Trump announces the "permanent control" of the security of Greenland and Denmark defends its sovereignty

The agreement announced by Donald Trump on the security of Greenland does not come into effect automatically. According to information published by Demócrata, the text itself “still has to go through the corresponding parliamentary procedures and requires ratification by Denmark and Greenland,” and Trump’s announcement “does not mean […] that all its provisions are already in force.” From there, we can describe the political and institutional steps that, according to the existing division of powers, must be completed on each side.

Background political and constitutional framework

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark as an autonomous territory. As several pieces from Demócrata recall, the island enjoys “broad autonomy to manage internal affairs,” but “areas such as foreign policy and defense remain the exclusive competence of the Danish government in Copenhagen.” This explains why the pact was negotiated and announced jointly by the authorities of Denmark and Greenland.

At the same time, both the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, and the Greenlandic Prime Minister, Jens‑Frederik Nielsen, have emphasized that the agreement “recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Denmark and “the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination.” This insistence on sovereignty and the right of Greenlanders to decide their future politically reinforces the idea that the pact cannot come into effect without the approval of both parts of the Kingdom: the Danish and Greenlandic institutions.

Procedures in Denmark

In the Danish case, the consulted news describe the agreement as a “security pact” that strengthens the U.S. military presence in Greenland, with “permanent rights of military access, establishment of facilities, and overflight” and mechanisms to prevent the establishment of rival powers such as China or Russia. By its nature, it is an international understanding with high impact in defense and security matters.

In procedural terms, the process is as follows:

• Negotiation and signing by the Government: the agreement has been politically closed between the Executives of the United States, Denmark, and Greenland. According to Demócrata, the formal signing is scheduled in New York, coinciding with the UN General Assembly, with the participation of the Danish Prime Minister and her Foreign Minister.
• Submission to the Danish Parliament: once signed, the Danish Government must submit the pact to the control of the national Parliament (the Folketing) when it comes to defense and security agreements of this scope. The information from Demócrata points out that the text “still has to go through the corresponding parliamentary procedures,” which includes debate and possible parliamentary authorization.
• Parliamentary debate and vote: the Parliament will debate the content of the agreement, its impact on the security of the Kingdom of Denmark, NATO, and the EU, as well as the guarantees on sovereignty and self-determination of Greenland that the Danish Government itself has put at the forefront. The expected result is a resolution of approval or rejection.
• Possible implementing legislation: if the pact requires changes or adjustments in Danish regulations (for example, in rules on strategic investments or use of military facilities), the approval of complementary laws or legal modifications will be necessary.

Procedures in Greenland

Although defense and foreign policy remain formally in the hands of Copenhagen, the agreement places Greenland as part of the understanding, not as “a territory whose future can be decided without its inhabitants.” In fact, the pieces from Demócrata expressly state that the pact “needs ratification by Denmark and Greenland.”

In practice, this implies:

• Political approval by the Greenlandic Government: the head of the island’s Government, Jens‑Frederik Nielsen, has supported the agreement and is traveling to New York “to participate in the signing,” which reflects an initial political endorsement from the autonomous Executive.
• Debate in Greenlandic institutions: once the full text is known, the pact must be submitted to the island’s internal procedures. In the absence of regulatory detail in the news, this implies at least the deliberation of the Greenlandic Parliament on whether it supports the agreement that directly affects its territory and security environment.
• Formal ratification: only after approval by Greenlandic institutions can full ratification by Greenland be spoken of, in parallel with the Danish one, as anticipated by the information from Demócrata.

Current situation

In summary, the agreement is at a stage of political announcement and preparation for signing. For it to come into effect, the following must be completed:

• The formal signing by representatives of the United States, Denmark, and Greenland.
• Ratification procedures in Denmark, with participation of the Parliament.
• Ratification procedures in Greenland, with involvement of its political institutions.

Until the final text is known and these steps are completed, the newspaper Demócrata itself emphasizes that “Trump’s announcement does not mean […] that all its provisions are already in force.”

I cannot respond in detail and guaranteeing legal rigor to your question about the functions and powers of the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, according to the Constitution of Denmark, because I specialize specifically in the political and institutional system of Spain (State, autonomous communities, and, in general, its parliamentary and regulatory life), not in the Danish constitutional order or other foreign systems.

