What's next for Greenland and Denmark after difficult meeting with Trump administration

U.S., Danish and Greenlandic officials have met face to face to discuss President Donald Trump's ambitions to take control of Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark. At the same time, Denmark and several European allies are sending troops to Greenland in a pointed signal of intent to boost the vast Arctic island's security.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said after a meeting in Washington on Wednesday with his Greenlandic counterpart, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that a “fundamental disagreement” remained. He acknowledged that “we didn't manage to change the American position” but said he hadn't expected to.

However, Wednesday's events did point to ways ahead.

Denmark, Greenland and the U.S. agreed to form a high-level working group “to explore if we can find a common way forward,” Løkke Rasmussen said. He added that he expects the group to hold its first meeting “within a matter of weeks.”

Danish and Greenlandic officials didn't specify who would be part of the group or give other details. Løkke Rasmussen said the group should focus on how to address U.S. security concerns while respecting Denmark's “red lines.” The two countries are NATO allies.

“Whether that is doable, I don't know,” he added, holding out hope that the exercise could “take down the temperature.”

He wouldn't elaborate on what a compromise might look like, and expectations are low. As Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen put it Thursday, having the group is better than having no working group and “it's a step in the right direction.” It will at least allow the two sides to talk with each other rather than about each other.

Trump has argued repeatedly that the U.S. needs control of Greenland for its national security. He has sought to justify his calls for a U.S. takeover by repeatedly claiming that China and Russia have their own designs on Greenland, which holds vast untapped reserves of critical minerals.

Just as the talks were taking place in Washington on Wednesday, the Danish Defense Ministry announced that it was increasing its military presence in Greenland, along with NATO allies. France, Germany, Norway and Sweden announced that they were each sending very small numbers of troops in a symbolic but pointed move signaling solidarity with Copenhagen.

The U.K. said one British officer was part of what it called a reconnaissance group for an Arctic endurance exercise. The German Defense Ministry, which dispatched 13 troops, said the aim is to sound out “possibilities to ensure security with a view to Russian and Chinese threats in the Arctic.” It said it was sending them on a joint flight from Denmark as “a strong signal of our unity.”

Poulsen said that "the Danish Armed Forces, together with a number of Arctic and European allies, will explore in the coming weeks how an increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic can be implemented in practice,” he said.

On Thursday, he said the intention was “to establish a more permanent military presence with a larger Danish contribution,” and to invite allies to take part in exercises and training on a rotating basis, according to Danish broadcaster DR.

While the European troops are largely symbolic at this point, the timing was no accident.

The deployment “serves both to send a political signal and military signal to America, but also indeed to recognize that Arctic security should be reinforced more," said Maria Martisiute, an analyst at the European Policy Center in Brussels. "And first and foremost, this should be done through allied effort, not by the U.S. coming and wanting to take it over. So it complicates the situation for the U.S.”

The European efforts are Danish-led and not coordinated through NATO, which is dominated by the United States. But the European allies are keen to keep NATO in play, and Germany said that “the aim is to obtain a well-founded picture on the ground for further talks and planning within NATO."

Poulsen has said he and Greenland's foreign minister plan to meet NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Brussels on Monday to discuss security in and around the Arctic. NATO has been studying ways to bolster security in the Arctic region.

“I’m really looking forward for an announcement of some kind of military activity or deployment under NATO’s framework,” Martisiute said. “Otherwise there is indeed a risk that ... NATO is paralyzed and that would not be good.”

Sylvain Plazy in Brussels contributed to this report.

Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt speak at a news conference at the Embassy of Denmark, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/John McDonnell)

An Airbus A400M transport aircraft of the German Air Force taxis over the grounds at Wunstorf Air Base in the Hanover region, Germany, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026 as troops from NATO countries, including France and Germany, are arriving in Greenland to boost security. (Moritz Frankenberg/dpa via AP)

Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt speak at a news conference at the Embassy of Denmark, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/John McDonnell)

A man rides by on a quad bike past a row of Greenlandic national flags in Nuuk, Greenland, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026. (AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka)

ATLANTA (AP) — Donald Trump would not be the first president to invoke the Insurrection Act, as he has threatened, so that he can send U.S. military forces to Minnesota.

But he'd be the only commander in chief to use the 19th-century law to send troops to quell protests that started because of federal officers the president already has sent to the area — one of whom shot and killed a U.S. citizen.

The law, which allows presidents to use the military domestically, has been invoked on more than two dozen occasions — but rarely since the 20th Century's Civil Rights Movement.

Federal forces typically are called to quell widespread violence that has broken out on the local level — before Washington's involvement and when local authorities ask for help. When presidents acted without local requests, it was usually to enforce the rights of individuals who were being threatened or not protected by state and local governments. A third scenario is an outright insurrection — like the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Experts in constitutional and military law say none of that clearly applies in Minneapolis.

“This would be a flagrant abuse of the Insurrection Act in a way that we've never seen,” said Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. “None of the criteria have been met.”

