Greenland Deal: After The Party Comes The Hangover

Despite the Scandinavian-style gloom in Denmark over the U.S. Greenland deal, it's actually a good deal for both sides.

Stephen Helgesen | September 26, 2026

Here in Denmark, the Danes aren't exactly celebrating the recent deal for U.S. bases on Greenland in the streets of Copenhagen like they did on VE Day.

That said, the media here are doing their level best to praise the Danish government's deft maneuvering through the dangerous waters of the U.S.-Greenland "problem" they found themslves in over the past 18 months.

The newly signed agreement to "supplement the agreement of 27 April 1951" is not an omnibus agreement that gave President Trump what he wanted.

Neither did it clarify the purposely vague passages in the old agreement that made it problematic. 

While Greenland's prime minister, Jens Frederik Nielsen, said at the signing ceremony that this agreement was a "win, win, win agreement," he must have been speaking about how the Danes managed to keep Donald Trump from advancing down the path of annexation and staving off any American ownership of Greenland and the ability of the Americans to decide who invests in commercial projects on the world's largest island.

The agreement was essentially a dusting off and modernizing of the revised agreement of 2004.

It did not give the United States force majeure, but it could leave the possibility of the U.S. implementing it, waiting just outside the door. (A force majeure clause may temporarily suspend contractual obligations — or sometimes permit termination — without liability.

It does not, however, automatically excuse every difficulty. The event must normally fall within the contract’s wording, be beyond the affected party’s control, and genuinely prevent or seriously obstruct performance. It could be invoked by a state of war or government prohibitions.)

So here's a look at some of the specifics of the........

© American Thinker