A Framework About Control, Not Courtesy
President Donald Trump has been explicit about what the Greenland framework is meant to achieve. It is not a symbolic gesture, not a temporary partnership, and not an exercise in diplomatic niceties. Trump has repeatedly described the deal as long term, infinite, and forever because, in his view, U.S. security demands arrangements that cannot be undone by foreign politics.
That framing matters. Trump is not negotiating for access. He is negotiating for certainty. And certainty is exactly what traditional notions of sovereignty refuse to provide.
Why ‘Sovereignty’ Is a Nonstarter
Sovereignty is often discussed as if it were an abstract moral principle. In reality, it is a mechanism for political reversal. Sovereignty means that the people of Greenland or the political leadership of Denmark retain the right to change course. They can hold a referendum. They can elect a new government. They can reinterpret agreements. They can demand withdrawal.
From Trump’s perspective, that makes sovereignty incompatible with permanent U.S. security operations. A defense posture that can be overturned by a vote in Nuuk or Copenhagen is not a defense posture at all. It is a lease at a landlord’s whim, and Trump has made clear he does not defend leases.
Power Asymmetry Is the Point
Much of the criticism aimed at Trump assumes this is a negotiation between equals. It is not. The United States is the military backbone of NATO, the primary guarantor of Arctic security, and the only power capable of fully countering Russian and Chinese expansion in the region. Trump is operating from that position of strength, not apologizing for it.
He has already demonstrated leverage through tariff threats and diplomatic pressure, and he has shown he is willing to remove that pressure once movement occurs. That is not recklessness. It is leverage being used deliberately.
The Philippines and Hong Kong Precedents Still Loom
The cautionary tale Trump keeps in mind is the U.S. experience in the Philippines. For decades, the United States built massive air and naval bases that anchored its Pacific strategy. Those investments vanished in 1992, when domestic politics in the Philippines shifted and the lease payments became extortionate. The Senate rejected renewed basing agreements. This severely crippled our defense posture in that region.
The British 99 year lease of Hong Kong turned into a modern day tragedy. Despite assurances that China would treat Hong Kong as a special zone and allow it to function as it had previously, China proceeded to execute a brutal crackdown on free speech. Perhaps Hong Kong should have voted their own ‘sovereignty.’ After all, that was a land lease not a slave community.
The lessons were simple and expensive. Sovereignty allowed a partner nation to erase American strategic investments without firing a shot. Trump has no intention of repeating that mistake in Greenland, especially not with assets tied to missile defense, Arctic surveillance, and rare earth supply chains.
Foreign Influence Is Not a Hypothetical Risk
Leaving Greenland fully exposed to sovereign reversals also invites external manipulation. Russia and China have clear incentives to undermine any permanent U.S. presence. If sovereignty remains intact, the pressure point is obvious. Influence the politics, influence the vote, force the Americans out.
That influence does not need to look like tanks or troops. It can come through information campaigns, economic inducements, political agitation, or proxy investments. Trump’s insistence on permanence is designed to close that door before it ever opens.
Denmark Is Not a Fixed Variable
Another inconvenient reality is that Denmark itself is not static. Governments change. Coalitions shift. Strategic priorities evolve. A future Danish leadership could take a more hostile view of U.S. control in the Arctic or pursue parallel arrangements with rival powers. Sovereignty gives Denmark that option, whether Washington likes it or not.
Trump is unwilling to anchor American security to assumptions about the political trajectory of another country. That is not arrogance. It is risk management.
Why the 1951 Model Is Insufficient
Supporters of the status quo often point to the 1951 defense agreement that allows a U.S. military presence in Greenland. Trump clearly views that arrangement as inadequate. It exists within a sovereign framework that can be challenged, renegotiated, or politically undermined.
Calling such an arrangement permanent does not make it so. We always assumed the arrangement with the Philippines was permanent, it was not. Trump’s repeated emphasis on ownership and forever signals dissatisfaction with agreements that survive only as long as foreign governments allow them to.
For Trump, any serious investment in Greenland must come with ironclad guarantees. That means no referendums that can revoke access. No political vetoes from afar. No future negotiations over whether American assets get to stay.
One path forward is territorial restructuring. Populated areas of Greenland could retain self governance and cultural autonomy, while the vast, largely uninhabited regions (three times the size of Texas) fall under permanent U.S. control. Another approach could involve legal arrangements that permanently remove U.S. controlled zones from sovereign reversal – but again, approval right now could turn into disapproval and squabbles later. And just like a foolish and ignorant Barrack Obama gave away the massively expensive Panama Canal, a weak President in the future could foolishly decide to cave in.
NATO administration alone does not solve the problem, because NATO itself is political and consensus driven. But this may end up as a satisfactory arrangement, since the U.S. dominates NATO, and in the unlikely event that NATO were to somehow breakup, ownership might be sufficiently ambiguous to spark the U.S. to claim control.
Critics often frame this debate as Trump misunderstanding sovereignty. The opposite is true. He understands sovereignty very well, and that is why he rejects it. Sovereignty introduces uncertainty, reversibility, and vulnerability. Trump’s security vision is built on permanence, deterrence, and control.
Those two concepts do not align. They never have.
Greenland ‘sovereignty’ will not fly with Trump’s security vision because it leaves too much to chance. The United States will not commit to permanent defenses, long term infrastructure, and strategic assets on land it does not permanently control.
Trump is not asking Denmark or Greenland for permission to protect the United States. He is setting the terms under which that protection will occur. And given the balance of power, it is increasingly clear whose terms will matter most.
