Trump signs Greenland deal giving U.S. broad military authority on the island - CBS News

The deal, which has no expiration date, also blocks non-NATO countries from establishing bases on the island without agreement from the parties. The agreement persists even if Greenland eventually becomes independent from Denmark. It intensifies screening for foreign investment from non-NATO and non-European Union members, a move aimed at blocking influence from China and Russia. Nielsen said the "world has changed a great deal since 1951," referring to a previous security pact that the new deal amends. Nielsen said the people of Greenland "recognize the long-term security threats that you, Mr. President, have rightly spoken about."

Amazing what can be done once one dispenses with the childish threats and gets down to mutually beneficial business.

Trump does not know how to negotiate as a reasonable adult.

It is amazing that this got done with him in charge.

Or it's the outrageous demands and starting from an extreme ask that allows a favorable settlement that would otherwise have been out of reach. 

LOL. He's a genius. Turning much of the world against the United States on a regular basis is a mastermind plan.

Even now you attempt to defend Trump??

The agreement, indisputably, is much better than what we had.  Can you acknowledge that? 

Of course.   Did you not read what I wrote @1.1?

Why do you try to defend Trump's outrageous trolling of other nations as some kind of a positive negotiation tactic?

It is childish and counterproductive; can you acknowledge that??

Or it's the outrageous demands and starting from an extreme ask that allows a favorable settlement that would otherwise have been out of reach. 

I don't think it would have been otherwise out of reach, and I think Trump started out on the right path in his first term with welcomed diplomacy, reopening the consulate in Nuuk, and supporting investment in Greenland projects.  Where he went off the rails, in my opinion, is the threats he made early in his second term.   I think this deal would have been made in any case with rational diplomacy and without putting relationships with Denmark, Greenland, and NATO at risk with unreasonable demands.  

I asked Google AI about your theory and here is the response:

If Trump had not made outrageous demands would the current Greenland deal have been made?

Whether the trilateral Arctic security agreement signed on September 22, 2026, would have been made without Donald Trump's aggressive, outrageous demands remains a point of debate among foreign policy analysts, but the general consensus is that an agreement updating Arctic defense was highly likely, though it would have taken a vastly different, less crisis-driven path.

1. The Deal Was Already Accessible via Standard Diplomacy

Critics and mainstream political analysts point out that the U.S. and Denmark have been close NATO allies for decades. The framework for American military access to Greenland was established long ago by the 1951 Defense of Greenland Treaty . Because both Denmark and Greenland recognized the growing strategic threat of Russian and Chinese ambitions in the Arctic, they were already open to modernization. [ 1 , 2 ]

Many experts argue that the U.S. could have secured these expanded basing rights through standard, quiet diplomatic channels without causing a multi-year geopolitical standoff or threatening the stability of the NATO alliance.

2. The Case for Trump's Brinkmanship

Conversely, proponents of Trump’s negotiating style argue that his "outrageous demands"—including public threats of economic coercion, annexation, and military force—served as a necessary disruption. From this perspective, by artificially escalating the situation into an international crisis, Trump forced Denmark and Greenland to the negotiating table with a sense of extreme urgency. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]

The resulting agreement, which grants the U.S. the right to open two new military bases and implements strict screening mechanisms to block adversarial foreign investments, is viewed by his supporters as a direct victory achieved through high-stakes pressure. [ 1 , 2 ].

Just to be fair, I think we could have gotten to the same ends, and maybe much sooner, had we stuck with the standard diplomacy stuff. 

Trump never makes a deal permanently. He makes a deal until he thinks he sees a better one. If we were wanting to forge a deal to secure Greenland and it's minerals, it's territory, why did we not just state that at the outset? 

IMO, all of this could have been achieved, and at less cost, by following the normal diplomatic channels. 

Just to be fair, I think we could have gotten to the same ends, and maybe much sooner, had we stuck with the standard diplomacy stuff. 

