\n When CNN\u2019s Kaitlan Collins asked Trump whether it met his demand to own Greenland, he paused and avoided the question<\/a>. He said instead, \u201cIt\u2019s a long-term deal.\u201d He called it \u201cinfinite,\u201d and said, \u201cIt\u2019s a deal that\u2019s forever.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n That response appears to be telling in more than one way.\n <\/p>\n \n Not only did Trump tellingly avoid the question about his central demand (which he appears to have folded on), but he referred to an aspect of the framework that \u2026 already exists in a security agreement the US has with Denmark, which controls Greenland.\n <\/p>\n \n That deal, which was forged in 1951, already allowed<\/a> for an American military presence on Greenland in perpetuity. Yet Trump keeps talking about that as if it\u2019s a major advance.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cThere\u2019s no time limit,\u201d he repeated Thursday morning on Fox Business Network.\n <\/p>\n \n Indeed, while we have much to learn about the details, and the details still need to be ironed out \u2013 CNN reported Thursday that no actual document exists yet<\/a> \u2014 much of what we have learned sounds a lot like what the United States already had.\n <\/p>\n \n And that, in turn, makes it look a whole lot like Trump folded \u2013 or TACOed, as is the current parlance.\n <\/p>\n \n Here\u2019s what we think we know<\/a> about the framework, which is still just a verbal understanding between Trump and Rutte\n <\/p>\n It involves discussions about updating that 1951 deal.<\/p>\n Trump claimed it would allow for \u201ctotal access\u201d for defense \u2013 including the placement of the\u202fGolden Dome defense system<\/a>, similar to Israel\u2019s.<\/p>\n The updated deal could include specific provisions barring Beijing and Moscow from operating in Greenland, suggested a NATO spokesperson.<\/p>\n It also appears to involve an enhanced role for NATO in Greenland.<\/p>\n There are conflicting signals about whether the deal includes increased US access to Greenland\u2019s minerals, which Trump has also floated as a priority.<\/p>\n \n These would be significant concessions. Except that it looks plenty like the United States already had them in large part \u2013 or could have had them with significantly less coercion.\n <\/p>\n \n When it comes to sovereignty over US bases, the 1951 deal<\/a> already allowed the United States to \u201cexercise exclusive jurisdiction over (its) defense areas in Greenland.\u201d (There were some updates to the deal in 2004<\/a>.)\n <\/p>\n \n As long as it didn\u2019t violate Danish sovereignty, the US was allowed to improve and develop the defense areas, install and maintain equipment, station personnel, provide security, have post offices and commissary stores, and control the comings, goings and operation of ships and aircraft.\n <\/p>\n \n The agreement also gave the United States free reign to travel between the defense areas. And it even said the laws of Denmark couldn\u2019t be used to prevent key personnel and their families from entering or exiting the defense areas.\n <\/p>\n \n It\u2019s possible the new agreement could include even more US free reign. But that\u2019s already an extensive amount.\n <\/p>\n \n As for the other pieces above, it\u2019s unclear what among them couldn\u2019t have been negotiated without Trump\u2019s threats of military invasion or other forms of coercion, like his recent tariffs announcement, which inflamed Europe and plunged the markets before he withdrew that threat.\n <\/p>\n \n Indeed, Greenland, Denmark and other relevant countries had signaled repeatedly that they were already open to negotiating over such issues.\n <\/p>\n \n Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt said earlier this month that Greenland was committed to finding the \u201cright path\u201d and to strengthening security cooperation. Nordic leaders including Denmark\u2019s foreign minister said way back on January 6 that the 1951 agreement \u201coffers opportunities for increased security cooperation<\/a>.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n To the extent Trump wants to keep Russia and China out of Greenland, there is no indication that anybody would have resisted that \u2013 and given Denmark\u2019s presence in NATO, there\u2019s plenty of reason to believe it would have been amenable.\n <\/p>\n \n Negotiators had also reportedly broached the topic of mineral rights weeks ago. And it\u2019s not clear how big a concession that even is, given mining them could prove extremely difficult<\/a>.\n <\/p>\n \n Just last week, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell was apoplectic on this point.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cI have yet to hear from this administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us,\u201d McConnell said.\n <\/p>\n \n But Trump rejected these entreaties, insisting that it was ownership or bust.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cAnything less than that is unacceptable,\u201d the president said in a social media post.\n <\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/c-gettyimages-1707492830.jpg\")
<\/p>\n