Trump Claims ‘Total Access’ to Greenland as NATO Urges Unity on Arctic Security

US President Donald Trump has claimed that the United States has secured “total and permanent” access to Greenland under a framework discussed with NATO, striking a markedly softer tone after days of threatening tariffs on Europe and refusing to rule out the use of force to secure control of the Arctic island.

Trump described the understanding as open-ended and overwhelmingly favourable to Washington, insisting the US must be able to act in Greenland “exactly how we want to do.” However, NATO officials and European leaders pushed back, clarifying that what has been discussed is a preliminary framework, not a binding agreement, with further negotiations still required between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland.

What has actually been agreed

Officials familiar with the discussions said talks focused on modernising a 1951 agreement that already governs US military access to Greenland. Under that arrangement, the US is permitted to operate freely on the island, provided Danish and Greenlandic authorities are informed.

The proposed framework also includes enhanced coordination on Arctic security and potential limits on Chinese and Russian investment in Greenland. However, no changes to sovereignty have been agreed, and NATO officials stressed that any practical steps would be handled by military planners rather than political leaders. Key details, including timelines, scope of access, and operational responsibilities, remain unresolved.

Why Greenland matters

Greenland holds significant strategic importance in the Arctic. It hosts the US military base at Pituffik and lies along emerging military and commercial routes as polar ice continues to recede. Washington views the island as critical for missile defence, early warning systems, and countering Russia’s expanding military footprint and China’s growing economic interest in the region.

The renewed attention reflects a broader NATO shift, with the Arctic increasingly seen as a frontline in great-power competition rather than a peripheral security concern.

Allies draw red lines on sovereignty

Denmark firmly rejected any suggestion that Greenland’s sovereignty was negotiable. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described the situation as “difficult and serious,” despite progress on security cooperation.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said he had not been fully briefed on the discussions and emphasised that sovereignty and territorial integrity were non-negotiable. European leaders echoed these concerns, warning that internal divisions within NATO only serve to benefit adversaries.

Although Trump’s retreat from tariff threats eased immediate tensions, EU officials privately acknowledged that trust in US reliability had been damaged.

Markets and diplomatic fallout

Trump’s apparent reversal triggered a rebound in European stock markets and pushed Wall Street indices back toward record highs, reflecting relief that a transatlantic trade confrontation had been avoided. Diplomatically, however, the episode left lingering unease, with European capitals reassessing their relationship with Washington and preparing for potential future pressure tactics.

What comes next

Further negotiations are expected between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland to clarify the scope of US access and define NATO’s broader Arctic security posture. NATO officials aim to outline more concrete plans by early 2026, with a political signal likely at the alliance’s July summit in Ankara.

Any final outcome is expected to involve incremental adjustments to existing arrangements rather than sweeping new rights, reflecting strong political sensitivities among allies.

Analysis: Crisis defused, confidence shaken

Trump’s Greenland pivot helped de-escalate an immediate crisis but failed to fully reassure allies. By stepping back from tariffs and force while continuing to insist on “total access,” the US president reduced market anxiety yet reinforced European fears of an increasingly coercive and unpredictable American approach to alliance management.

The episode highlights NATO’s central Arctic dilemma: responding decisively to Russia and China without undermining internal unity. Denmark and Greenland’s firm defence of sovereignty suggests that cooperation will remain tightly constrained, limiting Washington’s room for manoeuvre.

More broadly, the Greenland episode underscores a shift in transatlantic relations—from shared assumptions to constant negotiation—as the Arctic becomes a critical testing ground for alliance cohesion in an era of intensifying global rivalry.