Rufus Gifford served as the US Ambassador to Denmark from 2013 to 2017 and later as Chief of Protocol of the United States from 2022 to 2023. He was also the Deputy Campaign Manager for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, where he focused on fundraising and international outreach. Gifford earned his bachelor's degree in philosophy from Brown University.
As the former US Ambassador to Denmark, you have a unique perspective on US diplomacy. How would you describe the current state of US-European relations? What are the challenges and what opportunities do you envision for the future?
I would start by saying that the US-EU relationship is more strained than it [has] been since the end of World War II. The sad part about it is that it feels very self-imposed. This is an entirely avoidable conflict that is driven by the rhetoric about tariffs, in addition to Greenland.
I will start with challenges. As an American, the challenge is to figure out how to maintain some consistency and normalcy in this transatlantic relationship, the best the world has ever seen, for down the road. We are not there at the moment, and we need to bounce back from this [current tension]. These great allies, who have, for the most part, been in lockstep with us issue after issue for the past 80 years, are not going to abandon us entirely just because of Trump’s actions. We need to remind [our allies], as Americans, that there are still a lot of us who are fighting for what, I believe, was a very positive world order
When it comes to opportunities, it’s hard to see real opportunities in the short term. Whenever you completely upset the system, maybe you can find small things here and there that seem to make sense. Coming out of the tariff policy, maybe you find opportunities to create a trading bloc that is more modern and makes more sense. I don’t see that, but whenever you completely disrupt the system, in an enormous way, like we are seeing from the Trump administration right now, you have to believe that, perhaps, there will eventually be an opportunity in the future to carve out something new, even though I do not think Trump can do that right now.
In the 80-year relationship between the US and Europe, things grow and change, and very often, both are stubborn and stuck in the past. Out of this, we can identify some pieces that didn’t work, but the problem is that I don’t know what those are right now because we are too bogged down in the anxiety of the day, by the Trump administration’s rhetoric and actions, which prevents a sense of optimism here generally.
During your time in Denmark, what did you learn about the relationship between the United States and Denmark, and how has this relationship been influenced by the new U.S. administration?
Obviously, I feel very strongly about this. When I first arrived in Denmark in the late summer of 2013, I had been prepared to go serve in the capital of our fantastic ally, but I didn’t really understand the depth of the fondness that exists between Danes and Americans. Since the end of World War II, starting with the Marshall Plan and post-war reconstruction of Europe, there [has been] an extremely strong pro-American sentiment in the Danish mindset. It was so powerful to speak to the World War II generation; it was not quite as profound in the younger generations, but still very real. In the younger generations, you could feel our cultural exports like our movies, TV, fashion, travel to big cities like New York, and so many young people had studied in the United States. I underestimated that—I was shocked by the number of people I met who said that they spent a year living with a family in Oklahoma that we are still so close to, that their son is in the U.S. now, or that they are going to the U.S. over the summer and driving from New York to Los Angeles.
The reason why this matters so much [to me] is that all of this started because the United States showed leadership in the aftermath of the war, which led to this intense cultural and human connection between Americans and Danes. This is why Danes would proudly wear gear with the American flag on it or wear a Yankees baseball cap while only knowing that they stood for New York. In addition to McDonald’s, Apple, Starbucks, Netflix, and Tesla, there was something really powerful and basic about that:the idea that the United States stood for something good and powerful.
On 22 November 2013, I remember an old guy stopping me on the street and getting emotional, who said that 50 years ago today was one of the worst days of his life. As the American ambassador, I had no idea what he was talking about, but I realized that it was the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. The reason why I still get goosebumps from this is [that] it didn’t even occur to me as an American to acknowledge this anniversary—admittedly, I wasn’t alive at the time. This [event] only mattered to this man because America stood for a beacon of hope, openness, and opportunity. That is what has made America great, that sense of soft power, unlike this false definition of MAGA, [“Make America Great Again”], which I still do not understand. To answer your question directly, that is exactly what we are losing so quickly right now. It is depressing to see the damage that is done to our brand and our reputation by one man. The messages I get from Danish people—from soldiers who served alongside American troops, to real friends of mine, to people I have only received messages from on social media—all appreciate what I am doing but say that they refuse to travel to the United States right now, and I do not think it is safe for my child to study there on an F-1 visa.
I don’t recognize my country right now either, but it is my country, I love it with all my heart, and I am going to fight for it, but you Europeans don’t have to do that. Your action can be targeted boycotts, and I do not blame anyone for that, but it does break my heart when I think about how profound this 80-year relationship has been. My story is about Denmark, but this experience is by no means related to [just] Denmark, and extends to countries like Canada and across the rest of Europe.
Donald Trump has expressed interest in Greenland on multiple occasions. What do you believe motivates his interest in Greenland, and how should Denmark, Greenland, and the rest of Europe respond to this interest?
It is hard to know what Trump’s actual motivation is—I would never want to try to get inside of Donald Trump’s head. Two issues come up, which I understand concept[ually], but break down, and I will tell you why they are stupid.
