OPINION | Trump’s Greenland Agreement Deserves a Place in the History Books

In 1867, Secretary of State William H. Seward agreed to pay Russia $7.2 million for Alaska. Today no one in their right mind is laughing at Trump. The crazies are pissed. He wins, again!

Critics mocked the Alaska frozen territory as “Seward’s Folly.” They could see the price and the ice; they struggled to see the future. Alaska later proved valuable for its resources and its position on the northern approaches to the United States. The lesson is familiar, but Washington’s current argument over Greenland suggests we have not learned it very well. U.S. Department of State

President Donald Trump’s newly reported agreement with Denmark and Greenland deserves serious recognition as a potential strategic achievement. The three governments signed a security agreement on September 22 that would expand the American military presence on the world’s largest island. Reports describe plans for facilities at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig, modernization at Pituffik Space Base, and cooperation on the proposed Golden Dome missile defense system. Greenland remains under Danish sovereignty, and Greenlanders retain their right to determine their future. This is a defense agreement, not an American purchase of territory. Reuters · Associated Press report

That distinction makes the diplomatic result more interesting. Trump began with an ambition to acquire Greenland, an idea that drew widespread ridicule and alarmed two allies. The emerging arrangement appears to secure expanded access for American defense while keeping Denmark and Greenland at the table as partners. One can object to the president’s earlier language and still recognize the value of an agreement that strengthens the northern defense of the United States.

Partisanship should not make an Arctic security gain disappear from view.

Pituffik already performs missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance missions, according to the U.S. Space Force. Geography explains why. The shortest paths between parts of North America and Eurasia pass through the far north, making Greenland an important location for detecting threats and supporting allied operations. A larger American presence there would deepen an existing defense relationship rather than plant the flag on an unfamiliar frontier. U.S. Space Force

The comparison with Seward is useful if kept honest. Alaska was bought and became American territory; Greenland has not. The Monroe Doctrine expressed opposition to new European interference in the Americas, but Denmark is a NATO ally, and Greenland’s people have a voice in their own future. The better parallel is that a northern strategic decision can be dismissed in the moment and understood more clearly decades later.

The difference is that the United States may now gain useful defense access through an agreement among allies rather than a land sale.

Democrats and commentators who treated every mention of Greenland as a punch line should give this agreement a fresh look.

Some objections to Trump’s original acquisition proposal were substantial, especially the concern that Washington had strained relations with Denmark and Greenland. But those objections do not settle the value of the agreement reportedly signed this week.

Credit should go to the American, Danish and Greenlandic negotiators who found common ground—and to a president who made Arctic defense a priority.

No one can responsibly declare the deal another Alaska Purchase today. Its historical value will depend on the final legal terms, any required approvals, the cost of construction, what actually gets built, and whether the three partners sustain public support.

Golden Dome remains a proposed system, not a completed shield. Claims that the arrangement costs America nothing should also wait for a published budget: new installations and upgrades require money. Those tests are reasons to scrutinize the agreement seriously, not reasons to wave it away.

Seward did not need his critics’ permission to be right about Alaska. Trump should not need his opponents’ affection for Americans to recognize a promising agreement in Greenland.

If the planned facilities and allied safeguards are delivered, September 2026 may be remembered as a consequential moment in Arctic security.

The honest response, even from those who dislike the president, is to examine the terms, watch the results and give credit where it is earned.