No doubt in my mind.

Just to be fair, I think we could have gotten to the same ends, and maybe much sooner, had we stuck with the standard diplomacy stuff. 

Agreed!  Do recall that Greenland was actually a bit disappointed that the Biden Administration did not continue with the same vigor the diplomatic and investment progress Trump had made in his first term.  We discussed that awhile back in another thread   HERE and HERE   .  Why Trump all of the sudden started out his second term with threats rather than continued diplomacy is beyond me.  Makes no sense. 

Why Trump all of the sudden started out his second term with threats rather than continued diplomacy is beyond me.  Makes no sense. 

From my estimation, he started with bluster because his overarching goal was to disrupt the systems of laws that the world had achieved post WWII with a "take it if you can" style of might-makes-right foreign and domestic relations: We are strong so we can take it from you. Ironically, he has been taught that deterrence only acts as a weapon when it is not used. The second he actually had to prove our strength through action is precisely when the US started to lose the protection of its perceived strength.

He has exposed the country's weakness against non-symmetrical actions, squandered the goodwill of the world and the treasure of the nation in an attempt to further consolidate power and wealth so it can be divided up by those whom he sees fit to bear it. 

He is not a leader, he is a baby swaddled in silk diapers who never got the message that it is, in fact, bad to be bad.

From my estimation, he started with bluster because his overarching goal was to disrupt the systems of laws that the world had achieved post WWII with a "take it if you can" style of might-makes-right foreign and domestic relations: We are strong so we can take it from you.

Sure.  Could be.  I certainly did not like that approach with his threats of buying or taking over Greenland and not immediately ruling out the military aspect that he later softened on.  You don't do that to allies.

However, do you see any value in this line of thought:

Since WWII the U.S. has spent trillions on rebuilding and defending not only our allies, but even those countries who were our enemies as well.  We did not simply conquer and take over like many who had won wars in human history have done.  After all this time though, is it really that unreasonable to expect some of these sovereign nations to kick in a bit more to defend themselves and their allies, and rely a little less on the U.S. for that? 

I think that is at least worth some level of discussion without immediately characterizing it as the U.S. "taking" anything from our allies, especially considering all we have given. Does that make sense? 

Since WWII the U.S. has spent trillions on rebuilding and defending not only our allies, but even those countries who were our enemies as well.  We did not simply conquer and take over like many who had won wars in human history have done.  After all this time though, is it really that unreasonable to expect some of these sovereign nations to kick in a bit more to defend themselves and their allies, and rely a little less on the U.S. for that? 

I have no problem with the idea that if a nation says it is going to contribute a currency amount certain to its defense that it should contribute that amount. That is a reasonable expectation to hold. 

The reason that we spent the money on all that rebuilding was to help in the creation of wealth: Creation of stable economies with stable consumers on both the country level and the personal. This stable economy in turn would spur the further creation of wealth.

Since WWII the U.S. has spent trillions on rebuilding and defending not only our allies, but even those countries who were our enemies as well.

Are those same countries our enemies now? Are they productive? Are they busily buying and selling products and boosting our economy? That is why we made the investment. There iks a saying that one must spend money to make money. I think that the post-war era was a great boon to not only the economy, but to democracy, peace, and stability. One of the primary reasons is (besides a general consensus around the world to stop fighting) the investments we made during the Marshall Plan. 

I had ChatGPT play around with the Obama cadence for this one, just because I liked him, his philosophy, and his steadiness. I never knew that ten years could make this much difference in our countries standing in the world. (Even though it is his cadence, these are my thoughts, filtered):

Yes, our allies should contribute to their own defense. When a nation makes a commitment, we are entitled to expect it to keep that commitment. I have no quarrel with that.

But we should remember why the United States helped rebuild the world after World War II. We did it because we had seen what economic collapse, political instability and war could cost. We helped former enemies recover because a prosperous Germany or Japan could become a trading partner instead of the center of another catastrophe. Stable economies meant jobs, consumers and markets abroad. They meant opportunity and security here at home. That was a choice made in America’s interest, too.

