On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last week, the United States, Denmark and Greenland signed an agreement allowing the U.S. to build up its military presence on Greenland.
The atmosphere marked a sharp contrast with the tension present earlier this year, when U.S. President Donald Trump was threatening to invade the Arctic island.
“We are truly pleased with the result that strengthens our shared security and strengthens our bond as close allies,” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at the Sept. 22 signing ceremony.
Experts are divided on whether the agreement addresses genuine security and resource concerns.
“It’s very difficult to make one simple conclusion that the ice is melting and the Russians and Chinese are coming,” said Lin Alexandra Mortensgaard, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies.
“That’s too simplistic,” she added, noting the narrative of imminent invasions and vast financial opportunities in the Arctic are overblown.
But Troy Bouffard, director at the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, takes a different view. Recent chokepoints at the Strait of Hormuz and Suez Canal have sped up the race to find new Arctic shipping routes, he says.
“It’s picking up pace … [it’s] not possible to put a timeline, [but] we do know things are accelerating.”
Cold War dynamic
Greenland sits at a similar latitude as Canada’s three northern territories. And like those territories, it has a tiny population — just 56,000 people — that inhabit an area comparable in size to Nunavut.
Formerly a Danish colony, Greenland is today a semi-autonomous territory responsible for its domestic affairs, while Denmark remains responsible for its foreign policy and security.
The United States has been militarily involved in Greenland since the Second World War, when the U.S. stationed troops there after Denmark fell to the Nazis.
In 1951, the United States and Denmark signed a defence agreement allowing the U.S. military to build bases on Greenland and send in unlimited troops. The United States proceeded to establish more than a dozen bases and station around 10,000 troops there.
“From the U.S.’ perspective, [Greenland] was kind of a watchtower towards … the Soviet Union,” said Mortensgaard.
Today, the United States has only one base with about 100 troops.
“The U.S. has had the Pituffik Space Base and maintained it when they were busy fighting wars in the Middle East,” said Mortensgaard. “So [their] concern [over Greenland] is very legitimate.”
However, the Trump administration’s interest in Greenland has differed from past ones.
During Trump’s first term, he mused about purchasing Greenland — a suggestion that was swiftly dismissed by Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
In January 2025, as president elect, Trump said he would not rule out using military force to control the island. And again in January 2026, he returned to the idea.
“One way or another, we’re going to have Greenland,” Trump said on Jan. 11. “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will. And I’m not letting that happen.”
These comments sparked alarm among NATO allies, including Canada. Several European countries sent troops to Greenland in a show of support.
“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen told the media.
“That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.”
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is credited with getting Trump to back down from his threats. On Jan. 21, Trump said on Truth Social that “we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.”
And yet, as recently as Sept. 8, 2026, Trump posted on Truth Social a map showing a United States that includes Greenland, Canada and Iceland.
A new pact
Against this backdrop, the defence agreement signed on Sept. 22 marks a striking turn.
The new agreement amends and builds on the 1951 defence pact. It is signed by the United States, Denmark and Greenland as well.
As before, the United States remains free to bring in as many troops as it likes. It commits the United States to revamping two Cold War-era bases, and bolstering the existing Pituffik base. It also mentions the establishment of a Golden Dome missile defence system as a key aim.
The 1951 agreement remained in effect so long as NATO existed. The new agreement has no end date.
Trump says the new deal gives the United States “permanent control over security” in Greenland, serving his long-stated goal of keeping Chinese and Russian interests away from the island.
“No U.S. adversary will ever be permitted to establish a military presence in Greenland any more, or make sensitive investments there without our express written approval,” he said at the signing ceremony.
In Mortensgaard’s view, Greenland and Denmark have made significant concessions in the new pact.
“Some commentators are like, ‘This is just a copy of the 1951 agreement’ … I don’t think that’s true,” she said.
“This is a promise from the current Greenlandic government … made on behalf of a future Greenland.”
Pierre Leblanc, an Arctic security consultant and former colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces, also views the new pact as troubling.
“I think it’s a dishonest deal made at gunpoint,” said Leblanc, who commanded the Canadian Forces Northern Area.
“It’s based on outright lies from the president of the United States saying that Greenland was being hounded by Chinese and Russian ships.”
Mortensgaard notes that warming in the Arctic is expected to open up new shipping routes around Greenland. But these routes are currently only usable for mere weeks during the warmest months.
“Russia is trying to portray the Northern Sea Route as an Arctic highway, when in reality it’s better understood as a kind of slippery, ice-filled bike path,” she said.
But Bouffard, the Alaska researcher, says increasing Arctic security infrastructure in Greenland, Canada and the United States will inevitably lead to “snooping” from major powers like China and Russia.
“We’re going to be putting up new defence infrastructure … that attracts adversaries,” he said.
Bouffard says Greenland today is ill-equipped to address these threats, including from hypersonic missiles.
“We have no defence against hypersonic [missiles] right now on this planet. The only thing that’s keeping everything kind of stable is basically deterrence,” he said.
Hypersonic missiles — which include glide and cruise missiles — can travel at five times the speed of sound and are extremely difficult to detect or intercept.
Source: Arms Control Association
Russia and China are currently the world’s leaders in hypersonic missile development, and are much further along than the United States and the West.
This threat is why Trump has been so keen on building a Golden Dome missile defence system, Bouffard says. This system would see missile sensors and interceptors stretched across land, sea and space. It would be similar to Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system, but on a much larger scale.
“We’re moving into a new … hypersonic era,” Bouffard said. “And that changes quite a lot in involving North American missile defence and homeland defence, which is the premise for the Golden Dome.”
Canada has been invited to be a part of Trump’s Golden Dome plan, but has not yet committed to joining it.
New opportunities?
Another argument made for the United States’ increased interest in Greenland is the island’s deposits of critical minerals.
Here, too, Mortensgaard is skeptical of the immediate opportunities.
“It’s still a region with extreme climates … limited infrastructure, with very long distances, with darkness for a big part of the year. That hasn’t changed,” she said.
But Bouffard says recent crises in the Strait of Hormuz and Suez Canal have created genuine interest in northern alternatives.
“Southeast Asia, from Singapore and up to China … they’re heavily invested [in Arctic shipping routes,” he said.
Leblanc says he is glad to see countries besides the United States now stepping up their investment in Arctic security and infrastructure.
On Sept. 7, the European Commission announced a €200-million Global Gateway Partnership Package with Greenland to build secure connections in digital, energy and transport sectors. The bloc also met in Finland in September to discuss Arctic security.
In March, the Carney government announced over $35 billion to defend and transform Canada’s Arctic region.
“I have a sense that there’s a serious commitment now to actually deploy [troops] and get a better understanding of what we should have in the Arctic,” said Leblanc, who says he tried to advocate for more Arctic military funding decades ago.
Bouffard likewise praised the Carney government’s commitment to the Arctic, noting investment in basic infrastructure such as roads and airports will make a major contribution to security in the North.
“Canada is definitely having an Arctic moment,” he said.
But Mortensgaard notes that boosts in spending by these northern countries are usually the result of heavy pressure from the United States.
“The view from both Copenhagen, Nuuk and Ottawa is that when defence budgets in the Arctic are increasing … it’s because the U.S. is asking.”
“It’s based on outright lies from the president of the United States saying that Greenland was being hounded by Chinese and Russian ships.”
I wasn’t aware Trump had mentioned a Chinese or Russian invasion. The real threat is if Greenlanders vote to secede from Denmark and then give up their sovereignty for cash.