Greenland’s prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has reiterated that the autonomous territory has no desire to become part of the United States, stating clearly that Greenland would choose to remain within the Kingdom of Denmark if faced with such a decision.
His remarks came shortly after comments by Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen and ahead of diplomatic discussions involving senior U.S. officials.
Speaking publicly, Nielsen emphasized that Greenland’s position must be understood without ambiguity. He rejected any suggestion that the territory is for sale or open to foreign ownership, stressing Greenland’s right to self-determination and its existing constitutional arrangement.
“One thing must be clear to everyone: Greenland does not want to be owned by the US, Greenland does not want to be governed by the US, Greenland does not want to be part of the US,” Nielsen said. He added that Greenlanders value their current political framework and relationship with Denmark, describing it as a partnership rooted in shared history and mutual respect.
Nielsen underlined that while Greenland seeks constructive international cooperation, including with the United States, such engagement does not extend to questions of sovereignty or governance. He noted that Greenland remains focused on strengthening its autonomy, economic development, and international presence within the framework of the Kingdom of Denmark.
“We choose the Greenland we know today, which is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark,” he said, reaffirming the territory’s political alignment.
The comments follow renewed international attention on Greenland’s strategic importance in the Arctic, as well as past expressions of interest from U.S. leaders. Danish and Greenlandic officials have consistently maintained that Greenland’s future will be decided by its people alone.
Both Copenhagen and Nuuk have framed upcoming discussions with U.S. representatives as opportunities for dialogue on security, climate, and economic cooperation, while making clear that Greenland’s constitutional status is not under negotiation.
