US President Donald Trump has spent his second term arguing (along with arguing with every country on tariffs) that Greenland is strategically vital to American security. What began as his controversial proposal to acquire the Arctic island has now evolved into something more concrete, a new security agreement with Denmark and Greenland that gives Washington expanded military access while leaving Greenland under Danish sovereignty.
Trump announced the agreement on September 18, 2026, saying it gives the United States “permanent control” over Greenland’s security and allows Washington to address its wider security requirements on the island. Full details remain limited, and the agreement still requires parliamentary approval in Denmark and Greenland.
Importantly, the deal does not make Greenland part of the United States. Danish and Greenlandic leaders have stressed that the agreement recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination.
What does the deal actually do?
According to US officials, Washington will receive permanent access and overflight rights and can expand its military presence on the island. The agreement is also designed to prevent countries considered US adversaries from establishing military bases or making sensitive investments in Greenland without American approval.
That is significant because the US already has a military installation in Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base, in the northwest of the island. The United States has broad military rights in Greenland under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark, including rights relating to bases, aircraft and military movements.
The new arrangement therefore appears to achieve an important part of Trump’s objective without formally changing Greenland’s ownership.
Why is Greenland so important?
The first reason is geography. Greenland sits between North America and Europe and occupies a crucial position in the Arctic. As Arctic sea ice retreats, the region is becoming increasingly important for military activity, shipping and surveillance. Greenland also sits along strategic routes relevant to monitoring Russian naval and submarine activity in the North Atlantic and Arctic.
The island’s location also makes it important for missile-warning and defence systems. The existing US base at Pituffik plays a role in missile warning, space surveillance and monitoring activity in the Arctic.
Trump has repeatedly presented the issue primarily as a national-security concern, arguing that Russia and China could increase their presence in the Arctic and that the US needs greater control to prevent adversaries from gaining a foothold.
Greenland’s minerals
Greenland also possesses potentially valuable deposits of critical minerals, as well as other natural resources. These could become increasingly important as the US and its allies try to reduce dependence on China for rare earth minerals.
However, Trump has repeatedly insisted that his primary motivation is security rather than minerals. Nevertheless, everyone identifies the island’s minerals as a major factor behind Trump’s interest.
Why has Trump been so persistent
Trump first proposed buying Greenland during his first presidency and revived the idea much more aggressively during his second term. At various points, he suggested that the US needed to acquire the territory and even refused to rule out military force.
That approach created serious tensions with Denmark and Greenland and raised concerns within NATO because Denmark is a US ally.
The new security agreement represents a major shift in approach. Rather than acquiring Greenland outright, Washington is seeking long-term strategic control over its security environment.
For Trump, Greenland therefore represents much more than an isolated Arctic territory. It sits at the intersection of American homeland defence, Arctic competition, Russia, China, missile warning, military positioning and critical resources.
The deal allows Trump to claim expanded American security access while Denmark and Greenland retain sovereignty. Whether it permanently resolves the Greenland dispute will depend on the final agreement, parliamentary approval and how Washington and Copenhagen implement it.
