President Donald Trump has stepped back from his earlier threats to take over Greenland by force and impose tariffs on European allies. Instead, he now claims to have reached a “Greenland agreement” with NATO over Greenland and the broader Arctic region. However, the details remain murky, and leaders from Denmark and Greenland are expressing concerns about being left out of critical negotiations. Here’s what we know so far about Trump’s Greenland agreement and why the president appears to have backed down from his earlier aggressive stance.
Trump’s New Greenland Agreement: Access Without Ownership
President Donald Trump said his discussions with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte in Davos resulted in a Greenland agreement giving the U.S. “total access” to Greenland. He stressed that the agreement benefits both the United States and NATO allies but did not confirm whether it includes acquiring the island outright.
Sources indicate the Greenland agreement focuses on strengthening security in Greenland and the wider Arctic rather than transferring sovereignty from Denmark. Reports suggest it could update the 1951 U.S.-Denmark “Greenland Defense Agreement,” allow U.S. missile defense systems on the island, and prevent Russia and China from gaining influence in the region.
Arctic tensions ease after Trump and NATO chief discuss Greenland framework
NATO officials have also discussed limited U.S. sovereignty over small areas of Greenland for military purposes, similar to British bases in Cyprus, though it remains unclear if this is part of the Greenland agreement.
The deal also reportedly aims to restrict non-NATO countries from mining Greenland’s rare-earth minerals, which are critical for technology and defense industries. Despite Trump claiming the U.S. is “getting everything we want at no cost,” details of the Greenland agreement remain vague. The U.S. already maintains a missile defense station with around 150 personnel on the island.
Denmark and Greenland Push Back Against the Agreement
Denmark and Greenland are not entirely on board with the idea of any U.S. sovereignty over the island under the Greenland agreement. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen emphasized that Denmark’s sovereignty is non-negotiable and that Rutte cannot negotiate on Denmark’s behalf. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen echoed this sentiment, calling sovereignty a “red line” and stating that he does not favor giving the U.S. ownership of military bases.
NATO allies limit intelligence sharing with US over Trump Greenland threats
Greenlandic politicians have expressed frustration at being left out of discussions surrounding the Greenland agreement. Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic member of the Danish parliament, described Trump’s announcement as “completely absurd” and stated, “Nothing about us, without us.”
The situation highlights a clear disconnect: while Trump and NATO leaders are framing the Greenland agreement as a strategic win, the local leaders who actually govern Greenland have yet to be fully consulted or agree to the terms.
Why Trump Backed Down From Full Greenland Acquisition
Trump’s earlier statements had been strikingly aggressive. Just last month, he suggested that the U.S. might acquire Greenland “the hard way” if Denmark refused to cooperate. He even threatened to impose tariffs on European allies who opposed the Greenland agreement.
However, multiple factors appear to have influenced his sudden shift. Public opinion in the U.S. shows overwhelming opposition to using military force to acquire Greenland. A Yahoo/YouGov poll found that 62% of Americans opposed such action, while only 14% supported it. Even among Republicans, more people opposed intervention than supported it.
Economic concerns may have played a role as well. When Trump threatened Europe with tariffs over Greenland, the U.S. stock market experienced a significant drop before recovering once he backed down.
NATO at a crossroads: Experts warn Greenland distraction could undermine Ukraine war effort
Trump framed his compromise as a strategic victory, suggesting that the Greenland agreement provides the U.S. with “everything we needed” without the high cost or political backlash of outright annexation. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called it proof that Trump is a “Dealmaker in Chief,” emphasizing that the president’s aggressive rhetoric and tariff threats were simply negotiating tactics to secure U.S. interests in the Arctic.
While the details of the Greenland agreement remain vague, it appears clear that Trump is shifting from a stance of conquest to one of strategic influence—securing military access and limiting rival powers in the Arctic while leaving Danish sovereignty intact.