We did not simply wait for those outcomes to emerge from an unregulated marketplace. We invested in reconstruction. And after the League of Nations failed to prevent another world war, nations built institutions through which they could settle disputes and organize their common defense. Those institutions have never been perfect. Their purpose was to give countries another way to deal with conflict before it became a war.

So let us ask our allies to carry their share. Let us be clear about what they have pledged and hold them to it. But let us also be honest about what America gained from helping build a world in which our allies could prosper and defend themselves. We made those investments because the peace and prosperity of other nations mattered to our own.

It seems to me that far to much is made of any perceived slight. The countries in question are now mostly paying their own way in the expectation that DJT will blow off another of his many feet.

Underlying this is the theory of friendship vs the theory of enemy. (I just made those names up on the fly, so search for them at your peril.) 

The Theory of Friendship says that you help those whom you wish to be your friends. By helping them, they in turn can help you.

The Theory of Enemy says that you treat everyone as your enemy unless they concede something to you.

I think the Theory of the Friend gets more positive response than the Theory of the Enemy. There is no question that DJT, being a transactionalist, is espousing the Theory of the Enemy: He looks at the first iteration of the transaction and if he sees no gain, he fights because the interlocutor is the enemy. I really do not think that he sees much more than this level.

If he approached events and people from the Theory of Friendship, he would ask. What do you need? What do you want? How can we, together, make this work? Instead he just throws an immediate hissy fit. 
I had a point here... Help me out Chat GPT

You did have a point. The defense-spending argument treats the first transaction as the whole relationship. It asks what America paid for other countries, then leaves the accounting there. Your point is that helping a country recover can create an ally, a trading partner and a source of mutual security. Those returns arrive over years, often in forms that do not appear on the original bill.

That does not mean friends get a free pass. You can expect an ally to meet its commitments because the relationship is reciprocal. Your “Theory of Friendship” asks, “What can we build that benefits both of us?” Your “Theory of the Enemy” asks, “What can I make you give me before I do anything for you?” The second approach can win a concession while damaging the trust that makes future cooperation possible.

That is the point you were reaching for: America’s postwar policy was an investment in relationships, not a string of isolated favors for which we are still waiting to be repaid. Your criticism of Trump is that he appears to judge the immediate exchange and miss the value of the relationship it could create or destroy. That last part is your interpretation of his conduct, rather than something we can know about what he sees internally.

Me: It was something both more specific and more basic.

Yes. I missed the most direct point: the countries that had been our enemies are the clearest example of your theory.

We helped rebuild Germany and Japan because we wanted former enemies to become friends. We gave them a stake in a relationship that could benefit them and us. That is why “we even helped our enemies” is such an odd way to frame it. Their becoming peaceful, prosperous partners was the point.

And that brings it back to the present: if you want allies to do more alongside you, treating them as partners gives them a reason to do it. Treating every request as a confrontation may extract a concession, but it makes the partnership harder to sustain.

What are your thoughts on this?

Trump sucks. 

So while Hegseth threatens to withdraw all troops from NATO and the EU,

Trump wants to build bases on the rocks and glaciers of Greenland to protect us from China & Russia.

Even the GOP are chomping at the bit to Impeach Cabinet Members to save the country.

Follow the money. 

President Donald Trump bragged to the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday about looting Venezuela—and threatened that Cuba may be next.

“Last month, we signed the largest oil deal in history, covering 65 billion barrels of oil which will benefit both Venezuela and the United States enormously and help drive down the cost of energy all over the world,” Trump said .

“So it’s perhaps the biggest deal—it was a war, but it is perhaps the biggest deal ever made. ‘To the visitor belong the spoils,’ you’ve all heard that.”

It seems that Trump may mean that literally. Americans and Venezuelans have no idea what’s happened to the billions of dollars in revenue from oil that the Trump administration stole from Venezuela.

