US President Donald Trump announced Wednesday a “framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland,” signaling a potential shift in his pursuit of greater control over the strategically important Arctic territory.
The announcement followed days of escalating tensions, including threats of economic sanctions against eight U.S. allies who opposed his earlier plans regarding the semi-autonomous Danish territory. But what exactly does this “framework” entail, and will it be palatable to both Denmark and Greenland, both of which have firmly rejected any relinquishing of sovereignty?
What’s Being Said About This New Framework?
Trump made the announcement via his social media platform after discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland,” he stated.
He offered no specifics, indicating that talks would continue. Rutte, however, clarified that the issue of Danish sovereignty over Greenland was not discussed during their meeting.
Denmark maintains that any agreement must be negotiated jointly between Greenland, Denmark, and the United States. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen affirmed that while Denmark is open to discussing “everything political; security, investments, economy,” “we cannot negotiate on our sovereignty,” adding that she had been informed this position was understood.
Aaja Chenmitz, one of two Greenlandic lawmakers in the Danish parliament, emphasized, “Nato in no case has the right to negotiate on anything without us, Greenland. Nothing about us without us.”
UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper expressed hope that the development would lead to “the direct discussions that Denmark had asked for, for Denmark, Greenland and the United States on the way forward around Greenland, protecting Greenland’s sovereignty.”
What Could This Deal Actually Look Like?
The insistence from both Denmark and Greenland that sovereignty is non-negotiable appears to be a direct response to reports in the New York Times, which cited anonymous officials suggesting a potential scenario where Denmark would cede sovereignty over limited areas of Greenland for the construction of U.S. military bases.
This arrangement would mirror the situation in Cyprus, where the UK controls two military bases.
Akrotiri and Dhekelia have been under UK sovereignty since Cyprus gained independence in 1960, and remain British territory despite the passage of time and treaty modifications.
Cooper did not confirm the specifics of the framework agreement but noted “some very practical discussions about Greenland’s security, whilst being very, very clear that Greenland sovereignty is not up for negotiation.”
Trump has previously justified pursuing control of Greenland by citing the perceived threat of Chinese and Russian vessels in the region, a claim that Denmark’s Arctic commander has dismissed as unfounded “today.”
NATO allies have sought to reassure the U.S. that they will enhance security in the Arctic, with Rutte telling the Reuters news agency on Thursday that the framework deal would also require such contributions.
“I have no doubt we can do this quite fast. Certainly I would hope for 2026, I hope even early in 2026.”
The UK has proposed establishing an “Arctic Sentry,” according to Cooper, modeled after the “Baltic sentry” – a NATO mission to increase surveillance of ships in the Baltic Sea following damage to critical undersea cables.
Will Anything Short of Full Control Satisfy Trump?
The U.S. has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the aftermath of World War II.
A 1951 agreement with Denmark allows the U.S. to deploy troops to Greenland without limitations. Currently, over 100 U.S. military personnel are permanently stationed at the Pituffik base in the island’s northwest. Discussions surrounding a deal may therefore center on renegotiating this existing agreement, according to U.S. officials.
While the U.S. operates military bases in numerous countries, including Germany, these do not equate to sovereign territory.
Trump has repeatedly stated that a lease agreement for Greenland is insufficient.
“Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership, you don’t defend leases. And we’ll have to defend Greenland,” he said two weeks ago.
He even threatened the use of force to acquire the island before reversing course in Davos, a move welcomed by his NATO allies.
NATO, founded in 1949, operates on the principle of collective defense – an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all. Denmark made it clear that a military assault would effectively end the transatlantic alliance, with the U.S. as its major partner.
NATO’s Secretary-General has faced criticism for his effusive praise of Trump, at one point referring to him as “daddy.”
“You can always take Donald Trump at his word. That is why I really think we are very glad to have him,” Rutte said on Thursday.
The Danish prime minister stated she had been in constant contact with Rutte both before and after Trump’s announcement, but it remains unclear whether Danish input influenced Trump’s latest shift.
Why Is Greenland a Priority for Trump?
Trump has sought to purchase Greenland from Denmark since the beginning of his presidency – and he is not the first U.S. president to explore such a possibility.
Trump argues that the U.S. needs Greenland to safeguard against potential attacks from Russia and China.
He has also linked Greenland to his vision for a “Golden Dome” defense system, intended to protect the U.S. from missile attacks, suggesting European allies could collaborate on this project.
Beyond its strategic location, the U.S. has highlighted Greenland’s substantial – and largely untapped – reserves of rare earth minerals, essential components in technologies like mobile phones and electric vehicles.
While Trump has not explicitly focused on Greenland’s resources, he believes U.S. control of the island “puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security and to minerals.”
“It’s a deal that’s forever.”
