What we know about Trump’s ‘framework of a future deal’ over Greenland

US President Donald Trump announced that there was a “framework for a future agreement on Greenland”.

The statement comes as a surprise after days of growing tensions, culminating with the threat to impose economic sanctions on eight close U.S. allies who opposed its plan to seize the semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

So what could this deal entail and will it be acceptable to Denmark and Greenland, who have both made clear they will not give up sovereignty over the world’s largest island in the Arctic?

President Trump made the announcement Wednesday on his Truth social media platform, following discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“Based on a very productive meeting I had with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, we established the framework for a future agreement regarding Greenland,” he said.

He did not give details, but said negotiations would continue to reach an agreement.

Rutte, for his part, said he did not address the key issue of Danish sovereignty over Greenland during his meeting with Trump.

In Denmark, the view is that the problem is far from resolved and that any agreement has yet to be reached between Greenland, Denmark and the United States.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the Danes could negotiate “on everything that concerns politics: security, investments, the economy.”

“But we cannot negotiate on our sovereignty. I have been informed that this has not been the case either,” she said in a statement on Thursday.

One of the two Greenlandic MPs in the Danish parliament, Aaja Chenmitz, said: “NATO under no circumstances has the right to negotiate anything without us, Greenland. Nothing about us without us.”

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said she hoped this would mean there would be “the direct discussions that Denmark had requested, between Denmark, Greenland and the United States, on the way forward around Greenland, protecting Greenland’s sovereignty.”

Denmark and Greenland’s reaffirmation that sovereignty is non-negotiable appears aimed at dismissing reports from the New York Times that unnamed officials said one of the ideas under discussion was for Denmark to cede sovereignty over small areas of Greenland where the United States would build military bases.

This arrangement would be similar to the status of two military bases in Cyprus, controlled by the United Kingdom.

Akrotiri and Dhekelia have been under British sovereignty since Cyprus became independent in 1960. This treaty has since been amended, but they are essentially considered British territory.

Yvette Cooper did not confirm whether she knew what the framework agreement contained, but mentioned “very practical discussions about Greenland’s security, while being very, very clear that Greenland’s sovereignty is non-negotiable.”

In arguing for the seizure of Greenland, Trump cited the threat from Chinese and Russian ships around the island, even though Denmark says there is no threat “today.”

On this point, NATO allies have tried to reassure the United States that it will strengthen security in the Arctic and Mark Rutte told the Reuters news agency on Thursday that the framework agreement would also require this contribution.

“I have no doubt that we can get there quite quickly. I certainly hope for 2026, I hope even early 2026.”

One of the ideas being pushed by the UK is the creation of an Arctic Sentry, Yvette Cooper said on Thursday, an approach “very similar to the approach NATO took to the Baltic Sentinel” – a mission to increase surveillance of ships in the Baltic Sea after critical submarine cables were severed.

The United States has had a military presence in Greenland since World War II.

Under a 1951 agreement with Denmark, the United States can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland. It already has more than 100 soldiers permanently stationed at its Pituffik base, at the northwest tip of the territory. Discussions aimed at reaching an agreement could therefore focus on a renegotiation of this agreement, according to American officials.

The United States has military bases in many countries – including Germany – but they are not sovereign territory.

Trump insisted a Greenland leasing deal was not enough.

“Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership, you don’t defend leases. And we will have to defend Greenland,” he said two weeks ago.

In order to acquire the island, he threatened to use force – until a change of heart at Davos where he abandoned this threat to the great relief of his NATO allies.

NATO was founded in 1949 on the principle that an attack on one ally is an attack on all. These attacks were supposed to come from outside, and Denmark had made it clear that a military attack would mean the end of the transatlantic alliance, of which the United States is the main partner.

The NATO secretary general has come under fire for his constant praise of President Trump – at one point even calling him “daddy.”

“You can always take Donald Trump at his word. That’s why I really think we are very happy to have him,” Rutte said on Thursday.

The Danish prime minister said she had been in constant contact with Rutte before and after Trump’s announcement. But it’s unclear exactly what Danish contribution – if any – led to Trump’s latest downfall.

Trump has sought to repurchase Greenland from Denmark since his first term – and he is not the only US president to attempt to do so.

Trump says the United States needs Greenland to protect against possible attacks from Russia and China.

He also said Greenland was essential to his plan to build a Golden Dome defense system, designed to protect the United States against missile attacks, and that European allies could cooperate in the effort.

In addition to Greenland’s strategic location, the United States has spoken of the island’s vast — and largely untapped — reserves of rare earth minerals, many of which are crucial for technologies such as cell phones and electric vehicles.

Trump did not say that the United States was after Greenland’s riches, but that American control of the island “puts everyone in a very good position, especially when it comes to security and minerals.”

“It’s a forever deal.”