COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Denmark has welcomed a proposed agreement with the United States that would give Washington a broader and potentially permanent role in Greenland’s security, while Copenhagen and Greenland insist that the deal does not transfer sovereignty over the Arctic territory.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced the agreement on Sept. 18, describing it as a deal that gives the United States “permanent control” over Greenland’s security. Danish and Greenlandic leaders subsequently confirmed that an agreement had been reached in principle and said it is expected to be formally signed on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said the agreement could replace a period of uncertainty with a binding arrangement designed to strengthen security in the Arctic and North Atlantic while respecting Denmark’s stated “red lines.” Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen likewise said the arrangement recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Danish Kingdom and the right of Greenland’s people to self-determination.
What the deal would change
The agreement comes after months of tension between Washington and Copenhagen over Trump’s repeated demands for greater U.S. control of Greenland.
According to U.S. officials cited by international media, the proposed arrangement would prevent non-NATO countries from establishing military bases or deploying forces in Greenland and would restrict sensitive investments by countries regarded by Washington as security threats, including Russia and China. U.S. officials have also described provisions covering expanded American military access, basing and overflight rights.
Trump has said the United States will begin expanding its military presence on the island. Greenland already hosts the U.S. Pituffik Space Base in the northwest, a strategically important facility involved in missile warning and space-related operations.
The U.S. State Department has argued that the arrangement would prevent China and Russia from establishing military footholds or making investments in sensitive sectors of Greenland without American approval.
Greenland’s sovereignty remains a key issue
Despite Trump’s description of “permanent control” over security, Denmark and Greenland have stressed that the agreement does not amount to an American takeover.
Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the arrangement recognises Greenland’s interests and its role in international cooperation, while Danish officials have maintained that the territory’s sovereignty remains intact.
That distinction is significant because Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own government and parliament. The island’s population is roughly 57,000.
The proposed agreement therefore represents a major expansion of the U.S. security role without, according to the information released so far, transferring ownership of Greenland to Washington. The Los Angeles Times reported that the pact does not cede territory to the United States and described it as an expansion of Washington’s security role rather than an annexation agreement.
The details are still under wraps
One of the biggest uncertainties is that the full text of the agreement has not yet been publicly released.
International reports say important questions remain unanswered, including the precise size of any expanded U.S. military presence and the extent of Washington’s authority over military infrastructure and sensitive investment.
That lack of publicly available text has led to differing descriptions of what the agreement actually changes.
The Washington Post reported that people familiar with the negotiations viewed some of Trump’s claims about the arrangement as overstated, while the BBC reported U.S. officials describing provisions that would provide Washington with permanent access, basing and overflight rights.
The existing U.S.-Danish defence framework already gives Washington substantial military access to Greenland. A 1951 defence agreement, updated in 2004, provides the United States with broad rights to station forces there. Analysts cited by the Los Angeles Times and The Straits Times have therefore noted that some elements of the new arrangement may formalise or expand existing American capabilities rather than create an entirely new security relationship.
Why Greenland matters to Washington
Greenland’s strategic importance extends far beyond its size.
The world’s largest island sits between North America and Europe and occupies a critical position in the Arctic and North Atlantic. Its geography makes it important for monitoring missile and aircraft activity, protecting North Atlantic routes and tracking developments involving Russia.
Greenland also contains deposits of rare-earth and other minerals that are considered strategically important for modern technologies. The island’s resources have become an additional factor in the wider geopolitical competition surrounding the Arctic.
As Arctic sea routes become increasingly accessible because of climate change, competition among the United States, Russia, China and other Arctic stakeholders has intensified.
A deal born from a major NATO dispute
The agreement follows a period of unusually sharp tension between Washington and Denmark, two NATO allies.
Trump had repeatedly argued that Greenland was essential to U.S. national security and had previously raised the possibility of acquiring the territory. At the height of the dispute, his comments about potentially using force alarmed Denmark and other European allies.
The latest agreement appears to shift the confrontation toward a negotiated security framework.
NATO has also increased its focus on Arctic security. The alliance has launched measures aimed at strengthening its presence in the region, reflecting growing concerns about military activity and strategic competition in the High North.
What happens next?
The immediate next step is the expected signing of the agreement during the UN General Assembly in New York.
But signing would not necessarily mean every provision takes effect immediately. Danish officials have said the agreement must go through the necessary parliamentary procedures before entering into force.
For now, the central question is not whether the United States will gain ownership of Greenland — the publicly described agreement does not do that — but how much additional security authority Washington will obtain and how those powers will operate alongside Greenlandic self-government and Danish sovereignty.
Until the full agreement is published, several of the most consequential details remain unresolved.
The next stage of the Greenland dispute may therefore depend less on Trump’s announcement and more on the actual legal text that Denmark, Greenland and the United States ultimately sign.
