Greenland and the United States: what the agreement signed by Donald Trump and Denmark establishes, why it is strategic and what Washington gains

The signing ceremony coincided with the celebration of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The agreement was signed by the president of the United States, donald trump; the danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen; and the Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen.

After the signing, the American president said that it was the beginning of a relationship “fantastic” and beneficial “for Europe, for the United States and for everyone.”

“We will immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence in appropriate locations.””Trump added.

Frederiksen stated that the agreement was “good for the United States, Denmark and Greenland”as well as for Europe and NATO.

“Mr. President, you have been very clear. You do not want the adversaries to get too close”Frederiksen said. “I totally agree, and with this pact they will not do it”he added.

While Nielsen declared that a situation was opening up in which “everyone wins”. He added that “This agreement reflects that we understand our responsibility and act accordingly.”

Since his return to the White House in January 2025, trump has insisted that the United States must control Greenland for strategic reasons.

But the pressure had already been coming even from the end of his first term. In 2019, he proposed buying the island from Denmarka proposal that Copenhagen rejected.

The initiative returned with force at the end of the 2024when Trump claimed that US “ownership and control” of Greenland was a necessity for national security.

In January of 2025the president went further when he refused to rule out the use of military or economic force to take over the island and threatened to impose heavy tariffs on Denmark if he did not accept their claims.

Meanwhile, Denmark and Greenland responded that the island was not for sale.

Greenland is a autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmarkwith extensive self-government since 2009, although Copenhagen maintains key competencies such as defense and foreign policy. It has about 56,000 inhabitants and about 80% of its surface is covered by ice.

Its strategic importance lies in its position between North America, Europe and the Arctic. Its location also makes it a key point in the face of the opening of new sea routes due to the thaw and a relevant piece of the military competition between the United States, Russia and China for strategic control of the region.

Added to this is his potential in mineral resourcesincluding rare earth and other critical minerals such as graphite, niobium, tantalum, copper, nickel and platinum group metals; There are also estimates of important oil and gas reserves, although much of these riches are not yet commercially exploited due to climatic, geographical and infrastructure difficulties.

The keys to the agreement

The United States has maintained a military presence in Greenland since 1951when he signed the Greenland Defense Agreement with Denmark. Under that pact, the then Thule air base, today called Pituffik Space Basein the north of the island.

Now, after the agreement signed on Tuesday, Washington will be able to establish military bases in Narsarsuaq (south) and Mestersvig (west). It may also create other facilities after consultation with Denmark and Greenland.

The US military presence in Greenland will have no expiration dateas signed.

American forces They will have the right to move around Greenland by land, sea and airand its aircraft will be able to fly over and land anywhere in the territory. Their ships will also have ample access to territorial waters.

The agreement prevents non-NATO states from establishing military installations or maintaining a permanent military presence in Greenlandunless authorized by all parties. This is interpreted as a blockade of Russia, China.

Under the terms of the agreement, “States or investors from a State that is not a member of NATO, a partner of NATO or a Member State of the European Union may not have control, significant influence or access to non-public information that may constitute a threat to national security or public order within particularly sensitive sectors or activities in the territory of Greenland, including territorial waters.”

Thus, Washington, Copenhagen and Nuuk undertake to prevent espionage activities and protect areas close to US installations.

The text recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of Greenlanders. But even if Greenland decides to become independent, the agreement remains in force.

The agreement has no expiration date and can only be modified by consent of the three parties, so the United States is guaranteed its presence in Greenland indefinitely.

“The agreement goes far beyond defense”

For Francesco Tuccidirector of the Communication and Journalism degree at the Peruvian University of Applied Sciences (UPC), The scope of the agreement widely transcends the field of defense. He maintains that one of the most relevant aspects is that The United States may influence foreign investments in strategic sectors of the island, especially those from countries that do not belong to NATO.

He emphasizes that foreign companies that want to invest in Greenland They will have to go through a filter when they come from countries outside the Atlantic Alliance, and this would give the United States the ability to block certain operations.

“The United States can not only build military bases in Greenland, but it can put a trade veto”he states.

Tucci sees the deal as reflecting a broader shift in U.S. policy: the incorporation of the economy within the logic of national security.

“It is evident, very clear. The economy has been securitized”points out the analyst. Considers that Washington seeks to prevent China from increasing its business and economic presence in Greenland.

He insists that the agreement achieves access to markets, trade routes and business projects on the island.

Tucci indicates that another element that must be considered is the transformation of the Arctic as a consequence of climate change. It says that the retreat of glaciers and the reduction of ice could progressively facilitate the opening of new sea routes in the northern hemisphere.

For the analyst, These new trade routes will increase the strategic value of Greenland.

Is this a “de facto annexation”?

READ ALSO

Popular Force | Keiko Fujimori | municipal elections | rains | Villa Maria del Triunfo | floods |

The White House prevents access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico despite a court order allowing them entry

While the agreement formally maintains the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark over Greenland and recognizes the right of self-determination of its inhabitants, Tucci considers that The indefinite nature of the pact and the prerogatives that the United States obtains raise questions about the effective exercise of that sovereignty..

“Indeed, it seems to imply a limitation on the exercise of sovereignty”, he states.

But it specifies that this limitation derives from an agreement accepted and signed by Denmark and the country itself. Greenland.

Therefore, it is considered more appropriate to speak of a strong US interference in Danish sovereignty than a formal annexation.

“I see more (…) a strong interference in the sovereignty of Denmark to be able to control a very important geographical area in Trump’s doctrine”, points out.

“Denmark has given in”

For Tucci, The agreement is the result of strong pressure exerted by Trump. It states that Denmark chose to accept American conditions to avoid a major conflict with an ally.

“Denmark has probably agreed to these conditions to avoid the total loss of Greenland or international trouble with the United States.”he maintains.

Indicates that The result is a victory for Trump because it allows him to achieve the objective that he has been pursuing for years, although through negotiation and not through military force.

“It was what Trump wanted and he got it”, he states.

But he emphasizes that in the negotiation Washington imposed the enormous power difference that exists between both countries. “Clearly you cannot compare Denmark with a great power like the United States. “Denmark had to give in.”.