Greenland independence would not be intended to end the new security framework agreed with Denmark and the USA. The agreement signed in New York on 22 September requires Denmark and Greenland’s government to ensure that, if Greenland becomes an independent state, it remains in NATO and formally assumes the rights and obligations of the defence agreements governing the American military presence on the island.
The provision is one of the most consequential parts of the new agreement between Greenland, Denmark and the USA. It attempts to separate two issues that have become closely connected during the recent dispute over Greenland: who exercises sovereignty over the island and how Greenland would be defended in the future.
The agreement recognises Greenlanders’ right to decide their political future. At the same time, it is written to provide continuity for NATO and the American military presence even if Greenland eventually leaves the Kingdom of Denmark.
The agreement is designed to outlast Greenland independence
Article XI of the agreement states that the deal has no end date and can only be amended by mutual consent.
It then explicitly addresses the possibility of Greenland becoming an independent state.
Under the text, if Greenland exercises its right to self-determination and becomes independent, the Danish government and Naalakkersuisut must together ensure that the new Greenlandic state agrees to remain in NATO, applying for membership if necessary.
The future state would also be expected to take over all the rights and obligations that currently apply to the Kingdom of Denmark under the new agreement, including subsequent implementation arrangements and the wider system of Greenland defence agreements dating back to 1951.
The wording is important. The treaty does not simply say that all of these obligations would automatically pass to an independent Greenland. Instead, it says Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the future state “affirmatively assume” them from the date of independence.
This means the continuation of the security framework is explicitly built into the agreement, but would still have to become part of the arrangements accompanying Greenlandic statehood.
The USA does not get a veto over Greenland’s independence
The security agreement does not give the USA a right to approve or reject Greenlandic independence.
Its preamble instead reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and recognises that the Greenlandic people constitute a people under international law with the right to self-determination.
The agreement also explicitly refers to the process for independence established by Greenland’s 2009 Self-Government Act.
Under Section 21 of the Self-Government Act, the decision on independence belongs to the people of Greenland. If a decision in favour of independence is taken, negotiations must begin between Naalakkersuisut and the Danish government.
Any final independence agreement must receive the consent of Inatsisartut, the Greenlandic parliament, be endorsed in a referendum in Greenland and receive the consent of the Danish parliament, the Folketing. Independence would then mean that Greenland assumes sovereignty over its territory.
Nothing in the new security agreement adds an American approval stage to that procedure.
This preserves the principle repeatedly stated by Greenland and Denmark during the negotiations. When the agreement was first announced, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it recognised both the sovereignty of the Kingdom and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination.
“The agreement […] recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.”
The statement was published by the Danish Prime Minister’s Office before the signing.
An independent Greenland would be expected to remain in NATO
The NATO provision would have significant consequences for the security policy of a future Greenlandic state.
Greenland is currently covered by NATO through the Kingdom of Denmark. If it became independent, that constitutional link would disappear.
The new agreement therefore anticipates that an independent Greenland would remain inside the Atlantic alliance, including by applying for NATO membership if a new application were legally required.
This is considerably more explicit than the original 1951 Defense Agreement. That treaty was negotiated between Denmark and the USA within the NATO framework and did not contain a mechanism dealing with a future independent Greenland.
At the time, today’s Greenlandic self-government system did not exist. Greenland received Home Rule in 1979, while the current Self-Government arrangement and the formal recognition of Greenlanders’ right to independence entered into force in 2009.
The 2026 agreement therefore adapts the military framework not only to a changed security environment in the Arctic, but also to the possibility that the constitutional relationship between Greenland and Denmark could change.
The American bases could remain after independence
The independence clause applies to the entire set of defence arrangements, not only to a general commitment to NATO.
That means a future independent Greenland would be expected to assume the agreement covering Pituffik Space Base and the new defence areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig, as well as the wider rights governing American military access.
The agreement signed on 22 September allows the USA to expand Pituffik, establish the two new defence areas and, subject to mutual agreement, propose further military sites.
It also gives American forces broad rights of movement between defence areas and establishes rules for military overflights, territorial waters, unmanned installations and cooperation against espionage.
If the independence provision is implemented as written, these arrangements would therefore not simply disappear on the day Greenland became sovereign.
The same principle applies to restrictions on third countries. The agreement generally prevents states outside NATO from establishing a persistent military presence in Greenland unless the parties agree otherwise.
Independence would still transfer sovereignty to Greenland
There is an important distinction between accepting continuing defence obligations and giving up sovereignty.
Under the Self-Government Act, Greenlandic independence means that Greenland assumes sovereignty over its territory. The new agreement does not change that definition.
An independent Greenland could therefore have an extensive defence agreement with the USA and host American military installations while remaining a sovereign state, in the same way that military agreements and foreign bases exist in other NATO countries.
The security agreement itself reinforces this distinction. It recognises Greenlandic self-determination while simultaneously seeking to make the American and NATO security presence durable.
That is also why President Donald Trump’s earlier language about American control over Greenland should be distinguished from the text that was eventually signed. The agreement grants substantial and long-term military rights to the USA, but it does not transfer sovereignty over Greenland.
The independence process would have to incorporate the agreement
The most difficult questions would arise during an actual transition to independence.
The 2009 Self-Government Act requires Denmark and Greenland to negotiate the terms under which Greenland would become sovereign. The new defence agreement now adds an international commitment that those negotiations are expected to preserve NATO membership and the existing defence arrangements with the USA.
The treaty does not specify exactly how this would be incorporated into a future independence settlement or how a new Greenlandic state would formally assume the obligations.
Nor does it set a timetable for Greenlandic independence. That remains a separate political and constitutional process decided by Greenlanders.
For now, the significance of the clause is its long-term intent. The agreement signed in New York is designed so that a future change in Greenland’s constitutional status does not automatically produce a change in its strategic alignment.
Greenland could become independent from Denmark while the American military presence and its place within NATO continued. The new agreement attempts to make those two developments legally and politically compatible rather than treating independence as the end of the security framework created over the previous 75 years.
