Greenland is not bought, it is negotiated: the keys to the new agreement with the United States

The renewed U.S. interest in Greenland has once again made the front pages of all international media. The announcement of a new trilateral security agreement between Washington, Copenhagen, and the autonomous government in Nuuk has surprised the world. Claims of acquisition or unilateral control over the island ran up against insurmountable constitutional barriers, Greenland’s autonomy statute, and commitments within NATO.

Far from an annexation or direct purchase, the White House has had to channel its security demands through the multilateral diplomatic route, respecting the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people.

However, behind the triumphant headlines lies a complex board of political narratives, legal caution, and geoeconomic disputes over control of the Arctic.

Rhetorical triumph vs. pragmatism

On one side of the Atlantic, Donald Trump presented the draft agreement on his official channels with a markedly euphoric tone, celebrating having secured a “permanent control over the security” of the island, as well as an open-ended framework for cooperation useful for the domestic political agenda ahead of the midterm elections.

On the other, the response from Copenhagen and Nuuk stood out for its calculated pragmatism. The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, downplayed the institutional clash in her public interventions, recalling the strength of bilateral relations with Washington and framing the move within the preexisting cooperation framework in NATO (heir to the 1951 defense treaty, updated in 2004).

For its part, the reaction in the Greenlandic capital has been one of prudent calm. As Greenlandic political leader Erik Jensen has pointed out in statements to the local outlet Sermitsiaq, there is confidence that the content of the pact safeguards the island’s interests. Denmark and Greenland appear to have adopted the strategy of allowing Washington to enjoy the political headline in exchange for keeping the fundamental red lines intact: the sovereignty of the Kingdom and Nuuk’s autonomy.

Legal prudence

Despite the media impact of the announcement, analytical caution is essential. To date, the final text of the agreement is not public. The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, and the president of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, have traveled to New York to sign the new security pact with the United States on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. However, this political staging does not amount to a fait accompli nor does it grant the document immediate legal force.

For measures as significant as the U.S. veto right over foreign investments or the deployment of new military facilities to take effect in a truly effective and indefinite way, the treaty must go through a mandatory multi-step process.

The process begins with the signing of the official text by the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland at the UN headquarters, although this does not grant immediate legal validity. To enter into force, the agreement must be ratified by the Danish and Greenlandic parliaments and the U.S. Senate, culminating in the cross-diplomatic notification of its approval.

The real debates over the fine print will arise in the parliamentary votes. Danish and Greenlandic politicians will scrutinize in great detail whether the military permits or the oversight of works requested by the U.S. take decision-making power away from Greenland or whether they only serve to strengthen security in the area. Until all three parliaments approve the text, the new rules cannot be applied.

Rare earths and veto power on the Arctic routes

Beyond the military narrative, the true key to the agreement is geoeconomic. Greenland holds one of the planet’s largest untapped reserves of rare earths, minerals indispensable for the energy transition, the aviation industry and defense technology.

The agreement seeks to establish a de facto veto mechanism to curb the arrival of state capital considered “undesirable,” with an eye on China and Russia, in strategic mining and the island’s transport infrastructure.

To this must be added the role of the new routes by sea. As the Arctic ice is melting, countries such as China or South Korea are already using these maritime routes to transport goods for several months of the year. By preventing countries such as China or Russia from investing or setting up military bases in Greenland, the United States and its allies ensure they control the passage between the Arctic and the Atlantic, preventing their rivals’ trade from becoming a permanent military domain.

Its fit within the EU security strategy

This transatlantic move is fully aligned with the priorities of the European Union, which has announced that it will publish its renewed policy for the Arctic next October 20. In the September 2026 State of the Union address, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, formally placed Russia as the priority structural threat to be addressed in the European security strategy, while at the same time urging the bloc to accelerate its independence in critical raw materials.

The agreement on Greenland helps the European Union and the United States stop arguing over control of the Arctic and work together in the north. For Europe, which needs to buy almost all the energy and minerals it consumes from abroad, this pact brings two major advantages: it strengthens military security against threats from Russia and guarantees that the minerals key to the future remain in the hands of allied countries.

Time and the debate in the parliaments will tell whether the pact is a balanced solution for global security or whether the fine print hides sovereignty frictions. For now, the episode shows that on the 21st-century Arctic board, alliance diplomacy and resource control are worth far more than the rhetoric of annexation.