COPENHAGEN — Denmark’s Parliament convened a rare, closed-door emergency session this week after senior figures linked to PRESIDENT TRUMP openly suggested that the United States could use force to seize Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and a member of NATO through Copenhagen. The meeting, described by Danish officials as classified and urgent, underscored the shock rippling through Europe as long-standing assumptions about American intentions in the Arctic suddenly came into question.

The alarm was triggered by remarks from Jeff Landry, the governor of Louisiana and now serving as the Trump administration’s envoy to Greenland. Appearing across U.S. television networks, Landry said that “all options are on the table,” including military action, if Greenland does not align with U.S. demands. His comments came as he traveled to the region, framing the mission as both an economic outreach and a strategic assertion of American power.

Behind the scenes in Washington, the rhetoric set off its own crisis. Democratic senators emerging from a classified briefing said they were deeply dissatisfied with answers provided by senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, when questioned about potential U.S. plans involving Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, and other parts of the Western Hemisphere. Several lawmakers warned that what had once sounded like bluster was now being discussed as plausible policy.

Within hours, a bloc of European governments — France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Denmark — released a joint statement stressing that Arctic security must be handled collectively through NATO and in accordance with international law. “Greenland belongs to its people,” the statement declared, emphasizing sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders under the United Nations Charter. The prime minister of the Netherlands quickly added his voice in support.

At the heart of the dispute is Greenland’s strategic importance. The Arctic island sits astride emerging shipping routes, hosts critical radar installations, and holds vast untapped mineral resources. For decades, the United States has maintained a military presence there under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark. But European leaders argue that cooperation does not confer ownership — a point they say is being deliberately blurred by Washington.

Landry’s own words have only fueled the controversy. Asked whether his mission was about partnership or annexation, he invoked the language of hard bargaining, comparing U.S. diplomacy to an offer that “couldn’t be refused.” He later framed Greenland squarely within a revived interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, arguing that the United States must dominate the Western Hemisphere to keep out rivals like China and Russia.

Those claims drew sharp rebuttals from Europe. Anders Vistisen, a Danish member of the European Parliament, dismissed assertions from TRUMP adviser Stephen Miller questioning Denmark’s right to Greenland. Speaking on CNN, Vistisen pointed to history and treaties, noting that when Denmark sold the U.S. Virgin Islands a century ago, Washington explicitly recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland. “If history alone determined ownership,” he quipped, “the United States would still be a British colony.”

The diplomatic fallout has spread well beyond Europe. In Paris, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen met with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who issued a forceful statement pledging Canada’s support for Denmark’s sovereignty, including Greenland. “Canada and Denmark are allies,” Carney said, reaffirming a shared responsibility for Arctic security. Their joint appearance was widely interpreted as a signal that U.S. allies are closing ranks.

Further afield, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa condemned U.S. actions in Venezuela and warned that threats against other nations undermine international law and the authority of the United Nations. His remarks added to the sense that Washington’s posture is provoking a global backlash, not just a regional dispute.

In Washington, Republicans offered a starkly different view. Senate Majority Leader John Thune suggested that the president’s statements should be taken seriously, describing them as part of a doctrine of “peace through strength.” Democrats, including Senators Chuck Schumer and Tammy Duckworth, pushed back, drawing parallels to past conflicts launched on shaky premises and warning of catastrophic consequences.

What began as provocative rhetoric has now escalated into a full-blown diplomatic crisis, testing NATO unity, reviving Cold War anxieties in the Arctic, and raising uncomfortable questions about the future of American leadership — a moment so volatile that reactions are ricocheting across capitals and feeds alike, with the internet visibly exploding in real time.