Bad luck seems to follow the Arctic Council around. Less than a year before U.S. President Donald Trump roiled Europe with escalating threats to seize Greenland, the semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, the Danes took over the rotating chairmanship of the intergovernmental forum, which seeks to promote northern cooperation among the world’s eight Arctic nations.
To make matters worse, Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt was forced to step down last month, after her party withdrew from Greenland’s coalition government over internal political turmoil. In vacating her post, Motzfeldt also had to abandon her role as chair of the Arctic Council. Motzfeldt had been the first Greenlandic politician to lead the council, helping to coordinate and direct its Far North activities. The Arctic Council told Foreign Policy that Greenland’s new foreign minister would take on the chair, but no one has been permanently assigned to the role yet, leaving the council without a clear leader.
Bad luck seems to follow the Arctic Council around. Less than a year before U.S. President Donald Trump roiled Europe with escalating threats to seize Greenland, the semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, the Danes took over the rotating chairmanship of the intergovernmental forum, which seeks to promote northern cooperation among the world’s eight Arctic nations.
To make matters worse, Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt was forced to step down last month, after her party withdrew from Greenland’s coalition government over internal political turmoil. In vacating her post, Motzfeldt also had to abandon her role as chair of the Arctic Council. Motzfeldt had been the first Greenlandic politician to lead the council, helping to coordinate and direct its Far North activities. The Arctic Council told Foreign Policy that Greenland’s new foreign minister would take on the chair, but no one has been permanently assigned to the role yet, leaving the council without a clear leader.
None of this bodes well for a body already facing deep internal tensions. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January, Trump ruled out taking Greenland by military force and ditched the proposed tariffs that he had intended to use to exert economic pressure on Europe to strike a deal on the island. But the Danish government remains on edge. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that sovereignty remains a “red line,” and any attempt to annex Greenland would mean the end of NATO. A more immediate fallout could yet be the Arctic Council.
“The council will continue to push forward its agenda” of cooperation, said Klaus Dodds, a professor of geopolitics at Middlesex University London and co-author of the 2025 book Unfrozen: The Fight for the Future of the Arctic. “But it would be a brave soul who argued that the council is not mortally wounded.”
The Arctic Council has long focused on environmental protection, sustainable development, and uplifting Indigenous voices in the Arctic—a mission that now appears at odds with rampant geopolitical competition and a scramble for finite mineral resources in the region. Still, over the years, the council has become adept at working quietly in the background. That may yet be its saving grace.
The Arctic Council was founded 30 years ago, in 1996, as part of a post-Cold War vision for the High North as a zone of peace, first championed by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Its eight members—Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Iceland, Russia, and the United States—work together on matters of science but not politics. Participation is voluntary, not treaty-based. Members gather to discuss topics such as Arctic ecosystem monitoring, search and rescue operations, and oil spill prevention and response. The council has successfully negotiated three binding agreements on such issues during its existence. And it is the only international group that includes Indigenous leaders as equal stakeholders.
To many observers, the council’s greatest success is its ability to keep the Arctic as a peaceful sphere. It has thrice been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize—in 2018, 2019, and 2022—for fostering peace, trust, and cooperation in the frozen realms. (Trump, for that matter, has also been nominated for the prize numerous times. The fact that it continues to elude him appears to have been a key factor in his renewed push to obtain Greenland, based on his texts with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere.)
“At its very best, [the council] was innovative and sought to generate a more hopeful Arctic. Gorbachev’s vision has been hollowed out by a Russia determined to restore its greatness,” Dodds said.
Since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, though, the forum has been on thin ice. At the time, many Arctic observers assumed the group would not survive such geopolitical turmoil. Polar pundits heralded the end of “Arctic exceptionalism,” an idea that holds that the region is immune to the wars and tensions that undo other regions. The council temporarily paused its activities, with the situation made even more tenuous by the fact that Russia held the chairmanship at the time of invasion.
The Arctic Council ultimately managed to endure an attack by one Arctic state against a non-Arctic nation—but just barely. And that was largely because of Norway’s deft management of the relationship between Russia and the West when it assumed leadership in 2023. (The Arctic Council changes hands every two years.)
Since resuming limited cooperation in 2024 under Norway’s leadership, the council has endeavored not to draw too much attention to itself. Working group meetings—which once involved in-person gatherings across the Arctic—are now held online. Ministerial-level diplomacy has ceased. This focus on “depoliticizing” the council is hailed as one of the reasons that it has managed to survive.
But last May, Denmark took over as chair, and with the country in pole position amid renewed geopolitical furor, the spotlight has swung back. Now, the council finds itself in an even more unsettling position, with one Arctic state threatening another. As Dodds put it, “Trump’s America has delivered a near-final blow.”
“There are now two major pressure points on an already stressed organization,” said Michael Sfraga, the interim chancellor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who served as the U.S. ambassador-at-large for Arctic affairs under the Biden administration. “And frankly, we need to keep bolstering. We need to keep [the council] in place and fortify it.”
Svein Vigeland Rottem, a senior research fellow at the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen Institute and author of the 2019 book The Arctic Council: Between Environmental Protection and Geopolitics, said that he expects the council’s work to continue in some capacity—short of a military attack. “But that’s the wild card here,” he said. “It’s hard to imagine the Arctic Council without the U.S.”
Already, Denmark and Greenland have seemingly exhibited far less ownership of the Arctic Council as a strong platform for cooperation compared with Norway’s chairmanship, he said. The Arctic Council marked its 30th anniversary with a reception in Tromso, Norway, earlier this year—not Denmark. Greenland’s Department of Foreign Affairs did not respond to a request for comment.
Kenneth Hoegh, chair of the Senior Arctic Officials and spokesperson for the council, told FP that Denmark was committed to ensuring that cooperation endures and the council’s work moves forward. “The Arctic Council has no mandate to address or comment on matters relating to territorial claims or security,” he said. “We recognize that the dynamic geopolitical situation that has and continues to unfold in the Arctic over these last few years has put the Arctic Council in a challenging situation, but the Arctic Council is resilient. Diplomatic channels are open and dialogue continues.”
To some observers, the fact that the Arctic Council has found itself under the chairmanship of two Arctic nations engaged in some level of territorial dispute in just four years’ time indicates a broader shift in Arctic politics. “The war on Ukraine destroyed the concept of Arctic exceptionalism. So we have Arctic reality,” Sfraga said. “The Arctic now is no longer segregated from these other big geopolitics.”
Some have questioned whether Canada and the Nordic countries might instead form a closer alliance, especially as Trump has threatened the former with rhetoric on becoming the “51st state.” The Nordic countries have recently deepened ties with Ottawa: Last year, Canada signed a strategic partnership with Sweden focused on the defense industry, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity, as well as a defense cooperation agreement with Finland focused on shipbuilding and icebreakers.
If the temperature eventually comes down in the Arctic—if the war in Ukraine ends, and if the United States fully backs down on Greenland—then “they will highlight the council as well for having created peace, for keeping the Arctic safe and secure,” Vigeland Rottem said. “It’s not an unlikely scenario in five years.”
