Trump’s Greenland framework explained: What the ‘future deal’ means and what still isn’t clear

The US president has announced a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland while European tariffs are paused, but details are unclear.

Trump Greenland Deal: United States President Donald Trump announced in Davos that he had finalised a plan for a future deal on Greenland during talks with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. He also confirmed that his earlier threat to impose 10 percent trade tariffs on eight European countries opposing the acquisition of the Arctic island would be withdrawn, halting the planned increase to 25 percent later in the year.

A self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland has consistently stated that it is not for sale. Rutte met Trump at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland to ease tensions with Europe, while Trump said he still wants to acquire Greenland but will not use force. NATO officials indicated that European countries would increase security efforts in the Arctic as part of the deal.

Trump described the framework a step toward a long-term arrangement for Greenland and the Arctic that will focus on security and access to minerals. The United States plans to hold further negotiations led by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, though the schedule and participants from Europe are not known.

Washington had previously set a 10 percent tariff on exports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, threatening to raise it to 25 percent if no agreement on Greenland was reached.

The European Union (EU) held emergency discussions on potential retaliatory measures. Trump’s announcement in Davos removed the immediate trade pressure, but the larger questions of ownership, sovereignty and the exact scope of the framework are still unresolved.

Trump emphasised Greenland’s strategic importance, adding that its position between the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans is as a critical corridor for military operations and early-warning systems. The island also contains abundant untapped mineral deposits, including rare earth metals essential for technology and defense industries. Global warming has further increased interest in Greenland, opening new shipping routes and economic opportunities.

Historically, the United States occupied Greenland during the World War II but never held sovereignty, and current agreements with Denmark allow extensive military operations without transferring ownership. Trump has stated that the United States should own Greenland rather than lease it, citing national and international security concerns.

Analysts say that Denmark and Greenland’s legal frameworks would limit any US ambitions to military or operational rights rather than territorial control.

While details of the “framework” are vague, it is expected to include enhanced US access to Greenland, updates to defense agreements and targeted cooperation on security and minerals. Experts suggest that governance measures, joint oversight and transparency requirements could influence and regulate US involvement on the ground.

Greenland’s government and representatives have emphasised that any agreement must involve the island itself, rejecting negotiations conducted solely between the United States and Denmark or NATO officials.

European leaders have cautiously welcomed the pause on tariffs but continue to stress the importance of dialogue and adherence to sovereignty.

Greenland is one of Denmark’s two self-governing overseas territories, along with the Faroe Islands. The Arctic island became a Danish colony in the early 18th century after an expedition led by Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede arrived in 1721. It gained self-governing status in 1979. Since 2009, Greenland has had the legal right to hold a referendum to declare full independence.

The Arctic island’s sparse population, combined with its strategic and economic value, has made it a point of interest for global powers, including the United States, Russia and China.

The United States, like the United Kingdom, France and Australia, has overseas territories that govern themselves to different extents, often for military or strategic reasons.

The United Kingdom has 14 overseas territories across the Atlantic, Caribbean, Pacific and polar regions. Most of these territories, including Bermuda, the Falkland Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Gibraltar and Montserrat, are largely self-governing while London handles defence and foreign affairs.

The United States has five permanently inhabited territories: Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. Each has local governments but limited federal representation. Puerto Rico is the biggest and governs itself as a commonwealth.

In addition, Washington has nine mostly uninhabited islands used mainly for strategic or military purposes.

France oversees 13 overseas territories spread across the Atlantic, Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific and South America. China has two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau, which operate with considerable autonomy in political, economic and legal matters. Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand and Portugal also have overseas territories with varying levels of self-government.

These territories often combine strategic, military and economic significance, giving their controlling nations both a local presence and access to important resources. Greenland’s location in the Arctic, for example, has made it a point of interest for global powers due to its mineral wealth, strategic air and sea routes and evolving shipping lanes caused by melting ice.

As the Greenland talks progress, questions rise about the framework’s legal, economic and security implications. The world continues to watch closely as Washington moves to strengthen its Arctic presence while balancing alliances, trade and territorial sensitivities in a region rapidly gaining strategic prominence.