The Arctic security agreement between Greenland, Denmark and the USA has been signed in New York by Greenlandic Prime Minister (Naalakkersuisut siulittaasuat) Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Danish Prime Minister (statsminister) Mette Frederiksen and President Donald Trump. The deal expands American military activity in Greenland while explicitly reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination, according to the agreement signed on 22 September.
The signing took place during the United Nations General Assembly after several months of negotiations between Nuuk, Copenhagen and Washington. DR reported that the three leaders signed the agreement after Greenland and Denmark had expressed cautious optimism about the talks in the preceding days.
The agreement does not replace the defence framework established in 1951. Instead, it amends and supplements the 1951 Defense Agreement and the subsequent agreements that have governed the American military presence in Greenland for decades.
“For Greenland, it is not just an agreement about us, it is an agreement with us,” Nielsen said at the signing ceremony, according to SVT.
Frederiksen described the deal as a milestone.
“It is a milestone in our long relationship.”
What the new Arctic security agreement contains
One of the most immediate changes is the expansion of the American military footprint. The signed agreement allows the USA to modernise and expand its activities at Pituffik Space Base and to establish new defence areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.
The technical details of the new facilities still have to be agreed by the parties. Additional defence areas could also be proposed in the future, but they would require consultations and mutual agreement between Greenland, Denmark and the USA.
The agreement also creates accelerated procedures for requests to establish unmanned military installations outside designated defence areas.
The three parties commit themselves to a stronger NATO role in the Arctic, including planning, military presence, exercises and joint intelligence gathering. The preamble also explicitly refers to American military access needed for the defence of Greenland, the North Atlantic Treaty area and the American continent, including through the establishment of a Golden Dome defence system.
What changes compared with the 1951 agreement
The new agreement significantly expands and modernises the existing framework, but not every American military right contained in it is new.
The original 1951 Defense Agreement was concluded by Denmark and the USA shortly after the creation of NATO. It allowed the two governments to establish defence areas in Greenland by agreement and gave American forces broad powers to build and operate military installations inside areas placed under USA responsibility.
It also already granted American military vessels, aircraft, forces and vehicles free access and movement between defence areas through Greenland, including its territorial waters. American aircraft were already permitted to fly over and land in Greenland unless Denmark and the USA agreed on restrictions.
The 2026 agreement therefore does not create American military access to Greenland from scratch. Instead, it updates that system and expands its geographical and political scope.
Among the main differences, the new deal explicitly identifies Pituffik, Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig, sets out a procedure for creating further defence areas, regulates unmanned installations and contains more detailed provisions for American access to Greenlandic territory and territorial waters.
It also covers areas that were not part of the 1951 framework, including counter-espionage, foreign investment, restrictions on military installations operated by non-NATO countries and a stronger NATO presence in the Arctic.
Greenland has a much stronger role than in 1951
The political context has also changed fundamentally.
Greenland was not a separate signatory to the 1951 agreement, which was concluded between Denmark and the USA. The island’s constitutional and political position has changed substantially since then.
The 2004 Igaliku Agreement had already updated the defence framework to reflect Greenland’s Home Rule and established closer consultation with Greenlandic authorities. The 2026 agreement goes further by explicitly recognising that the Greenlandic people constitute a people under international law with the right to self-determination.
The text also refers directly to the procedure for independence contained in Greenland’s 2009 Self-Government Act.
This is particularly significant because Trump’s repeated interest in acquiring Greenland had made sovereignty one of the main points of disagreement between Washington, Nuuk and Copenhagen. The new agreement instead puts the Kingdom of Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and Greenlanders’ right to determine their own future into the text signed by all three parties.
The agreement also regulates a future independent Greenland
The deal goes beyond Greenland’s current constitutional status.
If Greenland eventually exercises its right to become independent, the agreement says Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the future Greenlandic state commits to remaining in NATO, including by applying for membership if necessary.
An independent Greenland would also be expected to assume the rights and obligations contained in the new agreement and the wider defence arrangements.
The provision means that the American military framework is designed to survive a possible future change in Greenland’s constitutional relationship with Denmark.
Foreign military presence and investment will face new restrictions
The agreement also introduces security rules affecting countries other than the USA.
A state that is not a NATO member cannot establish its own permanent manned or unmanned military installations in Greenland or maintain a persistent military presence there unless the parties agree otherwise.
Foreign investment is also brought explicitly into the security framework. Investors or states that are neither NATO members, NATO partners nor EU member states can be prevented from obtaining control, significant influence or sensitive information in sectors where this could threaten national security or public order.
The agreement identifies critical infrastructure and resource extraction as examples of particularly sensitive areas. Greenland will apply these restrictions through its investment-screening legislation in cooperation with Danish authorities.
This is more specific than Trump’s public statement before the signing that American adversaries would not be allowed to establish a military presence or make sensitive investments in Greenland without American approval. As TV 2 reported from his UN speech, that was Trump’s description of the agreement. The published text instead establishes consultation and screening mechanisms involving all parties.
Greenlandic companies are given priority for contracts
The economic effects of the expanded military presence are also addressed.
The USA is required, to the maximum extent possible, to award commercial contracts connected with the construction, maintenance and servicing of Greenlandic defence areas to Greenlandic suppliers, provided they have the capacity to perform the work.
The provision is intended to ensure that part of the economic benefit generated by the expanded military presence remains in Greenland.
The agreement has no end date
There is another important difference from the original post-war framework.
The 2026 agreement explicitly states that it has no end date and can only be amended by mutual consent. Its permanent character is also mentioned in the preamble.
Signing the agreement does not, however, mean that it has already entered into force. The final section of the text states that it will take effect after the necessary parliamentary procedures involving Denmark and Greenland have been completed and the USA has been informed through a diplomatic note.
The agreement was signed in Danish, Greenlandic and English. In the event of differences between the versions, the English-language text prevails.
The result is therefore an extensive update of a security system created in 1951 rather than a completely new arrangement. The USA retains military rights that have existed for decades, but receives additional locations and a framework designed for a much larger Arctic military role. At the same time, Greenland’s self-determination, political participation and economic interests are written much more explicitly into the agreement than they were seventy-five years ago.
