September 18, Donald Trump announced — in an appropriately victory-lap-esque Truth Social post — that the U.S. had reached a sweeping agreement, giving us “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns.” Trump touted “that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland… This is an ‘Infinite Life’ Agreement, there is no end!”

Four days later, on September 22, he joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen in the public signing of said agreement at UN headquarters in New York City.

The tri-party 2026 Greenland defense agreement is a substantial foreign policy achievement; structurally, it’s an amendment to and expansion of a collection of its predecessors, principally the 2004 Igaliku Agreement and the foundational 1951 Defense Agreement. Once in force (more on this later), it would explicitly grant the United States rights to establish two additional military bases on the island (there is currently only one U.S. base: Pituffik); provide a framework for further U.S. military expansion to secure the Arctic; permit broad submerged access and movement for U.S. military vessels in Greenlandic territorial waters; and — perhaps most critically — impose significant restrictions on Russia and China’s ability to establish military or economic influence in Greenland. As a useful tonal barometer: the agreement is probably less exciting than Trump’s ranty post makes it seem, but more exciting than this factually accurate summary paragraph implies.

This agreement is the culmination of a long and theatrical back-and-forth dating to Trump’s initial 2019 interest in buying Greenland. He would make inflammatory rhetorical comments about Arctic-relevant entities (we need to buy Greenland, Canada should be a state, we aren’t ruling out invading Greenland, Denmark is getting tariff-nuked, and so on), sending shocks of lip-quivering outrage through the international political community and its assorted liberal media organizations. Trump would then later soften his delivery or recant, as he did with both his tariff threats against Denmark and his clarification regarding not wanting to reenact Normandy on Greenlandic shores, and sighs of relief would ensue. This approach was denigrated throughout by critics as unnecessarily pugilistic and corrosive to the United States’ relationships with its allies.

Now, having arrived at a meaningful checkpoint in the process of taking Greenland under the American wing, we can ask ourselves: Did the “bull in a china shop” act pay off? (Counterfactuals are tricky.) Did we purchase Greenland? (We did not.) Short of that, have we otherwise meaningfully strengthened our sphere of influence over this cornerstone piece of an increasingly critical Arctic region? (We have.)

While there are certainly caveats to keep in mind, and while those with more imperialist ambitions will likely come to view the agreement as either a stepping stone or a disappointment, the 2026 Greenland defense agreement manages to at least begin addressing our most pertinent national security concerns.

Get 14 day free trial