The Greenland deal

The United States has entered a security agreement with Greenland and Denmark that gives America a bigger say in the Arctic territory’s affairs and expands its military presence in the country. Trump said the deal gives the U.S. permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland. Additionally, according to Trump, from now on, no U.S. adversary can ever have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.

Trump infuriated Greenland and its allies in NATO with demands for U.S. ownership of the island earlier this year. The deal outlined by Trump appears to fall short of that desire. Trump has argued that greater U.S. control of the island is necessary to ensure it does not fall into the hands of China or Russia amid growing competition over the Arctic. Global warmer will change the areas around Greenland and the island itself both in terms of trading routes and extraction of desired products as well as increased geopolitical importance.  

“We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many,” Trump wrote in his post. “We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction.” A State Department official said the deal completely and permanently satisfies all U.S. demands surrounding the Arctic island. 

Greenland and Denmark issued a joint statement Friday saying an agreement with the U.S. is expected to be signed next week during the high-level summit of the United Nations General Assembly. Greenland’s and Denmark’s parliaments will also have to approve the agreement, the statement read.

In a later post to the social platform X on Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterated Trump’s assertion that the U.S. military would immediately begin to develop “a large military presence” in Greenland, referring to the U.S. Northern Command, the military arm that oversees operation in North America.

Denmark and Greenland’s leaders appeared cautiously optimistic a day after President Trump announced a new security deal that would bolster U.S. military presence in a NATO ally’s semiautonomous territory. Denmark and the U.S. already have a long-standing security agreement that has allowed the U.S. to deploy forces in Greenland.

The Danish government seems to be pleased to gain some benefits from a future U.S. presence. Bottom line is that Denmark seems to have old-fashioned colonial thinking in terms of Greenland. They want to control it but does not have the resources it requires. Greenland’s government leader, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, a Danish puppet, said he was happy about the deal, which he said benefits not only our collective security, but also the continued development here in the country. A NATO spokesperson said the military alliance welcomed the deal, which would help advance security, stability and cooperation in this vital region. The U.S. still operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, built after the U.S. and Denmark signed the Defense of Greenland Treaty in 1951. It supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO. U.S., Greenlandic and Danish officials had quietly negotiated for months behind the scenes, searching for solutions to address some of Mr. Trump’s security concerns about a territory of roughly 56,000 residents.

With the announcement of the pact, Trump is able to tout a foreign policy achievement ahead of the midterm elections in the U.S. After his return to the White House, Trump had called on Denmark to sell the island to the U.S., while insisting Greenland is crucial for U.S. security. He pointedly would not rule out taking the island by military force, even though Denmark is a NATO ally of the U.S. Denmark and Greenland repeatedly said the island is not for sale and condemned reports of the U.S. gathering intelligence there. The U.S. push for Greenland was also fiercely opposed by Russia and much of Europe.

At this same time as this might be a step in the right direction, there are several substantive arguments in favor of Greenland becoming independent from Denmark. They are primarily about self-determination, identity, political control, and Greenland’s long-term economic development. The strongest argument is that Greenlanders should ultimately decide their own political status.

Greenland already has extensive self-government, and the 2009 Self-Government Act explicitly recognizes the Greenlandic people as having a right to self-determination under international law. It also establishes a pathway toward independence: a decision by the Greenlandic people would lead to negotiations between Greenland and Denmark. If Greenland has developed its own political institutions and considers itself a distinct people, it should have the same right to determine its sovereignty as other peoples.

Greenland’s relationship with Denmark has a colonial history. Greenland was incorporated into the Danish realm and only gradually acquired home rule in 1979 and self-government in 2009. Supporters of independence argue that self-government is not the same as sovereignty. Denmark still retains authority over areas including foreign policy, defense and security, citizenship, and monetary policy. The independence argument is that Greenlanders should ultimately decide how their resources are developed and who benefits from them.

Greenland has a distinct Inuit identity, language and culture. Greenlandic is the official language, and Greenland’s political institutions are separate from those of Denmark. Independence supporters therefore argue that political sovereignty would reinforce Greenlandic language, Inuit cultural identity, Greenlandic institutions, indigenous political representation and control over education and cultural policy. This argument is also connected to historical grievances involving Danish brutal colonial assimilation policies and other treatment of Greenlanders. Recent reporting has highlighted those tensions, including Denmark’s 2025 apology concerning forced birth-control practices. An independent Greenland could establish itself as a small Arctic state, rather than being represented internationally as part of the Kingdom of Denmark. That could give Nuuk the ability to develop its own diplomatic relationships and potentially participate independently in international institutions. Greenland already participates actively in Nordic cooperation and Arctic institutions, so independence would build on an existing international presence. The U.S. agreement seems like a step in the right direction, in particular a good move for the U.S., and this will hopefully lead to decolonization from the Danish regime and to a free, independent Greenland.