The arrest and exposure of several American citizens accused of running an influence operation in Greenland has reignited tensions between Copenhagen and Washington, while underscoring just how contested the Arctic has become. What might seem at first glance like a small and unusual scandal on the world’s largest island in fact represents the collision of great power competition, resource politics, and fragile sovereignty in one of the most strategically important regions of the 21st century.
The episode came to light in late August 2025, when Danish media and intelligence sources revealed that at least three Americans had been actively engaged in what authorities described as a covert campaign to manipulate Greenlandic politics and public opinion. According to Denmark’s national broadcaster DR, one of the individuals compiled lists of Greenlandic politicians, journalists, and opinion-makers, identifying which were sympathetic to U.S. interests and which were hostile—particularly those critical of Donald Trump. Others reportedly sought to spread narratives that painted Denmark in a negative light for U.S. media consumption, while simultaneously cultivating local contacts who might favor closer alignment with Washington.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen reacted swiftly, summoning the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Copenhagen and describing the alleged activities as “completely unacceptable.” The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) warned that Greenland remains a vulnerable target for foreign influence operations, where real tensions over autonomy, independence, and resource development can be exploited to deepen divides between Nuuk and Copenhagen. While Danish officials avoided directly accusing the U.S. government of directing the effort, the suspicion that these actions were aligned with Trump-linked networks has added a political charge to the incident.
For its part, the U.S. State Department sought to downplay the situation, distancing itself from the accused individuals and emphasizing that Washington respects Danish sovereignty. A spokesperson insisted that “the actions of private citizens do not reflect U.S. policy” and stressed that relations with both Denmark and Greenland remain strong. Yet these assurances did little to calm the uproar in Copenhagen, where memories remain fresh of Trump’s 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland outright—a move that offended Danish officials and galvanized Greenlandic leaders to assert that their island was not for sale.
Greenland’s position at the heart of Arctic geopolitics explains the intensity of the dispute. Home to vast reserves of rare earth minerals and a key location for missile early-warning systems and space surveillance, the island has become an arena where the U.S., China, and Russia all jostle for influence. With climate change accelerating the opening of Arctic shipping routes and resource access, Washington views Greenland not merely as a distant dependency of Denmark but as a critical outpost for ensuring security and dominance in the high north. Against this backdrop, influence operations—even if conducted unofficially—feed suspicions that Greenland’s fragile autonomy is being manipulated by external powers.
For Greenlanders themselves, the scandal highlights the uneasy position of a small population caught between powerful forces. While some may welcome U.S. investment and attention as a way to diversify away from Danish dependence, many fear becoming pawns in a larger strategic struggle. The arrests underscored how influence campaigns can blur the line between cultural outreach, political networking, and outright subversion. In the Arctic, where the stakes of sovereignty, security, and resources are higher than ever, this blurring can destabilize fragile trust and reshape alliances.
This incident serves as a reminder that the Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater but one of the most dynamic geopolitical theaters of our time. Influence does not always arrive in the form of armies or annexations; more often, it comes cloaked in subtle manipulation, targeted messaging, and networks of sympathetic actors. For Denmark, Greenland, and the United States, the challenge now lies in repairing trust while confronting the reality that the competition for Greenland’s future is only just beginning.