US President Donald Trump’s claim that Washington secured permanent security authority in Greenland has come under challenge from The New York Times, although the newspaper itself acknowledges that the full terms of the agreement have not yet been disclosed.
Trump announced Friday that the United States had reached an agreement with Denmark and Greenland giving Washington what he described as the permanent ability to act to protect both Greenland and US security.
“At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland,” Trump said in announcing the agreement.
He also said the arrangement would prevent US adversaries from establishing military bases or maintaining a military presence on the strategically important Arctic island and claimed sensitive investments by adversarial countries would require Washington’s written approval.
Reuters reported that the agreement provides for a significant expansion of the US military presence in Greenland and would bar American adversaries from establishing bases there. The arrangement is also expected to remain in force even if Greenland eventually becomes independent.
The New York Times, however, reported that Trump had exaggerated the extent of the new powers secured by Washington.
But the newspaper also acknowledged that the “full contours of the deal” were unclear and that the complete agreement had not yet been made public.
Its assessment that Trump overstated US authority was based on two unidentified people described as close to the negotiations, who said Washington would receive less extensive powers than Trump’s announcement suggested.
The newspaper also cited an unnamed US military official who said American forces would work alongside Danish and Greenlandic counterparts rather than exercise authority over them.
The Times did not point to a publicly available final text establishing the precise limits of Washington’s powers under the agreement.
It also noted that Danish and Greenlandic officials had not publicly confirmed Trump’s claim that the United States would receive veto power over certain foreign investments.
That leaves a distinction between what has been confirmed publicly and what remains disputed.
Denmark and Greenland have clearly said the agreement does not surrender Greenlandic sovereignty or alter the right of Greenlanders to determine their own political future. Neither statement, however, provides a detailed public account of exactly how broad the United States’ new military and security authorities will be.
Reuters similarly reported Saturday that important provisions remain undisclosed, including the eventual scale of the US military presence and whether Washington will receive formal authority involving Greenland’s foreign policy or natural resources.
What is publicly known is substantial.
The United States is expected to gain an expanded and enduring military presence in Greenland, while countries regarded as US adversaries will be prevented from establishing military bases on the island. Trump says the agreement also gives Washington permanent freedom to take actions necessary for US and Greenlandic security.
Denmark and Greenland, meanwhile, insist those expanded security arrangements stop short of transferring sovereignty.
The unresolved question is therefore not whether Washington has obtained an expanded role — all sides acknowledge that it has — but precisely how extensive those new powers are.
Until the agreement itself is published, both Trump’s expansive description and reports seeking to narrow its meaning are being assessed without the complete text being available publicly.
The agreement is expected to be signed during the United Nations General Assembly after the necessary procedures in Denmark and Greenland are completed.
