Trump Announces Security Agreement with Denmark and Greenland, Claiming “Permanent Control”, While Both Nations Affirm Sovereignty

President Donald Trump announced a new agreement with Denmark and Greenland granting the US “permanent control over security” in the territory, a claim disputed by both nations who insist Greenland’s sovereignty will be maintained. The agreement, details of which remain largely unknown, comes after years of Trump expressing interest in acquiring greater control over Greenland, including past proposals to purchase the territory. While Trump frames the deal as securing the region against adversaries like Russia and China, Denmark and Greenland emphasize the agreement recognizes their self-determination.

Trump stated the agreement, dubbed an “Infinite Life” pact, will prevent any US adversary from establishing a military presence or making significant investments in Greenland without US approval. However, the US military already possesses extensive access to Greenland under a treaty dating back to the 1950s, and currently represents the largest group of Americans in the territory. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen affirmed the agreement respects Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination, suggesting it does not involve annexation, a prospect Trump has repeatedly threatened.

Trump first floated the idea of annexing Greenland in 2019, citing strategic importance and resource potential, including rare earth minerals and oil reserves. Seventeen days ago, US-based Greenland Mines purchased the Sarfartoq Rare Earths Project in southwest Greenland for over $35 million. Trump has previously claimed Greenland is “surrounded” by Russian and Chinese ships, and has not ruled out using force or economic coercion to gain control. Despite his interest, Trump has at times confused Greenland with Iceland and admitted to not having spoken with any Greenlandic citizens, even as thousands protested his threats in early 2026.

While Trump portrays the agreement as a new assertion of US control, Denmark and Greenland both claim victory, asserting the deal protects their sovereignty. The arrangement’s practical impact remains unclear, given existing US access and the stated commitment to Greenland’s self-governance.

Where they differ

• Mother Jones emphasized Trump’s past threats of annexation and his focus on resource control, while Channel 4 News focused on the conflicting claims of ‘permanent control’ versus maintained sovereignty.
• Mother Jones provided more detail on the recent $35 million investment by a US mining company, while Channel 4 News did not mention this.
• Mother Jones reported on Trump’s past confusion between Greenland and Iceland, and his admission of not speaking to Greenlanders, details absent from the Channel 4 News report.

What is not yet known

• The specific details of the agreement remain undisclosed, leaving the precise scope of US security control undefined.
• The extent to which the agreement alters existing US access to Greenland, given the pre-existing treaty, is not clarified.

Background

• Donald Trump first publicly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland in 2019, proposing a purchase of the territory [Fact Refinery, 2026-09-18].
• A pre-existing treaty dating back to the 1950s already grants the US extensive access to Greenland for military purposes [Fact Refinery, 2026-09-20].
• US-based Greenland Mines recently invested over $35 million in the Sarfartoq Rare Earths Project in southwest Greenland seventeen days prior to this announcement [Fact Refinery, 2026-09-21].
• Denmark and Greenland have parliamentary procedures that must be completed before any agreement can be fully enacted [Fact Refinery, 2026-09-18].

Our reading

Our reading is that this agreement is largely a rhetorical victory for President Trump, allowing him to claim expanded control over Greenland while simultaneously being presented as respecting the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland. The repeated emphasis from all parties on maintaining Greenland’s self-determination suggests a careful negotiation to manage perceptions, despite Trump’s claims of “permanent control”. The lack of specific details regarding the agreement’s practical impact, coupled with the existing US security presence, leads us to believe this deal may be more symbolic than substantive.

What to watch

• The signing of the agreement at the United Nations General Assembly, to see if the finalized text aligns with the stated positions of all three nations [UN General Assembly website].
• Parliamentary votes in both Denmark and Greenland, to determine if the agreement will be ratified and legally enforced [Danish Parliament website, Greenlandic Parliament website].
• Any changes in US military presence or investment in Greenland over the next six months, to assess the practical impact of the deal [US Department of Defense press releases].

Was this useful? 👍 0 👎 0

---

Read the original coverage