The new security arrangement that has emerged among the United States (US), Denmark, and Greenland over the Greenland issue shows that the Arctic region’s position within the international security system is steadily shifting. The details of the agreement, which was announced on 18 September 2026 and is expected to be signed next week in the context of the United Nations General Assembly, have not yet been made public.[i] Moreover, the parliamentary procedures required for the agreement to enter into force must first be completed. Therefore, at the present stage, it is possible to make an assessment less on the basis of the agreement’s legal scope than on the different meanings the parties attribute to it.
At this point, the most striking element is the difference between the discourse of “permanent control” used by Washington and the discourse of “strengthening shared security” used by Denmark and Greenland. Donald Trump presents the arrangement as a structure that will allow the US to act indefinitely on Greenland’s security. In contrast, the joint statements made by Denmark and Greenland particularly emphasize sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination. Consequently, the same arrangement is framed as expanded strategic freedom of action from the US perspective, and as a form of security cooperation that involves no transfer of sovereignty from the perspective of Denmark and Greenland.[ii]
This difference in discourse also brings to the fore the agreement’s fundamental legal question. Military access and sovereignty do not mean the same thing. That a state can establish military facilities, station personnel, and carry out certain security activities on the territory of another state or an autonomous region does not mean that sovereignty over that territory has been transferred. Indeed, the US military presence in Greenland is not new. The defense arrangement established between Washington and Copenhagen in 1951 was restructured in 2004 to take into account Greenland’s changing political status. The 2004 arrangement also includes mechanisms for consultation with Danish and Greenlandic authorities regarding US military activities in Greenland.[iii]
Therefore, the significance of the new agreement lies not merely in granting the US the right to conduct military activities in Greenland, but in the possibility that it may redefine the scope and continuity of existing rights. This is because earlier defense arrangements already provide a legal basis for the American military presence. In particular, the status of new military facilities, the limits of the US’s operational authority, the decision-making mechanisms concerning sensitive investments, and the powers that Greenlandic authorities will hold in these processes will be decisive. It is therefore not possible, on the basis of the information currently available, to conclude that the phrase “permanent control” implies a transfer of sovereignty. On the contrary, the statements of Denmark and Greenland explicitly stress that sovereignty and territorial integrity will continue.
The broader meaning of the agreement, meanwhile, emerges in the geopolitical transformation of the Arctic region. Owing to its geographical location, Greenland constitutes one of the hubs of the security line between North America and Europe. Arctic security is no longer assessed merely as a matter of regional defense, but together with North Atlantic security and NATO’s strategic planning. Indeed, Denmark’s official approach likewise increasingly defines Arctic and North Atlantic security as a shared security space. The joint European statement issued in January 2026 also stated that Arctic security is an important part of transatlantic security and stressed that decisions concerning Greenland’s future must be made by Denmark and Greenland.[iv]
In this framework, explaining the US interest in Greenland solely in terms of territorial acquisition or economic resources falls short. The real issue is securing long-term military and strategic access in the Arctic region. The possibility that the new arrangement may impose limits on third countries’ military presence and sensitive investments indicates that Greenland is viewed not merely as a geography to be defended, but as a strategic space in which rival powers’ access must be restricted. Thus, for the US, Greenland is becoming less a territory to be owned in the classical sense than one of the forward geographic extensions of the North American defense system.
This situation also brings to the agenda an important debate about how sovereignty is exercised in today’s international system. While sovereignty legally remains with the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenlandic authorities, it becomes possible for the US to assume a significant part of the operational capacity in the security domain. When such a structure emerges, a divergence arises between de jure sovereignty and de facto security capacity. In other words, a state or political unit may, while preserving its sovereignty over its territory, grant another power wide latitude in ensuring its security. Although this is not entirely new in terms of security relations within NATO, it becomes more visible owing to Greenland’s geostrategic position.
For Greenland, in turn, the matter is not regarded merely as an extension of US–Denmark relations. The Greenlandic government’s participation in the agreement process as a direct party shows that the island is becoming an increasingly distinct international political actor. Whereas the 2004 arrangement had likewise provided for the inclusion of Greenlandic authorities in consultation mechanisms on security matters, the explicit emphasis in the 2026 arrangement on Greenland’s interests and its right to self-determination indicates that this trend is continuing.[v]
In conclusion, it would be appropriate to assess the new security arrangement in the context of a redefinition of the Arctic security architecture rather than as a transfer of Greenland’s sovereignty to the US. Although the available information points to an expansion of the US’s military room for maneuver, it is not possible to determine its legal limits with certainty until the full text of the agreement is published. Nevertheless, the emerging picture shows that Greenland is moving beyond being a temporary foreign policy agenda item for Washington and becoming part of long-term strategic planning. Growing security competition in the Arctic is making Greenland’s geographic position more important both for NATO and for US North American defense. The real transformation, therefore, lies less in who owns the island than in who will manage Greenland’s security, with what authorities, and to what degree of permanence.
[i] Seisdedos, Iker. “Trump anuncia un acuerdo con Dinamarca para asumir el ‘control permanente de la seguridad’ de Groenlandia”, El País, https://elpais.com/internacional/2026-09-18/trump-anuncia-un-acuerdo-militar-historico-con-dinamarca-sobre-groenlandia.html, (Accessed: 20.09.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