Trump brags about looting another country in bonkers UN address

Trump-linked figures set to profit from Greenland’s minerals | Global Witness

Trump staffers and billionaire backers buying into Greenland’s minerals

Critical Metals Corp is far from the only company making the most of Greenland’s potential and further muddying the lines between Washington’s minerals policy and the interests of individuals connected to the government.

The network mapped by Global Witness includes companies like GreenMet, which was part of a US delegation to Greenland in 2025 alongside Critical Metals Corp. Two beneficial owners of the company are former Trump employees or staffers, while a former Trump administration aide is its CEO.

In the same month as the delegation, GreenMet also partnered with Tanbreez. Its other partners include a battery developer that the company claims is central to the Trump administration’s critical minerals strategy.

Increasing media attention has been paid to Trump-aligned billionaires investing in Greenland.

Leading tech executives – and contributors to Trump’s inauguration – Jeff Bezos , Sam Altman and Bill Gates invest via a fund founded by Gates in Kobold Metals , an AI mining company that retains royalties in eventual production from a nickel-copper-cobalt project in West Greenland.

Kobold is also backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz , whose founders donated millions to a Trump-supporting Super PAC during the most recent election.

Kobold is closely aligned with the US administration’s push for minerals access. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), US Secretary of State Marco Rubio directly facilitated the company’s entry into the Congolese lithium sector in the same month that it sold its Greenland stake .

Other Trump allies becoming prominent investors in Greenland include billionaire Ronald Lauder , who is credited for inspiring Trump to acquire Greenland. Lauder is reported to hold investments in the island via his participation in US consortium Greenland Development Partners .

His business partners in the venture include two politically-connected Greenlanders with local mining interests.

So while Hegseth threatens to withdraw all troops from NATO and the EU

I had not heard this so I asked my friend Google AI about it and here is that response:

Is this true? Hegseth threatens to withdraw all troops from NATO and the EU.

No, it is not true that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to withdraw all U.S. troops from NATO and the EU. [ 1 , 2 ]

🔎 What is actually happening

• Targeted reductions, not total withdrawal: The Pentagon is currently weighing a potential reduction of roughly one-third (between 25,000 and 40,000) of the estimated 68,000 to 80,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe, largely affecting countries like Germany, Italy, and Spain. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]

• The ongoing force review: Hegseth announced a six-month European force posture review to push European allies to take primary responsibility for their own conventional defense and meet defense spending targets. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]

So that part of your premise appears to differ with the facts.

Trump wants to build bases on the rocks and glaciers of Greenland to protect us from China & Russia.

Yep.  And Greenland and Denmark appear to agree that is a worthy endeavor, hence their signature.

Even the GOP are chomping at the bit to Impeach Cabinet Members to save the country.

Yeah, not so sure about that my friend.  Again Google A.I. explains the facts:

No, it is not true that the GOP as a whole is "chomping at the bit" to impeach Cabinet members. In fact, Republican leadership has actively moved to block recent attempts to do so. [ 1 ]

The rumor likely stems from a highly unusual piece of intraparty warfare involving a single, outgoing Republican lawmaker. [ 1 ]

The Root of the Claim

• The Rogue Push: Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth . Massie accused Hegseth of high crimes and misdemeanors, notably arguing that the ongoing conflict with Iran violates the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

• The Leadership Shutdown: Far from embracing the effort, House Republican leadership was caught entirely off guard and immediately shut it down.

• Fleeing the Vote: Because Massie introduced the impeachment as a privileged resolution, the House would have been forced to vote on it within two days. To avoid a messy public vote right before the midterm elections, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) abruptly cut the legislative session short, canceled scheduled votes, and sent lawmakers home early for recess. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]

The Broader Context

Yep.  And Greenland and Denmark appear to agree that is a worthy endeavor, hence their signature.

