The Greenland Fiasco Stumbles to an End

Jesper Møller Sørensen, the Danish ambassador to Washington, projected an air of calm. He was serving hors d’oeuvres, including reindeer sausage and smoked salmon, at his residence, where American, Danish, and Greenlandic guests had gathered for a Wednesday event billed as “A Taste of the Arctic.” On the terrace, he told me that months-long discussions about the future of Greenland were heading in a good direction. But, he warned, the outcome would depend on whether one person could be swayed.

It was obvious that he was talking about President Trump, who has long coveted Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark. Trump has claimed that the United States needs the island for national security, at times declining to rule out using force to acquire it. When his rhetoric became more threatening earlier this year, the Danish armed forces flew emergency blood supplies and explosives to the island to prepare for a potential U.S. attack. The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warned that a U.S. invasion would mean that “everything ends” for NATO—something of an understatement for a scenario in which one founding member of the alliance attacks another.

[Read: Denmark’s army chief says he’s ready to defend Greenland]

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, in January, Trump stepped back from the brink, proclaiming the “framework of a future deal.” In the subsequent months, he returned to the topic in fits of pique, at one point arguing that Greenland “should be controlled by the United States, not Denmark.” Meanwhile, representatives from the United States, Denmark, and Greenland met to consider ways to bolster U.S. security interests on the island and fend off hostile powers in the Arctic region, namely Russia and China. Now the promised “future deal” appears to be here. It builds on a Cold War agreement between the U.S. and Denmark and includes no transfer of territory to the United States. Instead, it envisions the kind of expanded U.S.-military access and multilateral cooperation that leaders from Denmark and Greenland said was available all along, and doesn’t threaten to blow up the security architecture that the U.S. has helped maintain for nearly 80 years.

Earlier tonight, Trump wrote on social media that Washington “will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America.” He also said that U.S. adversaries will be barred from having bases on Greenland or making sensitive investments in the island, which is rich in minerals and other raw materials. A Cold War–era agreement signed by Denmark and the United States already gave Washington broad latitude to conduct military operations in the territory, and the U.S. Space Force currently has a base on the island’s northwest coast. The United States once stationed thousands of soldiers across multiple bases and radar sites, but it shrank its presence in the decades after the Cold War.

Current and former U.S. officials told me that one area of concern in Washington was the possibility that Greenland, not party to that 1951 agreement, might vote for independence or otherwise alter its political allegiances, and then proceed to restrict U.S. infrastructure and access. The new agreement will also include Greenland and bind all three parties to a more permanent U.S. presence; the U.S. will, among other things, have the ability to build additional bases and use the island’s airspace. Trump wrote, “We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many.”

U.S. and European officials told me that the agreement will affirm the right of Greenland’s population to determine its own future. It is also expected to include language barring non-NATO bases as well as mechanisms for blocking Chinese and Russian investments. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose deputies played a leading role in the discussions, hailed the agreement. “This deal permanently and completely addresses our national security concerns in Greenland,” he said in a statement.  

Danish officials said that the three parties will sign the agreement at the United Nations General Assembly next week and that it will enter into force after necessary parliamentary procedures. Greenland’s premier, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said that the accord “recognizes Greenland’s interests and our place in the international cooperation.” Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, said that the agreement is a boon for NATO and Europe as well. The statements were positive but restrained, reflecting the pain inflicted by this saga. Europeans found it difficult to decipher Trump’s motives—or to understand whether they were about to be attacked or simply trolled. One day, there was menacing rhetoric on Truth Social; the next, memes on X of penguins.

[Read: The hole in Trump’s rationale for acquiring Greenland]

It was already late at night in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, when Trump announced the deal. But a reporter from Denmark’s public broadcaster observed politicians going in and out of the government building, reflecting fervent interest in the American president’s designs on their land. Washington may have achieved its security objectives. But it has lost something else: trust among its hosts. “Goodbye, U.S.A.,” one resident said.