"DONE DEAL – RUBIO WALKS OFF FOX NEWS SET – STUNS HOSTS WITH ANNOUNCEMENT"
The U.S., Denmark, and Greenland have reached a major new security agreement that would significantly expand the American military presence on Greenland while preserving Danish sovereignty over the strategically important Arctic territory.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed details of the agreement during a Tuesday morning appearance on Fox News.
“In fact, well, remember the whole thing about Greenland was about national security. President Trump was clear about that from the very beginning,” he said.
“This was about national security both for missile defense, defense of the Arctic, defense of waterways, all of that was critical,” Rubio continued.
“And so we had an existing agreement, but it was not — it needed to be modernized, it needed to be updated. We have a new agreement now that’s actually great for Greenland and Denmark, as well, because it provides for their security,” he said.
“And what it — first of all, it’s permanent, it’s forever. Like, there’s no expiration to this deal. It allows us to build as many military bases as are necessary for missile defense, for so forth,” the former Florida GOP senator went on.
“It puts us in an investment screening process together with Denmark, so you’re not gonna wake up one day and realize, ‘Okay, yeah, the Chinese military’s not there, but their companies own all the ports, their companies own all the land, and so they’re there,’ because they’ve done that in different parts of the world,” he added.
The three governments are scheduled to formally sign the agreement Tuesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
President Donald Trump announced the agreement Friday, describing it as a permanent arrangement giving the United States broad authority to protect Greenland and American national security interests in the Arctic.
Trump said Washington would begin developing a substantially larger military presence on the island and that the agreement has no expiration date.
“At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America,” Trump wrote in announcing the agreement.
Trump is expected to meet Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen in New York on Tuesday to formally execute the deal.
“The three leaders will formalize their new agreement that will secure and defend the security of Greenland and the United States,” a White House official told ABC News.
The agreement represents the culmination of months of negotiations that began after Trump renewed his push for greater American control over Greenland shortly after returning to office.
Trump repeatedly argued that Greenland was critical to U.S. national security because of its geographic position, mineral resources and proximity to potential Arctic activity by Russia and China. At various points, he publicly discussed acquiring Greenland and declined to rule out stronger measures to obtain control of the territory.
Denmark and Greenland repeatedly rejected the possibility of transferring sovereignty.
The final agreement stops well short of making Greenland part of the United States. Instead, it expands American military access while formally recognizing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination.
Frederiksen said the arrangement simultaneously strengthens NATO security and protects those principles.
The agreement “recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination,” Frederiksen said.
Nielsen also welcomed the agreement, saying it would strengthen the security of Greenland, Denmark, the United States and the broader Western alliance.
Under the deal, the United States will receive permanent military access, basing and overflight rights, according to U.S. officials familiar with its terms. Non-NATO countries would be prohibited from establishing military bases on Greenland, while sensitive investments by American adversaries would also be restricted.
Reuters reported Tuesday that the agreement calls for two additional American military sites, one at Narsarsuaq, a former air base in southern Greenland, and another at Mestersvig in the east.
Those facilities would supplement the existing U.S. presence at Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland.
The United States has maintained military rights on Greenland for decades.
The 1951 Defense of Greenland agreement between Washington and Copenhagen already gives the U.S. extensive authority to operate military installations on the island.
During the Cold War, the United States maintained several facilities there before substantially reducing its presence.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
