At a Glance
- President Donald Trump said he “doesn’t know who” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen is
- Nielsen declared Greenland would “choose Denmark” if forced to pick between Denmark and the U.S.
- Trump called the premier’s stance “a big problem” and vowed to push ahead with annexation plans
- Why it matters: The admission highlights Trump’s limited engagement with key officials as he pushes to acquire the strategic Arctic territory
President Donald Trump acknowledged he is unfamiliar with Greenland’s top official even as he intensifies his public campaign to bring the Danish territory under U.S. control.
The revelation came during a Jan. 13 exchange with reporters at Joint Base Andrews. When a journalist noted that Greenland’s premier had just voiced support for remaining part of Denmark, Trump responded, “Who said that?” After the reporter repeated “the premier of Greenland,” Trump replied, “Well, that’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is, don’t know anything about him, but that’s gonna be a big problem for him.”
The premier in question is Jens-Fredik Nielsen, who hours earlier stood beside Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in Copenhagen and told media: “If we have to choose between the USA and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark.” Nielsen added that Greenland would side with “NATO, the Kingdom of Denmark and the EU,” according to a translation from Danish public broadcaster DR cited by CNBC.
Trump’s comments underscored the awkward optics of a U.S. president seeking to annex a territory whose elected leader he cannot name. The exchange occurred one week after Trump’s plane, carrying his son Donald Trump Jr., landed in Nuuk, Greenland, on Jan. 7, 2025.
Trump’s Push for Acquisition
Despite the diplomatic stumble, Trump doubled down on his ambition to claim Greenland. In a Jan. 14 Truth Social post, he argued that U.S. control is “vital” for NATO strength and national security, warning that without American ownership “Russia or China” could gain influence.
“The U.S. needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump wrote. “It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!”
He added that U.S. military power, “much of which I built during my first term,” makes NATO effective, and “Anything less than that is unacceptable.”
Psychological Importance
In a Jan. 7 interview with The New York Times, Trump framed full “ownership” of Greenland as “psychologically important” to his vision of American strength.
“That’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success,” he told White House correspondent Katie Rogers, whom he recently called “ugly, both inside and out.” When asked whether the importance was psychological for him or the country, Trump answered, “Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.”
Escalating Tensions
As rhetoric intensifies, diplomatic channels are strained. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are scheduled to host a closed-door White House meeting with Danish and Greenlandic leaders on Wednesday, according to The Washington Post.
Ahead of that session, Greenland’s government and Denmark’s defense ministry announced stepped-up military activity around the island, citing “security tensions,” CNN reported. The moves signal Copenhagen and Nuuk’s resolve to assert sovereignty amid Trump’s repeated suggestions that the U.S. should acquire the territory, which houses the Pituffik Space Base and sits astride new Arctic shipping lanes.
Key Takeaways
- Trump conceded he is unaware of Jens-Fredik Nielsen, despite Nielsen being Greenland’s elected leader since 2023
- Nielsen publicly rejected Trump’s annexation push, pledging loyalty to Denmark, NATO, and the EU
- Trump insists U.S. ownership is crucial for national defense and blocking Russian or Chinese influence
- High-level talks at the White House this week will test whether diplomacy can ease growing tensions