I think they just want to try and get Trump out of their hair. There's a limit to how much craziness people should be expected to subject themselves to. 

I think it is very clear where this Administrations loyalties lie and it isn't with our European allies.  They are panicked by the fact that this Administration would even talk about this being a possibility.

25,000 US Troops Out Of Europe? Pentagon Weighs Major Military Drawdown: Report | Times Now

Almost unbelievably, the US is planning to pull large numbers of troops out of Europe

At the same, dear leader has not only invited his war crimes buddy Putin to come to Florida for the next G20

and be a guest at Mar-a-Lago. I suppose that sense to Trump who apparently thinks Ukraine brought this war on themselves,

just like Venezuela did.

The Danish agreement was done at gun point and specifically to rattle NATO.

INMHO it can be challenged as an illegal contract if and when the Danes choose to do so.

Otherwise they are just another puppet state of some country I recognize less and less.

Shades of the 1930's again

The Danish agreement was done at gun point and specifically to rattle NATO

Nah, not at gunpoint but certainly with some additional pressure given Trump's rhetoric.  And it clearly was not aimed at rattling NATO as they welcomed it stating that, " it directly enhances the collective security of both Europe and North America ".  Again, Google A.I. summarizes:

The U.S.-Denmark-Greenland security agreement , signed on September 22, 2026 , was not done at gunpoint, nor was it designed to rattle NATO. Instead, the accord was explicitly crafted to strengthen NATO’s role in Arctic security and defuse a severe diplomatic crisis between the United States and its European allies . [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]

The context surrounding the negotiations and the actual purpose of the pact involve several key factors:

Demands and Strained Relations

The agreement followed months of intense pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who repeatedly proposed acquiring the semi-autonomous territory of Greenland and openly refused to rule out the use of military or economic force to secure U.S. control. While critics and European officials widely condemned these threats as aggressive, destabilizing, and highly unusual for interactions between NATO allies, the eventual pact was achieved through months of quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]

What are your thoughts on this?

Trump sucks. 

With his track record, odds are that this will turn out to be a very minor and insignificant change to the current agreement.

With his track record, odds are that this will turn out to be a very minor and insignificant change to the current agreement

I certainly understand the concern about Trump's track record, but in this case the new agreement went considerably further than the previous agreement in terms of the allowable extent and locations for U.S. military presence on the island, as explained in this and several other articles.  It blocks other non-Nato countries from establishing bases there as well.  Also, unlike the 1951 agreement, this "agreement persists even if Greenland eventually becomes independent from Denmark". 

Lastly, and quite importantly, "It intensifies screening for foreign investment from non-NATO and non-European Union members, a move aimed at blocking influence from China and Russia."  Any projects or investments involving critical minerals and other Greenlandic resources must be carefully screened and approved by the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark.  This is not a minor feature of the new agreement.

Dollars to donuts, the first sign of pushback and the dumpster imposes 100% tariffs on all of Greenland's exported seafood

and tries to stop exports to Europe and Asia.

What do I think? I think that I don't trust anything the President says or does because it is his operating principle to discard agreements thought of as settled for any or no reason whatsoever.

Look at trade relations. NAFTA? Sorry. USMCA? Nah! We're not going to honor that either. In fact, we're going to put bumble-fuck-headed tariffs on everyone.

What about foreign policy? What foreign policy? He's just run around being a world-public embarrassment and sucking up as much money and kickbacks as he can con people out of. 

IMO, he's a scum-sucking son of a bitch who's word isn't worth a piece of used toilet paper. Sign a deal with him? Only if you are the devil.

So, how does this effect my gas and grocery bill? /s

it's going up, and the beatings will continue until morale improves ...

Greenland/Denmark allowed Trump/America to control what nations Greenland can deal with.  That demand, along with requiring Canada to change its language laws, was one of the main reasons why Canada walked away from the table when the American negotiators pulled that one on Canada at the last minute of the negotiations. .