After years of elite rancor over over Greenland, the United States, Denmark and Greenland have agreed on a larger American military presence.

Seven years after President Donald Trump first put Greenland at the center of an international argument, the United States, Denmark and Greenland have signed an agreement to expand the American military presence there. 

The agreement gives his administration a concrete answer to the Arctic security concern he has raised for years.

The deal, signed Tuesday during the United Nations General Assembly, identifies two new defense areas for American use and expansion: Narsarsuaq in southern Greenland and Mestersvig on the east coast. It also allows the United States to expand activity at Pituffik Space Base and provides for Greenland’s participation in the proposed Golden Dome missile defense system. 

Greenland remains under Danish sovereignty, with its right to self-determination recognized.

The outcome deserves to be judged on its security terms: The United States already had a base in Greenland and longstanding military rights under a 1951 agreement. Yet its presence had fallen sharply since the Cold War. The new agreement names additional locations and sets out a larger role for American forces on an island important to the defense of North America and the North Atlantic.

Trump kept returning to a question that was easy to lose amid the usual, knee-jerk media uproar over his language, tone, or timing: 

Was the Arctic receiving enough attention as Russia and China pursued their interests there?

His answer was no. And he was right.

Denmark, Greenland and the United States have now agreed to a stronger American presence. The agreement also limits the ability of countries outside NATO to establish a military presence and restricts certain sensitive foreign investments without the three governments’ approval.

No one can read Trump’s mind or know precisely how he expected the negotiations to end. His public comments included proposals for American ownership that Denmark and Greenland rejected. But the signed result addresses the security issue he repeatedly brought forward. It gives the United States a path to more facilities and a larger defensive role while keeping the three governments in an agreement they can each support.

There is a precedent for taking one of Trump’s security warnings seriously even when his delivery drew more attention than the warning itself. 

In a 2018 speech to the United Nations, he said dependence on a single foreign energy supplier could leave a country vulnerable to pressure. He specifically warned Germany about its reliance on Russian energy. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the disruption of Russian gas supplies contributed to an energy crisis across Europe.

It also tied the hands of EU nations eager to impose financial pressure. EU had to punish Russia with sanctions with one hand…while still paying Putin for energy with the other. 

That history does not prove that another energy policy would have prevented the invasion. It does show the indisputable cost of a vulnerability Trump had identified in advance.

The concern in Greenland is different, but the question is familiar: What happens when allied defenses fail to keep pace with a changing threat? 

A stronger presence can improve surveillance, planning and the ability to respond. It can also make clear that the United States and its NATO allies intend to protect access to a strategically important part of the Arctic. Preventing a hostile power from gaining a foothold would be a far better outcome than trying to remove one later.

Denmark was already investing in Arctic defense in response to Trump’s “suggestions.”

In January 2025, it announced new spending on vessels, drones and surveillance. The agreement signed this week adds an American commitment and named locations to that effort. It is impossible to measure exactly how much of Denmark’s decision came from Trump’s pressure. His administration can point to an unmistakable result: a negotiated plan for expanded U.S. access where only one American base is active today.

There is work ahead, of course. The agreement requires approval by the Danish and Greenlandic parliaments, and the two new sites still need to be developed. A signature does not place personnel or equipment on the ground.

Even so, Tuesday marked a change. The argument Trump began in 2019 has produced a shared security agreement in 2026. If the three governments carry it through, the Arctic weakness he pressed them to address will be met with a larger, more durable allied presence.

Which is the deterrent to Putin that Trump wanted all along.

(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)