1951 Pact Could Shape Greenland’s Future Again

Steven Højlund

Writer

January 29, 2026
2:49 pm

A 70-year-old defense agreement between the United States and Denmark from 1951 is emerging as a potential solution to resolve tensions between the US and the Kingdom of Denmark over Greenland. Both Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen have pointed to this agreement as a framework for future negotiations with the United States.

Origins of the Defense Agreement

The defense agreement that entered into force on June 8, 1951, has deep roots in World War II. In fact, it formalized an earlier arrangement made by Danish Ambassador Henrik Kauffmann in 1941. Kauffmann, who may be familiar to those who saw the 2020 film “Our Man in America,” made a controversial decision during the German occupation of Denmark.

Without authorization from the Danish government in Copenhagen, Kauffmann granted the United States the right to establish military bases in Greenland. Despite acting beyond his mandate, this move proved crucial during the war. Rasmus Leander Nielsen, a lecturer and center director for Nasiffik, the Center for Foreign and Security Policy at the University of Greenland, explains that the 1951 agreement essentially formalized many elements that Kauffmann had negotiated a decade earlier.

The agreement was created during the Cold War era when the strategic importance of Greenland became increasingly apparent to American security interests. Interestingly, one of the original purposes of the 1951 defense pact was to discourage US attempts to purchase Greenland, which had already occurred several times before.

What the Agreement Allows

The 1951 defense agreement grants the United States extensive rights to operate in Greenland while explicitly preserving Danish sovereignty over the territory. According to Rasmus Leander Nielsen, the agreement is tied to the NATO treaty and remains valid as long as NATO exists, making it essentially permanent.

The pact recognizes that Greenland plays a role in US security and provides what Nielsen calls “wide frameworks” for Americans to address any security concerns they may have regarding the island. Crucially, the agreement allows US defense forces to move freely throughout Greenland, provided this does not infringe upon the Kingdom of Denmark’s sovereignty.

The Permanent Committee and Consultation Requirements

Since the original signatures were placed on the agreement, several supplementary deals have been added. These amendments led to the creation of the Permanent Committee, where representatives from the United States, Greenland, and Denmark meet annually to inform each other about military activities in Greenland.

The Igaliku Agreement from 2004, named after the South Greenlandic town where it was signed, confirmed that the United States would consult and inform both Danish and Greenlandic governments before any significant changes to US military operations and facilities in Greenland. This means that if Americans want to establish new bases in Greenland, diplomatic discussions between all three parties must occur first.

Nielsen notes that this is why many Danish politicians believe Donald Trump is “kicking in an open door.” The possibilities for increased American security measures already exist within the agreement. The Americans simply need to ask permission first. As Nielsen points out, basic international law dictates that sovereignty over one’s own territory is inviolable, and the US cannot simply take over part of Greenland without consent.

Potential for New American Bases

Both the Greenlandic and Danish governments have repeatedly emphasized that the kingdom’s sovereignty is not negotiable. Therefore, Nielsen does not envision that any new defense agreement would allow the US to freely place bases throughout Greenland, or even in a limited area, without cooperation from Denmark and Greenland.

However, expansion of Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, and the establishment of new bases could certainly occur with approval from Denmark and Greenland. Such bases could function similarly to Pituffik, operating in some ways like an embassy where the base area is broadly considered part of US territory.

Reopening Former American Installations

Nielsen suggests that reopening some former American bases on Greenland’s east coast could be on the table. Small Danish bases already exist at locations like Mestersvig and Narsarsuaq in South Greenland. Establishing American presence in these areas would give the United States greater ability to monitor activities in the waters toward Iceland and Britain.

This expanded presence would address American concerns about surveillance gaps and blind spots in Greenland’s vast territory. Given that both Greenland and Denmark have shown openness to increased security cooperation in recent years, such developments appear feasible within the existing framework.

The Golden Dome and NORAD Expansion

Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire for a missile defense system similar to Israel’s Iron Dome, which he calls the “Golden Dome.” Creating this protective shield would require radars and missiles, equipment the Americans may wish to place in Greenland.

A defense cooperation already exists between the United States and Canada called the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. This system protects the airspace over both countries. Nielsen believes Greenland could be incorporated under this umbrella because the US perceives too many blind spots in Greenland’s coverage.

He suggests that NORAD could address several of the surveillance and security challenges Trump has mentioned repeatedly. Moreover, Nielsen believes this is one option that both Greenland and Denmark would be open to exploring. Expanding NORAD to include Greenland would provide a structured, multilateral framework that respects sovereignty while addressing legitimate security concerns.

Will a New Agreement End US Interest in Acquiring Greenland?

Ironically, one reason for creating the 1951 defense agreement was to discourage American attempts to purchase Greenland. At that time, the United States had already made several offers to send dollars to Denmark in exchange for ownership of the island. Nielsen notes that there have been numerous formal examples of this, along with other less formalized attempts.

Even if an agreement is reached with Donald Trump, Nielsen does not believe US interest in owning Greenland will disappear entirely. Eventually, another administration might revive the question. However, predicting outcomes in the current situation is extremely difficult, precisely because of the unpredictable nature of the man occupying the Oval Office.

Nielsen reflects that the theories about international institutions and agreements he learned in political science courses during the 2000s are currently “up in the air.” Normal logic would suggest that questions about Greenland could be resolved in meetings within existing frameworks. Instead, the situation has become much muddier and more complicated than necessary.

Trump’s Historical Ambitions

Nielsen speculates that Trump may harbor an imperialistic dream of being carved into Mount Rushmore and remembered in history books as the president who expanded the United States. Only Trump knows how heavily that desire weighs on his decision-making. If it weighs heavily, better security guarantees probably won’t change much for him.

Despite the uncertainty, the 1951 defense agreement and its subsequent amendments provide a solid foundation for negotiations. The agreement has proven flexible enough to accommodate Greenland’s increased autonomy through home rule and later self-government, while maintaining the core security arrangements that serve NATO interests.

The framework already allows for expanded US military presence through consultation and mutual agreement. This approach preserves sovereignty while addressing security needs, a balance that may ultimately satisfy all parties involved, at least temporarily.