Date: September 19, 2026
Reporter: Emilly Jordan
Denmark and Greenland have said a proposed security agreement with the United States will not compromise Greenland’s sovereignty, after U.S. President Donald Trump described the arrangement as giving Washington “permanent control” over the Arctic island’s security.
The United States, Denmark and Greenland announced late Friday that they had reached an agreement under which Washington would be able to significantly expand its military presence in Greenland, while preventing U.S. adversaries from establishing military bases or other strategic footholds on the territory. The precise terms of the agreement, however, have not yet been made public.
The proposed agreement follows months of diplomatic tension after Trump repeatedly expressed his desire for greater U.S. control over Greenland. His comments, including previous statements about acquiring the territory, generated concern in Greenland, Denmark and other European countries and created friction within the NATO alliance.
Trump said on Friday that the agreement would give the United States permanent authority to protect and defend Greenland's security. He also said countries considered adversaries of the United States would not be permitted to establish military bases, maintain military forces or make sensitive investments on the island without Washington's written approval.
The statements raised questions in Denmark and Greenland about the meaning of the proposed arrangement and whether Washington would receive powers extending beyond military access. The governments of Denmark and Greenland subsequently emphasized that the agreement does not transfer sovereignty over Greenland to the United States.
Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the proposed agreement recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Danish Kingdom as well as the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination. His statement was intended to make clear that expanded American security responsibilities would not amount to a transfer of ownership or sovereignty.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen similarly said the agreement should strengthen security in the Arctic and North Atlantic while respecting Denmark's established red lines. He expressed hope that the arrangement would bring an end to months of uncertainty surrounding the future of Greenland and the relationship between Copenhagen and Washington.
The agreement is expected to be formally signed during the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week. Until the text is made public, significant questions remain about the scale of the proposed U.S. military presence, the precise rights granted to American forces and whether the agreement gives Washington any formal influence over Greenland's foreign policy or natural resources.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and has its own government and parliament, while Copenhagen retains responsibility for areas including foreign affairs and defence. Greenland has also maintained its right to determine its own future, including the possibility of eventual independence from Denmark.
The security agreement therefore comes at a sensitive moment for Greenland, where the question of independence has remained an important political issue. Greenlandic authorities have sought greater autonomy while also emphasizing that decisions about the territory's future must ultimately respect the wishes of its population.
The strategic importance of Greenland is a major factor behind the negotiations. The island occupies a critical position between North America and Europe and is located in the Arctic, a region that has become increasingly important to the United States, Russia, China, Denmark and other countries because of military, economic and environmental developments.
Greenland's location also gives it significance for missile-warning systems, Arctic surveillance and control of air and sea routes. The United States already has a military installation at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, which plays an important role in American missile-warning and space operations.
Under the proposed agreement, the United States would gain greater ability to develop its military presence while Denmark and Greenland would seek assurances that their sovereignty remains intact. The arrangement would also prevent countries such as Russia and China from establishing military facilities on Greenland or making sensitive strategic investments without U.S. approval, according to Trump's description of the deal.
The restrictions on Russia and China reflect broader concerns about competition in the Arctic. As the region becomes more accessible because of climate change and changing sea conditions, major powers have increased their interest in Arctic shipping routes, minerals, energy resources and military positioning.
NATO has welcomed the proposed agreement. A NATO spokesperson said the arrangement could contribute to security, stability and cooperation in the strategically important Arctic and North Atlantic region.
The agreement also appears to have eased some of the diplomatic pressure that had developed between Washington and Copenhagen. Trump's earlier threats concerning Greenland had created an unusual dispute between two NATO allies, with Denmark repeatedly emphasizing that Greenland was not for sale and that its territorial integrity had to be respected.
The diplomatic crisis intensified in January when Trump's comments about Greenland's strategic importance and U.S. ambitions generated strong reactions in Denmark and Greenland. The subsequent negotiations were aimed at finding a way to address Washington's security concerns without transferring sovereignty over the territory.
Reaction within Greenland remains mixed. Some residents of Nuuk have expressed skepticism about an expanded American military role and concern that closer U.S. involvement could eventually undermine Greenland's autonomy. Others have emphasized the importance of NATO cooperation and the security benefits that could come from stronger defence arrangements.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about military bases. It also involves questions about Greenland's identity, its relationship with Denmark, its aspirations for self-government and independence, and the competing strategic interests of major powers in the Arctic.
Experts have also warned that the wording of the final agreement will be critical. If Washington receives only expanded military access and defence responsibilities, the arrangement would be substantially different from an agreement granting the United States formal authority over Greenland's government, resources or foreign policy. Those details remain unclear until the full agreement is released.
For Denmark, maintaining sovereignty over Greenland has been a central condition throughout the negotiations. Copenhagen has repeatedly rejected any suggestion that Greenland could be sold or transferred to another country. The latest statements from Danish and Greenlandic leaders indicate that this position remains unchanged.
For the United States, the agreement could provide a framework for strengthening its military and strategic position in the Arctic without formally acquiring Greenland. Trump's description of the arrangement as providing permanent American control over security indicates the importance Washington places on preventing rival powers from gaining strategic access to the territory.
For Greenland, the agreement represents a delicate balance between increased security cooperation and protection of its sovereignty and right to self-determination. Prime Minister Nielsen's statement suggests that Greenland's government views recognition of those principles as an essential part of the arrangement.
The agreement is not yet fully defined publicly, and its final legal terms will be important in determining how the new security relationship operates. Denmark and Greenland hope the document will establish clear limits while allowing greater cooperation with the United States and NATO.
As the United Nations General Assembly approaches, attention will turn to the formal signing and the publication of the agreement's details. Until then, the central message from Copenhagen and Nuuk is that expanded U.S. security involvement does not amount to a transfer of Greenlandic sovereignty.
The proposed deal could mark a significant shift in the security architecture of the Arctic, but its ultimate impact will depend on how the agreement is implemented and how Greenland, Denmark, the United States and other NATO members interpret their respective responsibilities.