US Secretary of Defense Hegseth refuses to rule out plans to seize Greenland by force
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declined to categorically deny that the Pentagon has drafted plans to seize Greenland by force, during a tense exchange in the House Armed Services Committee—raising eyebrows as the Trump administration’s Arctic ambitions intensify.
Rep Mike Turner (R-Ohio) pressed Hegseth on whether such scenarios are being planned.
“You are not confirming in your testimony today that at the Pentagon there are plans for invading or taking by force Greenland, correct?”
Hegseth dodged the question.
“All my testimony is that the Pentagon has plans for any number of contingencies…”
Turner doubled down and expressed his concern about the potential of such plans existing.
“It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland? Correct? Because I’m sure as hell [I] hope that it is not your testimony.”
However, Hegseth offered only a vague reassurance.
“We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats.”
This failure to directly answer the question during President Trump’s renewed and strategic rhetoric about Greenland might worry lawmakers in Nuuk and Copenhagen.
Trump’s aggressive rhetoric against the country has prompted a significant political response in Greenland itself. Earlier this year, the island’s electorate voted to install a new coalition government led by the center-right Demokraatit party under Jens‑Frederik Nielsen, formed explicitly to counter external pressure — especially from American leaders.
The cabinet, a coalition of four out of five parliamentary parties, emerged just as Vice President J.D. Vance visited Nuuk in late March. His trip — initially intended to support a planned charm offensive — spiraled into controversy and was interpreted as a pointed U.S. signal ahead of coalition talks.
While Greenlandic leaders continue to dismiss any notion of sovereignty transfer, Hegseth’s silence in the hearing leaves the U.S. position dangerously ambiguous—potentially framing what was once political theatre into a tense moment of geopolitical uncertainty.
See the exchange below:
