Trump: Agreement Reached Giving U.S. Security Control Over Greenland
Trump said the government will “immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence” in Greenland.
President Donald Trump announced that his administration and Denmark reached a security agreement over Greenland.
“I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns,” Trump boasted on Truth Social. “There will be NO COST to the United States!”
Trump said the government will “immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence” in Greenland, promising to work with Greenlanders.
The agreement also says that “no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the three countries will sign the deal at the United Nations Assembly next week, according to The Associated Press.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
“An agreement that strengthens our shared security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic region, and is thus also beneficial for NATO and Europe,” stated Frederiksen. “And an agreement that simultaneously recognizes the Kingdom’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination.”
However, the Danish and Greenland governments need to approve the deal before anyone can enforce it.
“It is gratifying that we are on the verge of concluding an agreement that ensures and strengthens security for Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark, the USA, and the Western alliance,” said Greenland Premier (Chair of Naalakkersuisut) Jens-Frederik Nielsen. The agreement recognizes Greenland’s interests and our place in international cooperation. It is to the benefit of us all.”
Official statement from the Prime Minister of Denmark's office: Greenland, Denmark, and the USA expect to sign an agreement in the coming week.
"Anticipated agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and North Atlantic region
Greenland, Denmark, and the USA expect to sign… https://t.co/oK9ZYBPEEk pic.twitter.com/6fCeWBnsnP
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) September 18, 2026
Trump promised to be “very protective” of Greenland.
I have no doubt he means it. Trump noted that past presidents have tried to secure stronger security agreements with Greenland and Denmark because of its strategic importance.
The U.S. has had a military presence on Greenland since the Cold War.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A very important win for Trump and the USA!
Yes, but it won’t help at all in the midterms battle sadly.
If only Trump had put this on hold until after the mid terms.
Amazing follow through and success by Trump and his foreign policy negotiators
And underlying that is the fact that President Trump was absolutely correct about the need to secure Greenland to safeguard western interests from foreign threats. But of course, no democrats or their media will ever concede that.
Wow
And, what do the vile, stupid, evil, subversive, feckless, incompetent, Islamo-Marxist, America last Dhimmi-crat fifth columnists have to say?
Nothing positive, so steeped are they in their malicious and vindictive hatred of #47 and U.S. interests.
BBC News headlined this with some bullshit like “NATO celebrates new agreement Trump claims to have signed”.
I mean let that sink in, on the one hand NATO is celebrating the agreement BUT it’s something sold as a claim by Trump and we all know anything Trump claims isn’t true 🙄
The two parts of the headline do not belong together because NATO wouldn’t be celebrating a mere claim. a claim the leftist media has groomed people to automatically not believe is true simply because it’s come from Trump.
What the BBC didn’t say at any point was that the Danish Government made a statement confirming the agreement has been reached.
To the media their job clearly isn’t to tell the truth but to groom people to believe what ever narrative it is they are pushing.
How would one describe such a deal? Artful, perhaps.
The Democrats will likely declare it “racist” in 3 – 2- 1 . . .
Trump is stealing land from the Greenlanders!!!!
He’s a colonialist
But Greenland was already a colony and they’re…white. Hmmm. 🙂
The Danes still haven’t read Trump’,s book. As Euros are wont to do, they did a lot of huffing, puffing, and waxing wroth.
But, in the end, they folded and gave Trump pretty much everything he wanted.
“However, the Danish and Greenland governments need to approve the deal before anyone can enforce it”. It isn’t done until it is done. As a real estate guy Trump should know that-he does-but he likes to get out front. All signatures on the dotted line and filed ‘at the courthouse’. I’m a real estate guy too.
It also will require Senate ratification on our end.
Only if he wants it to have the status of a treaty, which ranks equal with a statute in US law. If he wants it to be just a private agreement between the governments, with no force of law, then he doesn’t need anyone’s permission.
So who is going to pay for the “large military presence” on Greenland?
Will there be US troops? Advisors? Equipment? Arms?
Trump said there would be no cost to the American taxpayer for the East Wing, and look how that turned out.
“No cost” means neither Denmark nor Greenland will extract a fee for our use of any land or existing installations that we are allowed to use. In foreign nations, most US bases are leased from the host countries, a cost that apparently will not be imposed on the US under this agreement.
US “military presence with bases” implies that there will be troops, advisors, equipment, and arms. DUH. The point here is that Greenland is so strategic from a security standpoint that the cost justifies the benefit, not only to the US but to the EU. And the EU understood that.
So you agree that there will be a cost to the American public.
Thanks for playing.
You understand that troops, advisors, equipment, and arms must be paid for wherever the military is based? That “new bases” almost never means “more troops and equipment,” but rather just movement of troops from one deployment to another? Probably not.
Plus costs offset by cost reductions in Europe.
I understand that completely.
So you believe that other bases would have to be closed or at least personnel at that base reduced, right?
Unless you close a base and move it entirely to Greenland, this is not a zero sum gain.
But assume that you only move individual units from different bases. The original base still has to maintain housing, base stores, roads, electronic infrastructure etc. That is a cost.
There is no way around that. You have to either close a base entirely (or what is the equivalent of a base,) or you have to maintain two bases,
In essence, what you are trying to say is that maintaining two homes is the same cost as maintaining one home.
That’s just not true.
We are planning on pulling at least 30,000 troops from Europe – undoubtedly closing or minimizing multiple bases. We already have Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, and will undoubtedly be expanding there – perfect location for our needs.
You are grasping at straws.
You are setting up a straw-man.
If troops exist they must be paid, equipped, housed, and armed. They will be stationed on a base.
You are presuming (or pretending to presume) that American defense for this area was never necessary in the past and that this will be an entirely new expense – as if we were setting up an outpost on the moon. However we are already there.
