Issue #233: What the Greenland Election Results tell us
Election amid Trump's demand to acquire the island
Yesterday, voters in Greenland went to the polls to cast ballots for the local parliament: the Inatsisartut. Greenland, an autonomy territory of Denmark, was thrust into international headlines when Donald Trump’s renewed push to acquire the island and make it part of the United States. The Trump push came as Greenland has already been debating full independence from Denmark. Trump has insisted the island is critical for national security and has gone back and forth on promising “great things” for Greenland if they become part of the United States; or just making overt threats. At his State of the Union, Trump said…
"We need Greenland for national security. One way or the other we're gonna get it,"
Thanks to Trump’s statements, the election was got more international attention that Greenland has ever seen before. Before the Trump statements, the election in Greenland was already expected to be driven by the continued push for independence from Denmark. The comments from the President reshaped the debate. While no party supported Greenland becoming part of America, parties differed in their drive for independence and how they would react to Trump overtures.
Give parties contested the election; which is decided by proportional representation and always sees coalitions needed to govern. The results saw a shock upset for two of the opposition parties; with the ruling parties removed from power. However, these opposition parties, the Democrats and Naleraq, have very different views on Trump and Greenland in relation to the United States or Denmark.
While I am working on a long-form article series on Greenland politics, I feel its best to offer a straight-forward article here on the results, what they mean, and the context they happened in. Some of painted the election as a referendum on Trump, but that is really glossing over long histories of questions around the rule of Denmark, the idea of independence, and trying to manage such a remote country. A nation of under 60,000 people on an island that is 80% ice sheet has pretty unique issues.
This article will offer some key context and bullet points. A more detailed look will come in the future.
Lets dive in.
Background: Sins of Danish Past
To discuss politics in Greenland, especially around the issue of independence, one cannot overlook the history with Denmark. Earlier this week, I published the first part of my Greenland series. This first issue covers the history of Greenland through the 1960s and details the island’s struggle for self-rule. Click this article for far more details, but I’ll offer a summary of key points below.
Greenland today is 95% Inuit; people with ancestry dating back to Thule migration from centuries ago. The island’s first major contact with Europeans was Viking explorers in the 900s; with Eric the Red famously credited with giving Greenland its name. Nordic settlements dotted parts of Greenland for a few centuries, but did not last.
Eventually the island became part of the Danish Kingdom. Denmark eventually reestablished settlements on the island and Greenland became a colony of Denmark. Colonials status for Greenland ended in the 1950s, with Denmark making it a county (think US State) of the nation. Greenland secured a local legislature and sent members to the Danish parliament. With this, Denmark engaged in a massive undertaking to “modernize” the island.
The efforts of the Danish government were a disaster. The Danish government pushed learning Danish instead of the Greenlandic language as it sought to “Danify” the island. Like the assimilation efforts of Canada and America, efforts to ‘modernize’ or ‘civilize’ the native population were based in paternalistic racist attitudes. These efforts also led to major social problems. The Danish government closed remote villages, ruling them too hard to administer, and forced people into larger towns. The goal was to build up the commercial fishing industry. The result was generations of subsistence hunters and fishers being forced into apartment settlements in larger towns. The social result was spikes in substance abuse, broken families, alcoholism, and suicides.
Other Danish efforts have only recently come to light, namely the Spiral Case. This horrifying revelation, only coming to light in recent years, revealed that Danish doctors put IUDs in thousands of Greenlandic girls without their consent or knowledge in the 1960s and 1970s. This was both efforts of population control but also Danish officials judging who would be fit parents. These horrifying revelations have further strained relations with Denmark and fueled growing calls for independence.
The Drive for Autonomy and Independence
Thanks to the crimes of the Danish Government, Greenland was constantly seeks greater autonomy. Independence was not a series push during the 1970s, as Greenland has long relied on Denmark for financial aid. The 1970s saw the rise of the first political parties in Greenland, all shaped around how they viewed their relationship with Denmark. Siumut formed as the major driver of Home Rule. Atassut were more in favor of good relations with Denmark. Inuit Ataqatigiit favored immediate independence.
After several years of negotiations, Greenland was allowed to vote in 1979 on “Home Rule” - a status that would give them more say in their internal affairs. That measure easily passed, taking over 70% of the vote. From that point on, the Siumut Party came to dominate Greenlandic politics. The party, often with a coalition of the Inuit Party, worked to fix many of the social problems caused by Danish rule. Greenlandic politics was remarkably stable, with the Danish minority (20% in 1979, under 10% today) and Greenlandic populations broadly getting along.