Trump never offers specifics. He will say that, “we need Greenland for national security.” If you were to ask me if we need to pay more attention to Greenland from a national security standpoint, then I would say absolutely. Russian military build-up in the Arctic has been occurring since the end of World War [II] while we, NATO, are drawing down our Arctic positioning. We used to have 17 military bases on Greenland in the aftermath of the war, but we have scaled back considerably as other administrations have prioritized other parts of the world, such as the Middle East or Southeast Asia.
I take issue with the idea that these military objectives require U.S. ownership of Greenland. It defeats the entire purpose of what this Western alliance was supposed to achieve, which is an “all for one and one for all approach” where any ally under attack means that we are all under attack. If the United States is not happy with a risk from Russia or China through Greenland, the Danes and the Greenlanders would be happy to work with the United States to build up our military presence. If national security is really the issue at hand, then what is preventing you from doing everything that you need to do in Greenland to protect it and the United States? You can do everything that you need to do by engaging the Danes, Greenlanders, and NATO directly. This is a conversation that needs to be had between all Arctic and NATO states.
The other issue is economic security. There is a lot of economic opportunity in Greenland—mining, oil and gas, and tourism. Once again, there is no need to acquire Greenland in order to get that done. The point is that I understand these concepts. In fact, I understand them better than Donald Trump. I agree that the economic matter is a bit more difficult than people believe it is when you consider the climate that exists in that part of the world—lots of people have tried mining in Greenland before, but the elements are such that it makes it almost cost-prohibitive. That being said, the Greenlanders would love nothing more than more investment into Greenland.
To answer your question, I do not know why he wants Greenland because his arguments do not make any sense. The only logical conclusion that I can come to is that this is about American imperialism and American expansionism. In the same way that he [Trump] wants Canada to be part of the US and wants to see all of North America with a big American flag over it, [Trump wants to have control over Greenland]. Otherwise, his arguments do not hold any [weight] even if you drill down only a little. When people make the argument that other Presidents have tried to seize Greenland, like Harry Truman, we need to remember that Harry Truman only wanted Greenland because, in the aftermath of the war, where we were essentially occupying Greenland, there was no vehicle through which to defend Greenland. NATO was, in essence, the solution to what Harry Truman was looking for. That is why these arguments [by Trump] just make no sense, so I can only believe that there is something much more egocentric and authoritarian about his approach.
A range of theories attempt to explain Trump’s behavior. Some suggest that his threats are essentially an aggressive negotiation tactic, while others interpret his words literally. How should we interpret Trump's comments on the international stage, and how should countries like Denmark respond to them?
I feel very strongly about this. People either laugh at Donald Trump or try to manipulate him, and I think that is horribly misplaced right now. I understand both instincts because you will get him [Trump] to respond to you in the short term, if you give him an invitation to go visit King Charles as [the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister], Keir Starmer, did. I would say to the face of every European leader: he is not your friend. It is a sad reality to be faced with.
Every single thing that Trump has done, including the cases of Greenland, NATO, and the EU, should have led Europe to understand that this is a new administration of the United States, which means that if you are playing by a traditional European playbook in trying to counter Donald Trump, then you are playing checkers while he is playing chess.
I am not saying that he is outsmarting [Europe], that would be giving him too much credit, but he means what he says. I don’t know whether he thinks he can secure Greenland or not, but I guarantee you that if he sees an opportunity to go after it, then he will go after it. It is hard to see a world where military action against Greenland would happen since that is such an escalation, and I like to think that cooler heads would prevail in that instance. However, I believe one thing with all my heart: bullies only respond to strength—you need to punch back with equal strength. It is not fun, counter tariffs are not fun, but you cannot just wait [Trump] out on this since he will run all over you and will trash you publicly.
We are getting outsmarted by Putin and Xi in a way that is just extraordinary right now, and I put Europe in this bucket too, since they have an opportunity to stand up and lead right now. Xi is going to Southeast Asian countries that are skeptical of China and using Trump’s tariffs to drive a wedge between the United States and countries like Vietnam and Cambodia. Xi knows that Donald Trump is the biggest bully in the world and that he looks better in comparison, which should scare all Americans. There is some conversation about how the Koreans and Japanese are engaging with the Chinese due to American tariffs. The idea that Donald Trump has the ability to bring China, Japan, and Korea together is a scary prospect.
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, Trump has done everything that Vladimir Putin wants, and still Putin continues to kill children in Ukraine, while the rest of the world just sits back and watches. I want to tell Europeans that they cannot rely on [Trump]. The European bloc may not have the same military power as the United States but [its] economic might is real. If Europe can come together to create something sustainable that rivals the United States in economic and military strength, then that would be very important and would be good for the United States in the long run.
Returning to the question about opportunity from the present situation, this is an opportunity for Europe to get over centuries of strife and disagreement to unite together. There will always be differences on the domestic stage, but Europe could speak with one voice and very loudly when it comes to Putin and Xi.
Gifford spoke with Williamson on April 15, 2025. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
The views expressed in this piece are the interviewee's own and are not reflective of the views of the HIR.
