Trump: ‘We Have a Concept of a Deal’ Regarding Greenland, Arctic
“And it has to do with the security, great security, strong security, and other things.”
President Donald Trump said America “has a concept of a deal” regarding Greenland and the Arctic.
Trump did not offer many details on the deal or the talks:
TRUMP: Well, we have a concept of a deal. I think it’s going to be very good deal for the United States, also for them. And we’re going to work together on something having to do with the Arctic as a whole, but also Greenland. And it has to do with the security, great security, strong security, and other things.
REPORTER: The market, 600 points, getting back a lot of some of the nervousness we had in the last couple of days. The tariffs are off? Nothing happens on February 1?
TRUMP: No, we took that off because it looks like we have pretty much a concept of a deal.
REPORTER: A deal of ownership?
TRUMP: Well, it’s a little bit complex, but we’ll explain it down the line. But the Secretary General of NATO and I and some other people were talking, and it’s the kind of a deal that I wanted to be.
REPORTER: Denmark? Did they weigh in on, on what they want, what they would agree to?
TRUMP: Well, I assume they did, because he very much represents, he’s a strong leader, Mark, you know, Mark and he, I assume he’s been speaking to them. He’s been speaking to all of them.
REPORTER: Are mineral rights involved? Is ownership involved? The Golden Dome?
TRUMP: I don’t want to say yet.
REPORTER: But the Golden Dome was very compelling today when you talked about…
TRUMP: Yeah, the Golden Dome, and they’re going to be involved in the Golden Dome, and they’re going to be involved in mineral rights, and so are we.
REPORTER: Is, you can’t, it’s not specific enough to know at this point how long this lasts, how, whether..
TRUMP: Forever.
REPORTER: Forever? It’ll be forever.
REPORTER: For Greenland at this point?
TRUMP: Yeah, forever.
REPORTER: That’s a staggering…
TRUMP: This better than a 90 day…
REPORTER: This is, this is what, two hours after…
TRUMP: It’s better than the Obama deal with the famous Iran nuclear deal with a nine year, with a nine year deal. No, this is forever. This is a long term.
.@POTUS on Greenland: "Well, we have a concept of a deal. I think it’s going to be a very good deal for the United States, also for them, and we're going to work together on something having to do with the arctic as a whole… it has to do with the security — great security." pic.twitter.com/hpCQNmcAjV
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 21, 2026
Trump followed up on Truth Social:
Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 21, 2026
Earlier today, Trump reinforced his intention to acquire Greenland for national security, but pushed back against the narrative that he would use force.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” Trump said, reported by Politico. “That’s probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force.”
.@POTUS: "All we want from Denmark, for national and international security, and to keep our very energetic and dangerous potential enemies at bay, is this land on which we’re going to build the greatest Golden Dome ever built." pic.twitter.com/1LBXucFwMe
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 21, 2026
Also, what is this Golden Dome? If Israel’s Iron Dome pops into your mind when you hear Golden Dome, you’re not far off.
Trump first proposed a Golden Dome defense system in March, drawing inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome and President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
Israel’s Iron Dome protects the country from rockets.
Reagan wanted the SDI to protect the country as a whole.
Reagan announced the SDI in 1983 (I was only 2 years old) during the Cold War, when everyone thought the Russians would drop nuclear bombs on America.
I found this archived page from the Department of State website:
The heart of the SDI program was a plan to develop a space-based missile defense program that could protect the country from a large-scale nuclear attack. The proposal involved many layers of technology that would enable the United States to identify and destroy automatically a large number of incoming ballistic missiles as they were launched, as they flew, and as they approached their targets. The idea was dependent on futuristic technology, including space-based laser systems that had not yet been developed, although the idea had been portrayed as real in science fiction. As a result, critics of the proposal nicknamed SDI “Star Wars” after the movie of the same name.
There were several reasons why the Reagan Administration was interested in pursuing the technology in the early 1980s. One was to silence domestic critics concerned about the level of defense spending. Reagan described the SDI system as a way to eliminate the threat of nuclear attack; once the system was developed, its existence would benefit everyone. In this way, it could also be portrayed as a peace initiative that warranted the sacrifice of funds from other programs. Privately, Reagan was quite adamant that the goal of U.S. defense research should be to eliminate the need for nuclear weapons, which he thought were fundamentally immoral. In terms of the Cold War conflict with the Soviets, a successful defense system would destroy the Soviet ability to make a first strike, which in turn would undermine the USSR’s ability to pose a threat to the United States at all. So success in this area, supporters of SDI argued, could potentially also bring an end to the Cold War.
