In a significant development, Denmark may confront legal action regarding a controversial agreement that grants the United States extensive military authority on Danish territory. Critics argue that this deal, signed in 2023 during the Biden administration and ratified by the Danish parliament in 2025, is unconstitutional and could complicate ongoing discussions about Greenland, a territory under Danish sovereignty.
Controversial Agreement Raises Constitutional Concerns
The defence agreement allows US military personnel unhindered access to Danish airbases and confers certain powers over Danish civilians in specific areas. Independent MP Theresa Scavenius is spearheading a legal challenge against the Danish state, asserting that the transfer of authority to US forces violates the Danish constitution. According to Scavenius, Article 20 of the constitution stipulates that sovereignty can only be delegated to “international authorities” through an amendment requiring a supermajority in parliament—an amendment that the current agreement has not achieved.
“The law is unconstitutional because it delegates authority to the US governmental bodies or soldiers on Danish territory over Danish civilians. That is explicitly not allowed in our constitution,” Scavenius stated.
Rising Tensions Amid Historical Ties
The backdrop to this legal challenge is fraught with tension. Former US President Donald Trump’s earlier threats to purchase Greenland have exacerbated diplomatic relations between the two nations, prompting heightened military readiness from several European countries in the region. Although the current agreement does not explicitly extend to Greenland, the implications of US military presence have raised alarm among critics who fear potential coercive actions against civilians.
Scavenius emphasised the urgency of clarifying constitutional issues before Denmark engages in further negotiations about Greenland’s future. The Greenlandic territory has long been viewed as strategically valuable, not only by the US but also by other nations, leading to increased scrutiny over military agreements involving the island.
Parliamentary Support Despite Controversy
Despite the outcry from various political factions and human rights advocates, the Danish parliament overwhelmingly endorsed the defence agreement in June 2025. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen defended the decision, arguing that maintaining strong ties with the US is paramount, especially in light of escalating geopolitical challenges. “The problem is not too much involvement from the US in Europe,” she asserted. “On the contrary, the risk is that the US will withdraw and move troops away or stop donations to Ukraine.”
The agreement permits US soldiers stationed in Denmark to operate under US jurisdiction, which raises serious concerns about accountability. Critics, including experts from the Danish Institute for Human Rights, contend that the pact could effectively shield American personnel from Danish law, potentially allowing them to use excessive force without facing prosecution.
Legal Proceedings and Implications
Scavenius has formally applied for legal aid to support her case, a process anticipated to take several weeks. The Danish defence ministry acknowledged that a legal claim is forthcoming but has refrained from commenting further until the claim is officially submitted.
The repercussions of this agreement extend beyond legal frameworks; the potential for US military personnel to intervene in civil matters raises critical questions about the integrity of Danish sovereignty and the protection of civil liberties. Senior researcher Peter Vedel Kessing of the Danish Institute for Human Rights highlighted the risks, stating, “If the bill is passed and American soldiers carry out illegal acts in Denmark, it will be beyond Danish control and outside the reach of the Danish legal system to prosecute such actions.”
Why it Matters
The unfolding situation surrounding Denmark’s military agreement with the United States underscores a broader narrative about sovereignty, international relations, and human rights. As legal challenges emerge, the Danish government must navigate the delicate balance between strategic alliances and constitutional integrity. This case not only has the potential to redefine Denmark’s legal landscape but also poses questions about the future of US military engagement in the region, particularly concerning Greenland, a territory that remains pivotal in the global geopolitical chess game. The stakes are high, and the implications of these developments will resonate far beyond Denmark’s borders.
