Donald Trump May Not Understand Greenland Deal, Danish Lawmaker Says - Newsweek

A Danish lawmaker has questioned whether U.S. President Donald Trump understands the Greenland security agreement his administration negotiated, warning that dealing with an unpredictable White House carries considerable risks.

Mads Fuglede, of Denmark Democrats, told the Folketing, the Danish Parliament, on Thursday that Copenhagen had secured an agreement with an "unstable counterpart," despite months of extraordinary pressure from Washington.

"You naturally run a risk when you enter into an agreement with a party who, not very long after the agreement, also expresses on social media and elsewhere that he probably hasn't entirely understood what kind of agreement he has entered into," Fuglede said.

He described the Trump administration as one with which it had perhaps never been more difficult to reach binding agreements.

His criticism came as Danish lawmakers began debating a landmark security deal allowing the United States to expand its military presence in Greenland, while explicitly reaffirming Danish sovereignty and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination.

The agreement, signed by Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen on September 22 in New York, followed months of tensions over Trump's ambitions for the strategically important Arctic territory.

The agreement builds on a 1951 defense treaty, permitting expanded American operations at Pituffik Space Base and providing for additional defense areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig, subject to further arrangements.

It also strengthens NATO cooperation in the Arctic and provides a framework for additional American military facilities, while including provisions covering Greenlandic businesses, environmental protections and sensitive foreign investments.

Despite their criticism of Trump, Danish lawmakers from across the political spectrum welcomed the agreement during Thursday's debate.

Fuglede said Denmark and Greenland had successfully negotiated with a far more powerful partner, adding that Europe could not afford to abandon its security relationship with the United States.

"We cannot do without them in our European security structure," he said, confirming his party's wholehearted support.

But other lawmakers offered equally striking accounts of the uncertainty surrounding the negotiations.

Sjúrður Skaale, who represents the Faroe Islands, recalled attending meetings at Denmark's foreign ministry and prime minister's office during Trump’s previous stance on acquiring Greenland.

He said the message repeatedly conveyed to those present could be reduced to three words: "He means it."

Skaale described how Denmark sought support from other countries, including efforts to persuade them to send soldiers to Greenland to protect the territory against the United States.

He said the confrontation had created an almost impossible negotiating position for Denmark and Greenland, which were economically, politically and militarily far weaker than Washington.

Nevertheless, he praised the outcome as a diplomatic achievement. "I think the agreement is truly a masterpiece," Skaale said.

He also warned that Trump's commitments could prove unreliable, invoking Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's comparison of American agreements to signatures written in pencil that could subsequently be erased.

"We can only hope that it does not end up like a certain agreement that the president made with Canada, which did not remain valid for very long," Skaale said.

Karsten Hønge, of the Green Left, described the human consequences of the dispute.

He said frightened Greenlandic children had asked their parents whether American forces would occupy the island and where their families would have to move.

"In Denmark, we were nervous and frustrated. But in Greenland, ordinary people were afraid," Hønge said.

Conservative MP Helle Bonnesen similarly described Greenlanders as having endured "completely inhuman pressure" during the confrontation.

Thomas Rohden, of the Social Liberal Party, called it perhaps Denmark's greatest foreign-policy crisis since World War II.

"We have stood firm that Greenland is not for sale," he said, stressing that Greenlanders must decide their own future.

Trine Pertou Mach, of the Red-Green Alliance, accused Washington of threatening to take Greenland by force and showing unprecedented disrespect for international law.

Her party remained skeptical of expanded American military activity but supported the agreement because Greenland had participated directly in negotiations.

"Diplomacy proved to be the strongest weapon," she said.

Flemming Møller Mortensen, speaking for the Social Democrats, praised Denmark and Greenland for establishing common negotiating red lines and maintaining them throughout the discussions.

He said the agreement strengthened NATO security without compromising the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Jacob Jensen, of Venstre, also emphasized the legal distinction between American military access and sovereign authority, citing a Danish government assessment that the agreement did not transfer governmental powers to Washington.

Morten E.G. Brautsch, representing the Moderates, acknowledged the anxiety triggered by the crisis but insisted that the United States remained an indispensable security partner.

"Although we have experienced challenges in transatlantic relations recently, the United States remains a crucial ally," he said.

Liberal Alliance MP Lars-Christian Brask described the agreement as an impressive diplomatic achievement that had been far from guaranteed earlier in the year.

"Freedom is always worth fighting for," he said.

Mette Thiesen, of the Danish People's Party, welcomed the agreement but said her party would seek clarification of some provisions during parliamentary committee scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Lars Boje Mathiesen, of the Citizens' Party, accused Denmark's political establishment of "collective hysteria" over Trump's threats.

He argued that American constitutional checks on presidential power had been overlooked during the crisis.

Greenland's representatives in the Danish Parliament also offered contrasting perspectives.

Naaja Nathanielsen, of Inuit Ataqatigiit, welcomed the agreement while recalling the forced relocation of Greenlanders, secrecy and environmental pollution associated with earlier American military activities.

"Most importantly for Inuit Ataqatigiit, no red lines have been crossed," she said.

But Qarsoq Høegh-Dam, representing Naleraq, questioned whether Greenland's participation in negotiations guaranteed genuine equality.

He warned that the agreement's promises would mean little unless they were implemented.

"Now comes the great task," he said, referring to turning the agreement's commitments into reality.

Greenland's parliament approved the agreement on November 3 by 16 votes to none, with seven abstentions. Naleraq raised objections over the absence of guaranteed financial payments and called for a referendum.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen introduced the agreement to the Danish Parliament, which is scheduled to hold its second reading on November 19, along with a final vote.

Once approved, the agreement is expected to enter into force once the United States receives diplomatic notification that the necessary procedures have been completed.

In a written statement to Denmark's Parliament, Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen described the country's defense cooperation with the United States as "an indispensable contribution to the security and defence of Greenland and the rest of the NATO area."

He said the new agreement was "good for the Kingdom, for NATO and for Europe" and would strengthen shared security in the Arctic and North Atlantic.

Rasmussen said the agreement demonstrated the "continued strong ties between Greenland, Denmark and the United States," despite the tensions surrounding Trump's ambitions for Greenland.

He argued that the deal reflected growing security challenges in the Arctic, including "increased military activity by adversaries and the growing strategic interest in the region."

Newsweek has approached the U.S. State Department for comment.

This article includes software-translated text and may contain errors.

Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here. Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Edward T. Cummins