President Donald Trump has appointed Louisiana governor Jeff Landry as the United States’ special envoy to Greenland, reviving Washington’s push to expand its influence over the Arctic territory. The White House announcement on 21 December described the role as advancing US security interests, while Landry said the position would be served alongside his governorship.
Landry wrote on X that it was an “honor” to serve in a volunteer role “to make Greenland a part of the U.S.”, language that immediately sharpened the diplomatic stakes. The statement aligns with his previous public support for bringing the island under US control.
Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, responded that while the appointment confirms continued American interest, all states, including the US, must respect the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark. Copenhagen said it would summon the US ambassador for an explanation.
Greenland’s prime minister, Jens‑Frederik Nielsen, reiterated that the territory will decide its own future and warned that annexation claims cut against international norms, saying in a joint message with Denmark’s prime minister that “you cannot annex another country”.
The European Commission reinforced that position. An EU spokesperson in Brussels stated that preserving Denmark’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of its borders is essential for the Union-a line consistent with earlier remarks by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Copenhagen.
Under Denmark’s 2009 Act on Greenland Self‑Government, foreign and defence policy rest with Copenhagen, though Nuuk is closely involved. The law recognises Greenlanders as a people under international law and sets out a pathway for independence: any move must begin with a decision by the people of Greenland and culminate in an agreement endorsed by referendums and approved by both the Greenlandic and Danish parliaments.
The envoy designation carries no automatic diplomatic standing in Greenland. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, only accredited heads of mission require a host state’s agrément; special envoys without such accreditation do not present credentials and have no independent legal status in a receiving state. Any formal US‑Greenland engagement would therefore run through Denmark’s external relations.
Public opinion on the island leaves little room for doubt. A January survey by pollster Verian for Berlingske and Sermitsiaq found 85% of respondents opposed becoming part of the US, while a separate question showed a majority would back independence from Denmark if a referendum were held today. Greenland’s population stands at roughly 56,700 as of October 2025, according to Statistics Greenland.
Strategic context explains why the appointment matters even if it changes no law today. The US military’s Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) underpins missile warning, missile defence and space surveillance for the US and NATO; Washington also re‑established a consulate in Nuuk in 2020 to expand its civilian footprint.
This dispute follows a year of friction. In March, US Vice‑President JD Vance toured Pituffik and urged that Greenland “cut a deal” with the United States, comments that drew criticism from Danish and Greenlandic leaders. In August, Denmark summoned the top US diplomat in Copenhagen after reports of alleged American influence operations in Greenland.
International law sets clear limits on any forcible change to Greenland’s status. UN member states are obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; no territorial acquisition resulting from such force is lawful. Danish officials have invoked these principles in their responses.
For policy planners, the immediate implications are diplomatic rather than constitutional. Denmark intends to call in the US ambassador; Nuuk is signalling that cooperation on defence and minerals can continue, but only on the basis of respect for sovereignty and Greenlandic self‑determination. Any status change would still have to follow the Self‑Government Act’s referendum‑and‑agreement sequence, not unilateral appointment or rhetoric.