Back in July, I made a prediction during an interview with President Trump—one that the president himself called a good bet. Listen:
At the time, HuffPost featured the exchange and appeared to mock both me and the likelihood that such a prediction would come true.
Well, guess what, folks?
That prediction is now on the verge of becoming reality. President Trump has announced an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that would dramatically expand America’s security authority on the strategically vital island. Promises made, promises kept. This is what leadership looks like when a president means what he says and follows through for the American people.
To understand how long this has been building, go back to January. President Trump was already laying out the stakes, explaining why Greenland matters and why the United States could no longer afford to leave its security interests hanging.
For more than a century, American presidents have recognized Greenland’s critical position in the Arctic. They understood its value for missile defense, monitoring adversaries and protecting the northern approaches to North America. Yet none delivered a lasting solution on this scale. President Trump now says he has.
The announcement came directly from the president on Truth Social. Here are the key lines defining the proposed agreement.
President Trump declared that the United States had reached an agreement giving it “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns.”
Then came the words every taxpayer wants to hear: “There will be NO COST to the United States!”
That combination—permanent security authority and no direct cost for the rights themselves—is at the heart of the agreement.
The president went further, declaring that America would “FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America.” He described it as an “Infinite Life” agreement with no expiration date. Forever is not a negotiating position. It is intended to be a finished product.
Then came the firewall against America’s rivals: “From now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.”
In practical terms, that means China, Russia and other adversarial powers would be locked out unless the United States expressly approved their presence.
Finally, President Trump placed the achievement in historical context: “For over 100 years, Presidents have known the strategic importance of Greenland, but NONE of them were able to do anything about it. I am proud to be the President that permanently and conclusively addressed this very important situation.”
He also announced that the United States would “immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence” while working with the people of Greenland.
Those are the core commitments as President Trump described them: permanent security authority, no direct cost for the rights, unlimited duration, adversaries barred and an expanded American military presence. Whether NATO thrives or implodes, America’s position would remain secure—and that matters.
According to initial reporting, the agreement would grant the United States permanent access, basing and overflight rights across Greenland. It would allow America to establish additional military installations when necessary while barring China, Russia and other non-NATO countries from stationing forces or establishing bases there.
The agreement would also restrict sensitive investments by adversarial nations that could threaten American national security. Denmark and Greenland would retain sovereignty, but the security rights sought by Washington would remain in place even if Greenland’s political status changed.
The agreement must still be formally signed and approved by the Danish and Greenlandic parliaments. Officials in both governments have also emphasized that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination will remain intact.
Even commentators across the Atlantic—including a former member of the British Parliament—are describing the agreement as a good deal for everyone involved.
This is designed to be more than a temporary arrangement vulnerable to the whims of the next administration or another round of European political pressure. If formally approved, it would close a strategic gap previous presidents left open—and do so without requiring the United States to purchase Greenland.
The potential payoff is enormous. The Arctic is no longer a distant concern. New shipping routes and aggressive moves by China and Russia have transformed the High North into a frontline of great-power competition. Greenland sits directly in the middle of that map.
Securing permanent American military rights there would mean the United States could defend itself and its interests without repeatedly renegotiating access or hoping allies would cooperate on America’s timeline.
We have seen what happens when the United States depends too heavily on NATO partners for basing rights. Permission can be delayed, restricted or complicated by domestic politics. That kind of uncertainty is unacceptable when national security is on the line. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spoken directly about this problem and the need to reevaluate how America approaches these relationships.
With this Greenland agreement, President Trump is attempting to reduce that vulnerability. Once the agreement is finalized and ratified, America would hold permanent rights in one of the most strategically important locations on the planet. We would not have to ask. We would not have to wait. We could act as needed to help secure Greenland and defend the United States.
A retired Marine colonel with deep national-security experience has explained exactly why this matters for America’s defense posture.
This is not abstract geopolitics. It is concrete military capability that could strengthen the United States for decades to come.
Another layer of uncertainty in the region makes the agreement even more timely. Scotland is the closest European country to Greenland. It is also home to the United Kingdom’s only nuclear-armed submarine base. Those submarines patrol the strategically vital waters between Greenland and the United Kingdom. Any change in Scotland’s political status could raise questions about the future of that base and those patrol routes.
Talk of Scottish independence is not merely theoretical. High-level visits and public debate have kept the issue alive. Ireland’s president recently met with Scotland’s first minister at Bute House—the first such visit in more than two decades.
Here was her measured assessment:
Scotland’s first minister has not backed down from his pledge to give the Scottish people another opportunity to consider independence. Here is a recent exchange between the first minister and a United Kingdom representative:
If Scotland became independent, the future of Britain’s nuclear-submarine base—and the reliability of related Arctic defense arrangements—could face new questions. That is precisely the kind of uncertainty a serious national-security strategy seeks to reduce.
By securing permanent American rights in Greenland now, President Trump is working to place U.S. defenses on a firmer foundation—one that would not depend entirely on the internal politics of another European nation.
This is classic Trump: identify the long-term strategic need, state the goal publicly, negotiate from strength and pursue a result previous administrations never achieved—all without purchasing the island or compromising its sovereignty.
For generations, American leaders talked about Greenland’s importance. They studied maps, commissioned reports and warned about Russian and Chinese ambitions in the Arctic. None produced a permanent security arrangement of this scope.
President Trump may now be on the verge of turning more than a century of unfinished business into a lasting agreement—one designed to protect American security interests far into the future.
That is what “promises made, promises kept” looks like in practice.