The United States, Denmark, and Greenland officially initiate trilateral negotiations, with Trump boldly proposing "permanent access rights"

The Trump administration has initiated technical negotiations with Denmark over Greenland, with the U.S. demanding “permanent access” and resource extraction rights. Denmark, on the other hand, is firmly adhering to the consultation clause in the 1951 Defense Agreement. A game of sovereignty and control has officially begun.
(Background summary: Trump reportedly offered Greenland “99 years of lease + US citizenship” in exchange for actual control, following the British model of leasing Hong Kong)
(Additional background: Negotiating with Trump｜What is the TACO deal? Understanding his “initial bid, then retreat” pressure strategy)

Table of Contents

• The true cost of the word “permanent”
• Can the outdated 1951 shield still hold?
• Europe’s anxiety and Trump’s bilateral tactics

If you watched the broadcast of the Davos Forum last week, you might have thought Trump was already holding a pen, ready to turn Greenland into the 51st state of the United States, loudly claiming that a “framework agreement” had been reached.

But in diplomatic language, “framework” usually only means agreeing to sit down and negotiate. It was only on January 28 that the real tug-of-war took place in Washington: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was holding talks with Danish and Greenland officials to discuss the next steps regarding Greenland.

The true cost of the word “permanent”

According to ABC News, the conditions set by the Trump administration are not just about expanding military bases but also about gaining “full access” to parts of Greenland and using mining rights to exclude Chinese interests. What’s more intriguing is the adverb of time: “Forever.”

In commercial contracts, nothing is truly permanent, but in geopolitics, those two words represent a substantial transfer of sovereignty. Trump is not only interested in parking a few F-35s there; analysts believe he also wants access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals, control of Arctic shipping routes, and the rights to deploy the “Golden Dome” missile defense system…

Further reading: Why is Trump so determined to take Greenland? What secrets does this 80% ice-covered island hold?

Can the outdated 1951 shield still hold?

However, Denmark is not a lamb waiting to be slaughtered. They hold an old yellowed document: the 1951 Defense Agreement. Signed during the early Cold War, this document granted the U.S. broad military rights. But both sides revised the agreement in 2004, stipulating that the U.S. must consult and inform Denmark and Greenland before making any “significant changes” to military operations or facilities in Greenland.

Currently, the U.S. military owns the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland. Washington’s intention is clear: they want to use these negotiations to revise the treaty and remove the troublesome “consultation clause.”

It’s like a landlord renting you a house but reserving the right to come in anytime to check the pipes; now, the tenant wants to change the locks and prevent the landlord from ever entering to see what’s inside.

Danish officials in the U.S. have shown a somewhat interesting attitude in recent days. They emphasize their willingness to use the flexibility of the existing treaty: negotiations are fine, but only under their rules, as long as the “red line” of sovereignty is not crossed.

Europe’s anxiety and Trump’s bilateral tactics

Actually, the tension is not only in Copenhagen but also in Berlin and Paris. Danish and Greenlandic leaders are shuttling between European capitals this week. They are well aware that Denmark alone cannot resist Washington’s pressure. Politico analyzes that European allies are now in a dilemma. Trump’s earlier use of tariffs has already strained the European economy; confronting him directly over Greenland could provoke even harsher retaliation.

Denmark is trying to “European-ize” the Greenland issue, turning it into a matter of European sovereignty to increase bargaining chips. But Trump excels at “bilateral negotiations,” pulling you into a small room and breaking you down one by one.

We are witnessing a classic Trump-style deal: first, proposing an absurdly high price (buy Greenland), then stepping back to get what he truly wants (permanent military and resource control), and finally claiming it as a win-win. The upcoming weeks of technical negotiations will determine whether the U.S. can effectively take the keys to this land without changing Greenland’s flag.