What is current U.S. treaty regarding Greenland
Executive summary
The governing, long-standing legal framework that gives the United States broad military basing and access rights in Greenland is the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, which allows U.S. forces to build and use bases and move freely within Greenlandic defense areas while preserving Danish sovereignty [1] [2]. Recent statements by President Trump and a reported “framework” discussed with NATO describe ambitions for “total access” or possible transfers of small pockets of land for bases, but those claims are vague, politically contested, and do not yet replace or nullify the 1951 treaty as described in contemporary reporting [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. The 1951 treaty: basing rights, not sovereignty
The foundational instrument is the 1951 Agreement for the Defense of Greenland, negotiated under NATO auspices, which expressly permits the United States to construct and use military facilities in Greenland and to move U.S. forces between those facilities in cooperation with Denmark for the defense of the North Atlantic area, while not abrogating Danish sovereignty over Greenland [1] [2]. The treaty language contemplates the creation of “defense areas” and authorises U.S. personnel to be attached to local command arrangements, and it was intended as a reciprocal NATO-era arrangement to meet Cold War requirements [1] [2].
2. Legal constraints: land ownership, sovereignty, and precedents
Even if political leaders sought a change to give the United States greater control, practical legal limits exist: Greenlandic land is public and, according to reporting, cannot simply be bought and sold, and historically U.S. bases abroad have not equated to sovereign U.S. territory except in rare, treaty-specific cases such as Guantánamo Bay — a model that would require explicit bilateral consent and durable treaty arrangements [5]. Observers have pointed to analogues such as British sovereign base areas in Cyprus, but those precedents required distinct treaty arrangements and colonial-era inheritances that do not map neatly onto contemporary Greenlandic self-rule [5] [7].
3. The 2026 “framework” claims: rhetoric, NATO involvement, and skepticism
In January 2026, President Trump asserted he had negotiated a NATO-linked “framework” that would grant the U.S. “total access” or even permanent access to Greenland, and he publicly said the deal could include “no end, no time limit” [3] [7]. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and other officials described talks about bolstering Arctic security and signalled plans to increase allied presence, but made no public claim that the 1951 treaty had been superseded; several outlets and officials cautioned that details were unclear and that Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty remained intact in official statements [4] [8] [9].
4. Greenland and Denmark pushback; negotiations ongoing
Greenlandic and Danish leaders have made clear that sovereignty and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination are red lines, with Greenland’s representatives stating NATO has no mandate to negotiate Greenland’s status without Greenland itself, and Denmark indicating negotiations would continue among the three parties — the U.S., Denmark and Greenland — rather than a unilateral transfer [6] [8] [10]. Reporting notes that ideas floated in media and anonymous briefings — including ceding “small pockets” for bases — remain proposals under discussion rather than completed legal changes [5] [11].
5. What the reporting does and does not establish
Contemporary reporting establishes that the operative legal instrument today remains the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement, which grants the U.S. extensive basing and use rights but does not transfer sovereignty [1] [2] [12]. What is not established in the sources consulted is any new, ratified treaty that supplants the 1951 agreement or any formal cession of Greenlandic territory to the United States; the “framework” referenced by President Trump is presented in news accounts as politically negotiated, vague, and subject to further diplomatic work and domestic objections in Denmark and Greenland [3] [4] [6] [5].