Tomayto, Tomahto…Let’s Just Call it Greenland

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2026

Ownership, sovereignty, and control. They are not different ways of describing the same thing.

Some really wanted to make a deal and never got done, but we’re getting it done.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026

The sentence is plain and obvious. A deal was desired, maybe a bit challenging to structure, but through some efforts, it was accomplished. Taken on its own, the statement could be about almost any type of business.

Except, it’s the language used by President Donald Trump on September 22, when signing a trilateral agreement with Denmark and Greenland.

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen gave her interpretation: “And at the same time, the agreement, of course, respects the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark as well as Greenland’s right to self-determination.”

Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen also added: “For Greenland, this is not only an agreement about us, it is an agreement with us.”

While the three signed the same document, it’s clear they may not be in full agreement on what such a deal means to them individually.

At such times, word choice is a valuable analytic. Take a transcript of their remarks and strip it down (speaker by speaker) to the nouns. You find security is a uniting concept, but the meaning is different for each.

With Trump, security is framed by a secure deal and relationship. For Frederiksen it is tucked up against alliance, deterrence, and territorial integrity. And for Nielsen, security rests alongside people, responsibility, rights, and respect. The three have it doing a lot of different jobs. American security is a strategic achievement, Danish security is an allied defense without a surrender of sovereignty, and Greenlandic security is participation.

Did that one document manage to meet all three definitions? Could it?

It expands on a much earlier agreement drafted at a pivotal moment in history. The end of World War II meant American presence in Greenland should have been winding down, but the Cold War had just started to gear up. Greenland’s location as a northern approach to the continent meant it held strategic value for both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. America’s established presence and role in the newly formed NATO gave it a foothold the Soviets could not outmaneuver.

◆

1951

The American Secretary of State began the process of creating a long-term solution to satisfy defense needs in Greenland, around 1946. Initially involving discussions about long-term military rights, a defense treaty, or an outright purchase of Greenland (for $100 million in gold), by 1951 it became the “Defense of Greenland Agreement.” Establishing an American military presence within a NATO framework, it gave the U.S. extremely valuable security rights, but no ownership.

So, ownership and strategic control had already been part of the dialogue around Greenland and security. Why change it now?

It has been changed before. In 1968, a nuclear-armed U.S. B-52 crashed near Thule. Obviously, this demonstrated a tremendous security risk, and Denmark pushed for a supplement to the 1951 agreement, aiming to bar the U.S. from storing nuclear weapons in, or flying them over, Greenland without prior Danish permission. A few subsequent adjustments were made over the decades, including bringing Greenland’s Home Rule government into the arrangement, in 2004.

But during Trump’s first term as President, ownership reappeared in the discussion. At that time, Ronald Lauder (an heir to the Estee Lauder fortune) suggested buying Greenland. Trump asked national security adviser John Bolton to explore the idea. His team found that the U.S. already had broad military access thanks to that 1951 agreement.

The “buy Greenland” dialogue didn’t end there, but returned with Trump’s second term. Lauder continued to advocate for the move, even penning an op-ed about it; insisting it was necessary for countering Russian and Chinese influences, accessing its rare-earth mineral deposits, citing that melting ice is opening new maritime shipping lanes, and even speaking of it as a new frontier. Those were valid considerations. Greenland’s strategic location, resources, and even its changing sea routes make it hard to ignore. But, Lauder has also acquired business interests in Greenland.

Just look at the U.S. and Okinawa to illustrate that point. America found itself administering Okinawa in the post-WWII era. By the late 1960s the Nixon administration faced growing pressure to return administrative control of the island to Japanese authorities. It also didn’t want to lose its most important military base system in the Pacific. Preserving the maximum military strategic advantages while returning it to Japanese control was the challenge. By 1972, it was resolved: American bases would be leased, remaining available to the U.S. on land returned to Japan. Almost like a real estate transaction.

Political control could change without surrendering strategic value.

Here too, security was a concern of all involved, and here too, it was framed differently. Washington wanted ongoing strategic access. Tokyo wanted political control. Okinawans wanted reversion to Japanese rule and the American military footprint reduced.

But one very interesting phrase appeared during the back and forth. Japan’s foreign minister described the relationship with the U.S. in terms of “mutual trust.” Less than thirty years after war ended, the U.S. and Japan were speaking in terms of mutual trust. That’s astonishing.

And that brings us back to Greenland and the language swirling around that new agreement in 2026. Trump can reasonably say that a long sought after deal got done. Frederiksen can say Denmark’s sovereignty remains, and Nielsen can say that Greenland remains self-determined.

The one document seemingly addresses security. Trust is an entirely different matter.

Exiting the signing, Nielsen spoke openly of the damaged trust and the tense months leading to this new agreement. And that raises the question: Can any formal agreement for security exist without mutual trust? What does trust mean to the U.S.? To Denmark? To Greenland?

As it was in 1951 and as it was with Okinawa…as long as everyone can agree they are talking about the same things. At that point, it becomes a tomayto, tomahto kind of question. Just don’t call the whole thing off.

Faithfully,