In spring 1941, Denmark’s ambassador signed a treaty giving the U.S. military access to Greenland to help protect the island from Nazi Germany and contribute to the war effort in Europe. That agreement, updated in 1951 and 2004, continues today. There will be very little, if any additional cost 5that wouldn’t have occurred anyway.
What the Trump deal does is keep other foreign powers out conclusively and permanently. Yes, this is important. The E.U. represents in classic form, “The Sick Old Man that is Europe” – always too weak and tired, and short of money. They cannot be relied upon not to sell out. The Canadians have gone wobbly – what happens if Carney decides to use military basing rights as a political lever? What would have happened if the Chinese moved in “commercially” as they did when they bought the port facilities at each end of the Panama canal?
By the way, the whole “Buy the whole place” is a classic opening gambit in negotiations – of course the answer will be no but it makes your final proffer seem reasonable in contrast. The “Buy ALL your lithium!” is another offer on that same track down to what you actually want. If you look around the world, there now plenty of lithium almost everywhere. In Peru for example and even in California (see the recent news). It was never actually about the mining. It was about establishing an overwhelming commercial presence (see China and the Panama canal, above).
Oh, and I have to laugh at your little OMG East Wing!! stance. When I worked with the Pentagon my contact there taught me a technical financial term – “Accounting dust.”
Agreed.
Thank you for making my point.
There will be a cost to the taxpayer despite what Trump is saying.
You are trying to set up an equivalency between the strategic need of the base and the costs.
They are separate issues.
If the base, the housing, the pay for soldiers, equipment are going to be paid for by the American public, that’s fine.
What is not fine is saying “there will be no costs to the American people,” when we both agree that there will be.
Watch my lips carefully: these are not new additional troops. They already exist either already in Greenland, or elsewhere. I won’t bother you again…
You don’t have to bother me at all.
The current military base on Greenland is Pituffik Space base which has a mere 150 personnel.
That is certainly not a “massive presence,” so you are going to have to move troops from other bases to fill out the needs in Greenland or recruit more troops. You are going to have to build the infrastructure to support those troops. Whether it be housing, PX’s, medical facilities, recreational facilities, etc.,, there is an additional cost that you cannot get around.
If you simply move troops, you either have to close current bases, or at the very least move units from other bases while maintaining that base.
There is a cost to that.
In addition, do you think that having to ship supplies and goods to Greenland is cheaper or more expensive than to supply a US base?
It will cost more.
And that’s okay. Just stop telling people that there will be no additional costs.
Whooosh! Right over your head.
You must be one of those people who think the Blue Angels are a waste of money because you don’t understand that if the Blue Angels didn’t exist, those pilots, their aircraft (including support aircraft), and their ground crews would all still be doing the same things (flying and moving from place to place) as training. Indeed, the Blue Angels is a flying classroom because it’s pilots rotate out and back to their combat units where they disseminate what they learned during their stint with the Angels.
Whoosh!
The Blue Angels are a flight demonstration team. They do not learn or teach tactics,
Even so, the Blue Angels have a permanent home in P-cola as they travel and do shows. They do not take an entire base with them in doing shows.
But let’s assume that you are correct and we aren’t going to have to add recruits to go to Greenland.
First, there is the cost of building the base on Greenland. (Pituffik Space Base has 150 people, and that in no way can be considered a “massive” presence.) The US will have to build new housing, rec facilities, base stores, infrastructure (both physical and electronic), etc. In addition, do you think the cost of getting supplies to Greenland is the same as getting those same supplies to say…. Cape Canaveral Space Base?
Secondly, assuming that the idea is just to move units off of existing bases in the US, there is a cost there as well. The cost is not so much the cost of the base, but the hurt on the local economy when those units leave the local base.
I am not against the increased presence of the US in Greenland,
I am against the lie that there are no additional costs both initially and ongoing,
Whoosh.
My understanding is there will not be any “cost to the American taxpayer” for the East Wing. There will be such a cost for the security facility under it. I can’t see any problem with that – except in the eyes of the Trump-haters.
I get your point except that Trump’s statements were that the entire wing would not cost the taxpayer a dime. Trump never broke out the difference between the “bunker” and the “ballroom.” His statement was the whole thing would be paid for by donations.
His initial statements only concerned the ballroom because the underground facility was still secret at the time. Only after the underground facility was exposed did Trump mention it at all. All of his statements concerning the use of private funds for the project were always about the ballroom, no matter how he referred to it. Even you understand that only the ballroom would be paid for with private funds. The fact you know this informs me that you understood this as well. Trump has certainly never claimed the underground facility was fee of cost to the taxpayer.
The underground facility was built during the Truman administration. It was not “secret” in any way.
I understand that was the claim. The cost of the East Wing was originally at $350 million, jumped to $400 million and is now at $600 million.
Of the $600 million, half is being paid by the taxpayer.
Even if we take the original claim of $350 million in cost, with a $600 million cost for the project, no matter how you slice it, the taxpayers are on the hook for at least $50 of the ballroom itself.
For the record, I am not against the new ballroom or against the new East Wing.
Just be honest with the American people about the costs and where the money is coming from.
There will not be a cost to the US for securing Greenland.
The ways in which we exercise our new advantage will absolutely cost something. But, they would have cost something, anyway, to accomplish those ends.
They might have cost even more if we didn’t have Greenland for basing.
I spent 24 hours at Thule Air Base so the pilots could rest. It was a frozen shithole.
One of the best threats to get some difficulty solved before we took off or in the air, for a tanker drag to England or Europe, was “Do you really want to spend a week in Greenland/Iceland, waiting on maintenance to arrive?”
The American communists are working on their talking points on how to unsell this to the American voters. It will be all the rage on the Sunday morning talk shows. Who watches those?