Fact-based journalism that sparks the Canadian conversation

Articles Business Environment Health Politics Arts & Culture Society

Special Series Hope You’re Well For the Love of the Game Living Rooms In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration Terra Cognita More special series >

For the Love of the Game

In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration

More special series >

Events The Walrus Talks The Walrus Video Room The Walrus Leadership Roundtables The Walrus Leadership Forums Article Club

The Walrus Video Room

The Walrus Leadership Roundtables

The Walrus Leadership Forums

Subscribe Renew your subscription Change your address Magazine Issues Newsletters Podcasts

Renew your subscription

The Walrus Lab Hire The Walrus Lab Amazon First Novel Award

Amazon First Novel Award

Trump’s Real Genius Is Selling Himself as a Dealmaker

What he won in Greenland falls well short of his boasts—and offers Canada a lesson in holding firm

Donald Trump’s bargaining skills have never been troubled by self-doubt. He knows how to apply pressure, spot weakness, and extract concessions that lesser dealmakers would leave on the table—or so he has spent decades telling us. The outcome in Greenland offers a chance to measure that reputation against the fine print.

The US, Denmark, and Greenland have reached an agreement that will halt Trump’s threats with very few changes

Much of what this crisis achieved was to damage US relations with the EU, NATO, and other countries involved

This episode should encourage Canada to develop trade and security options beyond the US

After months of intense and largely secret negotiations, Greenland, Denmark, and the United States have reached an agreement to put to rest (for now, anyway) Trump’s threats to take over that island.

In typical fashion, the US president took to social media on September 18, the day the deal was announced. He bragged that the US had effectively locked down Greenland forever. He said Washington would gain permanent freedom to expand its military presence, defend the island and block American adversaries from establishing bases or deploying forces there—all at no cost to the US. He also said he had obtained a veto over any economic development the US opposed. Trump cast this as the culmination of a century of frustrated American ambition and himself as the only person who could have pulled it off.

How much of this is true? A close look at the actual text of the agreement, revealed a few days later, suggests that Trump got far less than he demanded at the outset of the crisis in January—and even less than he boasted about when announcing the deal. In fact, he could have secured everything it contains simply by relying on previous agreements with the Danes and asking nicely for a few changes.

The bottom line is that his self-vaunted prowess in forcing compromises from the Danes and the Greenlanders appears little more than lies to cover the fact that he provoked a serious crisis within the alliance and got little for it. For Canada, there may be a useful lesson in the gap between what Trump demands and what he ultimately settles for.

Let’s start with Trump’s claim that “the United States will 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.” The truth is that, under the terms of a 1951 agreement with Denmark, the US has had the right to maintain and increase a military presence within agreed areas of Greenland. That agreement gives the US broad military rights in specified areas, so long as Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is respected.

So, is the new one different? Not really. Some new defence areas are specified, and the agreement sets out a process through which either side may propose additional ones. Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is reaffirmed, and the right of the Greenlanders to decide their future is added to the mix. The duration of the new agreement does appear to be somewhat different to the 1951 version, which specified that it would remain in force so long as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization existed. The 2026 version removes this stipulation and also notes that if Greenland should become independent in future, it will abide by the agreement.

But otherwise, nothing of substance is different. The “NO COST to the United States!” line in relation to new bases is highly suspicious. Who, exactly, is........

© The Walrus