Reagan’s idea never came to fruition.
Now Reagan’s dream might come true thanks to Trump.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Like I said before
maybe a panama canal type deal where we control it for 99 years etc
until the next jimmy carter f’s that up
europe owes us!! that , at the least
Lease to own?
There was a Greenland delegation at Davos, but not a Danish one.
Denmark and Greenland officials met with NATO Sec Gen, Mark Rutte on January 19 to propose a new NATO mission to the territory, which likely formed the basis for the framework Rutte later discussed with Trump.
Rutte is the middleman so to speak and the focus has shifted from a territorial purchase—which Denmark refuses—to a collective security agreement that satisfies U.S. strategic demands.
That really only works if other countries are willing to pony up with their defense spending. We’ll see what the specifics of any framework are.
Details wanted. Sounds both interesting and promising. Let’s hope it’s real and realistic.
My understanding is that the framework includes discussions to allow the Golden Dome to be put in Greenland. This would expand the U.S. military footprint without requiring any change in ownership.
As to minerals, the U.S. will provide investment and infrastructure for mining to reduce dependence on China, while Greenland would maintain regulatory control and receive the economic benefit.
The U.S. had already been looking into mining projects in Greenland, such as the Tanbreez rare earth mine. That’s about all I know. For additional details I recommend you consult with Milhouse.
Milhouse
Lol
That moniker always brings Nixon to mind.
Don’t say his name three times in a row!
if we dont recapture our viable and prove leadership
lefty will win on the big stage…and their already dominant on the local stage which is of course leading to more trouble for us
maga
correction:
proven
also…with greenland
we could appease the lefty with some of that rent controlled affordable housing
Move everyone on welfare (that is, receiving federal welfare monies) in America to Greenland?
As to affordable housing…
“Here’s your yurt. Hope you like it.”
exactly
and a toaster that runs on wind and solar to keep warm with
I hope he pulls it off just to rub the lefts face in it 🤔🤣🤣
My prediction: the next DemoncRat president will pass away this advantage much like Jimmie Carter.
Not pass away, but piss away.
Given that the Obama / Iran nuclear deal simply greenlit Iran having nuclear weapons and ICBMs – so long as they followed the 9 year timeline, that’s a really low bar.
Fun Fact: Literally the same person that negotiated the above deal also negotiated the similar deal Clinton made with North Korea – which he touted as preventing them becoming a nuclear power.
If Trump hadn’t beaten Hillary, and then had the stones to reimpose sanctions on Iran, they would already be a nuclear power.
Then, if Trump hadn’t beaten Kamala and then bombed Iran’s nuclear program back to the stone ages, they’d be a nuclear power now.
Trump deserves two spots on Mt Rushmore – one for saving the US from the policies Hillary would have put in place, and the other for saving us from the policies whoever ran Kamala’s administration for her would have put in place.
Working with NATO to develop a proposal is a very different thing than convincing Denmark’s government to agree to it.
At least the process here is positive, as opposed to the bullying that’s been going on for the past year.
Everything has its place including letting people know you’re not f88king about.
Speaking of which, we must actually be pretty close to a real world agreement because the memo has gone out to the “news” organisations to frame this as “Trump backing down on the use of tarrifs to achieve his goals” 🤣🤣
‘Bullying’ also has an important role. If nothing else it serves to remind everyone of the relative power of those involved. Diplomatic patty cake is fine so long as it delivers results but when it doesn’t then gun boat diplomacy aka bullying is the alternative.
IMO NATO is on its last legs as are most of the post WWII institutions. They were designed to address the aftermath of a world war and to create a counter poise to the Soviet Empire. Those conditions no longer apply, not militarily, economically or even diplomatically. Entering into new negotiations or agreements with artificially created, outdated institutions of diminished importance and power which may not exist in their current form in a decade seems like a waste of time, resources and effort.