; party leaders and the parliament demanded respect and emphasized “we are not for sale” amid large protests [1] [2]. Public manifestations on the ground—mass demonstrations and political moves like banning foreign political funding—underscore broad popular alarm, though reliable public-opinion polling from Greenland itself is not available in the supplied reporting [1] [3].
1. Party unity against a U.S. takeover, but not against all U.S. bases
Across Greenland’s political spectrum there is a clear, public consensus that Greenland must remain under Greenlandic/Danish control and that any U.S. attempt to “buy” or seize the island is unacceptable: parliamentarians issued joint statements demanding the U.S. show respect and saying Greenlanders “do not want to be Americans,” and party leaders publicly rejected President Trump’s takeover proposals [1] [2]. That rejection, however, is aimed at unilateral annexation or political interference rather than every form of U.S. military presence; reporting notes the United States already has wide Cold War–era access rights and a long-standing presence at Pituffik, which complicates absolutist positions [4] [5].
2. Political differences: how and when to push for independence and who should negotiate
While all major parties endorse the idea of independence in principle, they diverge sharply on strategy and timeline, and that divergence shapes attitudes toward U.S. military ties: some, like Naleraq leader Pele Broberg, urged Greenland to engage directly with the U.S.—without Denmark—seeking agency in negotiations and signaling a readiness to assert Greenlandic interests in foreign policy; other leaders emphasize working through the Kingdom of Denmark and NATO frameworks to safeguard sovereignty [6] [7]. These tactical splits do not equal support for U.S. annexation but show contested views on leveraging foreign military interest for Greenlandic advantage versus relying on Danish-led diplomacy [6] [7].
3. Popular reaction: large protests, “Hands off Greenland,” and legal countermeasures
Public reaction has been emphatic and visible: large demonstrations in 2025–2026—sometimes labeled “Hands off Greenland”—and parliamentary moves to ban foreign political funding were explicit signals that many Greenlanders view U.S. overtures as interference and a threat to democratic self-determination [1] [3]. The protests and legal steps represent both a symbolic repudiation of takeover talk and a practical attempt to insulate Greenlandic politics from outside influence, underscoring popular resistance to forced militarization or political buyouts [1].
4. Denmark, NATO and a defensive posture: Greenland’s leaders seek protection while asserting sovereignty
Greenlandic officials and Denmark moved quickly to frame the issue as one of collective defense and rule-bound diplomacy: Denmark bolstered military deployments and coordinated with NATO allies to reinforce Greenland’s defense, and Greenlandic ministers sought urgent talks with U.S. officials to correct misconceptions and protect sovereignty, reflecting a preference among Greenland’s political class for managed cooperation under Danish/NATO oversight rather than unilateral U.S. control [7] [2] [5]. That posture balances a pragmatic acceptance that allied military activity in the Arctic will increase with a firm insistence that Greenlandic rights and Danish sovereignty must be respected [5] [2].
5. What reporting does not yet tell us — limits and open questions
The supplied sources document party statements, protests and diplomatic moves but do not provide systematic polling of Greenlandic public opinion by demographics, nor granular party-by-party platform texts on acceptable levels of U.S. military access; therefore it is impossible from these materials alone to quantify how many Greenlanders would accept expanded U.S. bases under negotiated terms versus outright rejecting any U.S. presence [1] [3]. The record does, however, clearly show political elites and visible public action coalescing against annexation and toward protecting sovereignty through Danish and NATO mechanisms [1] [7] [2].