William Banks, a Syracuse University professor emeritus who has written extensively on the domestic use of the military, said the situation is “a historical outlier” because the violence Trump wants to end “is being created by the federal civilian officers” he sent there.

But he also cautioned Minnesota officials would have “a tough argument to win” in court, because the judiciary is hesitant to challenge “because the courts are typically going to defer to the president” on his military decisions.

Here is a look at the law, how it's been used and comparisons to Minneapolis.

George Washington signed the first version in 1792, authorizing him to mobilize state militias — National Guard forerunners — when “laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed.”

He and John Adams used it to quash citizen uprisings against taxes, including liquor levies and property taxes that were deemed essential to the young republic's survival.

Congress expanded the law in 1807, restating presidential authority to counter “insurrection or obstruction” of laws. Nunn said the early statutes recognized a fundamental “Anglo-American tradition against military intervention in civilian affairs” except “as a tool of last resort.”

The president argues Minnesota officials and citizens are impeding U.S. law by protesting his agenda and the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and Customs and Border Protection officers. Yet early statutes also defined circumstances for the law as unrest “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course” of law enforcement.

There are between 2,000 and 3,000 federal authorities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, compared to Minneapolis, which has fewer than 600 police officers. Protesters' and bystanders' video, meanwhile, has shown violence initiated by federal officers, with the interactions growing more frequent since Renee Good was shot three times and killed.

“ICE has the legal authority to enforce federal immigration laws,” Nunn said. “But what they're doing is a sort of lawless, violent behavior” that goes beyond their legal function and “foments the situation” Trump wants to suppress.

“They can't intentionally create a crisis, then turn around to do a crackdown,” he said, adding that the Constitutional requirement for a president to “faithfully execute the laws” means Trump must wield his power, on immigration and the Insurrection Act, “in good faith.”

Courts have blocked some of Trump's efforts to deploy the National Guard, but he'd argue with the Insurrection Act that he does not need a state's permission to send troops.

That traces to President Abraham Lincoln, who held in 1861 that Southern states could not legitimately secede. So, he convinced Congress to give him express power to deploy U.S. troops, without asking, into Confederate states he contended were still in the Union. Quite literally, Lincoln used the act as a legal basis to fight the Civil War.

Nunn said situations beyond such a clear insurrection as the Confederacy still require a local request or another trigger that Congress added after the Civil War: protecting individual rights. Ulysses S. Grant used that provision to send troops to counter the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists who ignored the 14th and 15th amendments and civil rights statutes.

During post-war industrialization, violence erupted around strikes and expanding immigration — and governors sought help.

President Rutherford B. Hayes granted state requests during the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 after striking workers, state forces and local police clashed, leading to dozens of deaths. Grover Cleveland granted a Washington state governor's request — at that time it was a U.S. territory — to help protect Chinese citizens who were being attacked by white rioters. President Woodrow Wilson sent troops to Colorado in 1914 amid a coal strike after workers were killed.

Federal troops helped diffuse each situation.

Banks stressed that the law then and now presumes that federal resources are needed only when state and local authorities are overwhelmed — and Minnesota leaders say their cities would be stable and safe if Trump's feds left.

As Grant had done, mid-20th century presidents used the act to counter white supremacists.

Franklin Roosevelt dispatched 6,000 troops to Detroit — more than double the U.S. forces in Minneapolis — after race riots that started with whites attacking Black residents. State officials asked for FDR's aid after riots escalated, in part, Nunn said, because white local law enforcement joined in violence against Black residents. Federal troops calmed the city after dozens of deaths, including 17 Black residents killed by local police.

Once the Civil Rights Movement began, presidents sent authorities to Southern states without requests or permission, because local authorities defied U.S. civil rights law and fomented violence themselves.

Dwight Eisenhower enforced integration at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas; John F. Kennedy sent troops to the University of Mississippi after riots over James Meredith's admission and then pre-emptively to ensure no violence upon George Wallace's “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” to protest the University of Alabama's integration.

“There could have been significant loss of life from the rioters” in Mississippi, Nunn said.

Lyndon Johnson protected the 1965 Voting Rights March from Selma to Montgomery after Wallace's troopers attacked marchers' on their first peaceful attempt.

Johnson also sent troops to multiple U.S. cities in 1967 and 1968 after clashes between residents and police escalated. The same thing happened in Los Angeles in 1992, the last time the Insurrection Act was invoked.

Riots erupted after a jury failed to convict four white police officers of excessive use of force despite video showing them beating a Rodney King, a Black man. California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush for support.

Bush authorized about 4,000 troops — but after he had publicly expressed displeasure over the trial verdict. He promised to “restore order” yet directed the Justice Department to open a civil rights investigation, and two of the L.A. officers were later convicted in federal court.

President Donald Trump answers questions after signing a bill that returns whole milk to school cafeterias across the country, in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)