In 2008, Greenland achieved further autonomy, expanding their control over their natural resources and more internal affairs. The referendum also allowed for a future vote on Independence, which Denmark has pledged to honor. The 2008 Self-Government referendum got 77% of the vote.
I’ll talk more about that referendum campaign and results in upcoming Greenland articles.
In 2021, Inuit Ataqatigiit won the parliament election on a pledge to ban mining or uranium, while the ruling Siumut Party supported the effort. This issue of natural resources and their extraction is a key debate point in Greenland. I’ll discuss that more in a few moments.
Initially, the Inuit party formed a coalition with Naleraq, a centrist but also pro-independence party. This only lasted a year, however, before Inuit formed a new coalition with Siumut. Naleraq’s removal from the coalition came as it and Inuit Ataqatigiit could not come to agreement on different budget and tax issues. It was also strained when Naleraq minister Pele Broberg got major heat for saying he felt a future independence referendum should only be decided by Greenlandic (Inuit ancestry) people. This position was roundly rejected by most politicians.
Heading into the 2025 campaign, Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumut aimed to secure their continued rule.
The 2025 Election Campaign
The Greenland election of 2025 generated more international attention than every before thanks to Trump’s rhetoric around the island. The issue of independence from Denmark was always expected to be a major issue in the campaign, but it was hardly the only issue.
First lets look at the key parties contested the election, then I’ll discuss the campaign issues themselves.
The Parties Contesting
In total, six parties filed candidates for the election All but one contested the 2021 contest. These parties, with a short summary, can be seen below. With independence the big focal point, I’ve included their stances as well.
Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) - The ruling left-wing party. Originally a backer of immediate independence when it formed, the party has adopted a slower approach. The party remains left wing, but is more moderate than its Marxist origins.
Siumut - The junior in coalition with IA, this left-of-center party also supports independence but with a similar gradual approach. The founders of the Home Rule push for Greenland, the party has held the Prime Minister post more than any others.
Demokraatit (Democrats) - Broadly right-of-center on economics and more socially liberal, this party also backs independence down the line. The Democrats, however, favor keeping good relations with Denmark and has been hostile to Trump’s comments.
Naleraq - By far the most adamantly pro-independence of the major parties; favoring a referendum on the issue within a few years. This centrist party has also done the most to court American interests.
Atassut - The only firmly anti-independence party. This center-right organization was once a major player in Greenland politics, but in recent decades has seen its vote share well below 10%.
Qulleq - A new party formed just in the last few months. They favor quick independence. They want quicker use of the islands resources, especially focused on oil drilling.
More details on the parties can be seen here.
Campaign Issues
The issue of Greenland independence has been the most covered topic, but its not the only issue for the island. Like much of the world, inflation and rising cost of living are major concerns. Debate over fishing regulation, especially quotas and foreign ownership, have been a decisive issue. A core issue is the notion of keeping businesses Greenlandic-owned vs allowing foreign companies to come in.
On the topic of independence, the biggest issue for independence backers is making sure its done right. With 5 of the 6 parties backing independence, the difference ultimately comes down to timing and planning. Most of the pro-independence parties understand that with a good deal of economic resources coming from Denmark, an independent Greenland could struggle financially. This is tied in with debates in the island over how to manage its natural resources; things that could bring in revenue but also could be exploited and used up irresponsibly.
"It must be on an informed basis, so that the population is not in doubt about the consequences. We have a welfare society that must function. We have some economic aspects that we also need to look at," (Siumut leader Erik Jensen, highlighting the complexity of independence)
Worries about over-fishing have been a decades-long concern for Greenland, and is a main reason they stay out of different European Union programs. While the country has large mineral resource reserves, locals do not want extraction to happen if it risks environmental degradation. How much mining, and what is mined, is a key debate point. For example. the Inuit Party pushed through a ban on uranium mining after winning the 2021 election, an issue they ran and WON on. Polls at the time showed over 60% of Greenlanders supported the uranium mining ban.
Reactions to Trump
Trump’s comments about Greenland came to dominate much of the coverage of the election; especially from international press. While voters and politicians reminded reporters that other issues were being debated, everyone had a comment on the President’s arguments.
I believe this line from a Guardian article does sum up many of the reactions in Greenland well.
Unlike the reaction in Copenhagen, which went into crisis mode over Trump’s apparent threats, Trump’s interest in Greenland was seen by many in Nuuk with bemusement and a hope that it could be leveraged to negotiate a better deal with Denmark or to secure a quicker route to independence.
Most criticism Trump received came from the tone of his comments and the threats he made. No party campaigned for supporting becoming part of the US, while at the same time most parties back independence. You were not going get many people in Greenland to defend Denmark, but they also had issues with Trump’s rhetoric.
Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede said
"We do not want to be Americans, nor Danes; we are Kalaallit. The Americans and their leader must understand that. We are not for sale and cannot be taken. Our future is determined by us in Greenland."
Meanwhile, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, leader of the Democrats, was even more forceful in some of his statements. The Democrats support independence, but doing so in a slow and planned out matter.
"Why is he (Trump) supporting independence? It is because he can go directly to us, bypassing Denmark, and we will be easy to influence. He uses some platitudes about us becoming very rich. He is trying to influence us to make a decision that goes in that direction."
“He swallows us whole the day we are left alone, and that is why we have to step on the brake."
In this, the Democrats offered the most forceful pushback to Trump and to immediate independence. While they are in support of it long-term; like Simiut and Inuit Ataqatigiit, they are also warning that going to quick could be economically problematic AND leave them vulnerable to Trump expansionist thinking.
The party that has been least hostile to Trump has easily been Naleraq. They are firmly pro-independence, pledging to support a referendum within the next four years, and have embraced more nationalistic rhetoric. They have begun to surge in support thanks to the backing of high-profile leaders and their appeal to a firm anti-Denmark sentiment that has grown with recent revelations (like the Spiral Case). One of their most prominent members is Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam, who was elected to the Danish parliament as a member of the Siumut Party. She has sense joined Naleraq, arguing they are stronger on independence.
Their leader is also Pele Broberg, who drew controversy back in 2022 for his comments on who should be allowed to vote in an independence referendum. Broberg even wrote an op-ed recently declaring Trump was right and that Denmark had to go. Another party member, Kuno Fencker, attended Trump’s inauguration and has been more friendly with Trump. Not everyone in the party is as open to complimenting Trump, and none of them back becoming part of the United States itself.
Broberg said recently…
You have to admit that Trump has done a lot of good for the independence movement. "When he's not in office, people don't care about Greenland. His interest has given us the opportunity to explain what's happening here. We're not isolationists—we want to work with the rest of the world, not just Denmark."
Naleraq is heavily shaped by an anti-Danish sentiment, a position they had well before Trump’s comments. I think this statement highlights how, for many of the party members, Trump and America are a good foil to use against Denmark.
The old saying goes - “Enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Expectations
Polling was limited for the election, with a January poll giving Inuit Ataqatigiit a lead with 31%. However, on-the-ground reports indicated Naleraq and the Democrats were rising. Right now a solid majority of Greenlanders favor independence; but 85% do NOT want to trade Danish rule for American rule. Voters went to the polls having to balance their own desires for autonomy, who might be best to lead on that issue, as well as concerns over local economic matters.
The Election Results
When the results began to come in, it was clear Greenland was on course for a major change in leadership. Early results had Naleraq leading and with the Democrats in second. The ruling Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumut in 3rd and 4th place.
However, as the night went on and the major towns reported, the Democrats began to close the gap. This was especially thanks to the large support in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland and site to 1/3 of the entire vote. When all results came in, the Democrats had won the election with 30% of the ballot. Naleraq was in a strong second at 25%. No one has the 16 seats needed to form a government, meaning a coalition will be needed.
Naleraq won more towns and municipalities, but suffered badly by coming in 3rd in Nuuk.
The results effectively saw the two parties with the biggest contrasting visions on independence win. Democrats clearly won the vote of those who support independence but are warry of rushing into it. The leaders defense of Greenland and attacks on Trump’s motivations no doubt aided their rise. Naleraq, meanwhile, had clearly united much of the hardcore anti-Denmark sentiment; folks who want to just get away from the country that has long ruled them. Siumut and Inuit Ataqatigiit, who offered a similar “independence with time” approach as the Democrats, were left in the dust. Again while independence and Trump were big talking points, we cannot overlook that anti-incumbent wave world government continue to keep seeing.
Now the question will be what kind of governing coalition can be formed. Parties differ and agree on assorted mixes of economics or independence. Democrat leader Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated after the results came in
"We don’t want independence tomorrow, we want a good foundation,”
Hence it seems a coalition with Naleraq is unlikely. The parties agree on economics, namely brining in more businesses. However, they have firmly different views on independence. It is believed the Democrats may forge an agreement with Inuit Ataqatigiit, who they have a similar independence view with. However, they disagree on regulation and economics. So we wait to see what is decided on.
The results do make it clear and independence referendum won’t happen in the short future. A referendum and negotiations are expected to take many years. How Trump and America responds to all this (you see Donald’s lunacy over Canada) remains to be seen. For Greenland, however, they will continue to chart their own course.
Keep an eye out for more articles on Greenland down the line. I am working on my detailed history of the territory. I will do an expanded version of this election analysis too for the final piece of that series. By then we will likely know the governing coalition.