My field of work is focused on:

• Spanish institutions: functioning of the Government of Spain, the Cortes Generales (Congress and Senate), autonomous parliaments, and other constitutional and statutory bodies.
• Regulations and initiatives: laws, royal decree-laws, bill projects and proposals, regulations, and other Spanish regulations, including their parliamentary and pre-legislative processing phases (public consultations, draft bills, etc.).
• Political and parliamentary actors: parliamentary groups, parties, heads of ministries and other public institutions, as well as their activity in parliamentary sessions and, in many cases, their presence in public debate.
• Political and regulatory current affairs in Spain: context of main reforms, sectoral debates (energy, transport, health, housing, digitalization, etc.) and their impact on companies, organizations, and citizens.
• Procedures and concepts of Spanish public law: explanation of figures such as royal decree-law, motion of censure, appearances, amendments, processing of a bill, distribution of powers between State and autonomous communities, etc.

Therefore, although I generally know that in parliamentary systems the head of government usually concentrates functions of political direction of the Executive, representation of the country abroad, and responsibility before Parliament, I cannot precisely detail what the Constitution of Denmark specifically establishes about the office of prime minister (including Mette Frederiksen), nor can I safely cite the articles, limits, controls, appointment or dismissal mechanisms, or other details specific to that constitutional text.

If you wish, I can:

• Explain in detail the functions of the President of the Government of Spain and compare them, in general terms, with those of other parliamentary systems.
• Analyze how the executive and legislative power in Spain is structured and what parliamentary checks and balances exist over the Government.
• Help you understand similar figures within the Spanish legal system (for example, the role of ministers, the Council of Ministers, or the State–autonomous communities sectoral conferences).

If you are interested in a comparison between Spain and Denmark more abstractly (without entering into the specific articles of the Danish Constitution), we can work from the Spanish perspective and relate it, at a very general level, to the Nordic parliamentary model.

In Denmark, the ratification of a treaty or international agreement is formally the competence of the Government, but the Danish Constitution (Grundloven) subjects agreements “of great importance” and, where applicable, those involving the transfer of sovereignty to decisive control by the Folketing (Parliament). The legal requirements are mainly articulated around Article 19 and, when there is a transfer of powers, Article 20.

1. Basic constitutional framework

Article 19 of the Danish Constitution establishes that the King (in practice, the Government) directs foreign policy and may conclude treaties, but with a fundamental reservation: treaties that bind Denmark in a special way — that is, that entail obligations of great importance for the Kingdom — require prior approval by the Folketing before the Government gives final consent internationally.

From this provision derive two main categories:

• Ordinary or less important treaties, which the Government can conclude and ratify without specific parliamentary authorization, merely reporting or informing politically.
• Treaties of great importance (security and defense, fundamental rights, major economic issues, EU treaties, etc.), which require a law of authorization approved by the Folketing.

2. Requirements for parliamentary authorization (art. 19)

When the agreement is considered “of great importance,” Danish constitutional practice requires:

• Presentation of a bill of authorization by the Government, identifying the treaty, summarizing its main provisions, and requesting the Folketing to authorize the Executive to ratify it.
• Parliamentary debate following the ordinary legislative procedure: usually three readings in the Folketing, with examination in committee (usually the Foreign Affairs Committee or other competent sectoral committees).
• Approval by simple majority of members present, unless the agreement falls under the sovereignty transfer category of Article 20. In principle, a qualified majority is not required for mere authorization under art. 19.
• Respect for publicity and transparency: the text of the agreement and the explanatory memorandum are made available to deputies and, in practice, also to the public, so that the Folketing can exercise informed political control.

Alongside this formal channel, the Foreign Policy Committee of the Folketing plays a central role in prior control and monitoring, receiving information from the Government about negotiations and, in practice, conditioning the final decision to send a treaty for parliamentary authorization or not.

3. Treaties involving transfer of sovereignty (art. 20)

If the international agreement involves transferring part of Danish sovereignty to an international organization (typically, the European Union or security or defense organizations), Article 20 of the Constitution comes into play. In that case, authorization is no longer governed only by art. 19, but one of these enhanced requirements must be met:

• Approval by a 5/6 majority of the Folketing members (not just those present), through a law authorizing the transfer of powers and ratification of the treaty; or
• If that enhanced majority is not reached, a simple majority approval in the Folketing combined with a binding national referendum, where the treaty must be supported by the majority of voters (and, according to the Constitution, with certain participation requirements for the result to be valid).

This requirement has historically marked Denmark’s EU accessions and treaty reforms, where parliamentary approval combined with a referendum is common.

4. Implementing legislation and internal execution

Beyond authorization, Danish practice often provides for implementation laws that adapt domestic law to the assumed obligations. In many cases:

• The authorization law under art. 19 is processed together with necessary sectoral legal reforms so that the treaty can be effectively applied.
• The Government usually does not proceed to international ratification until it reasonably ensures the compatibility of the Danish legal system with the new agreement.

5. Summary

In summary, an international agreement that must be ratified with the intervention of the Danish parliament requires, at minimum, an authorization by law of the Folketing according to Article 19 (simple majority), and, if it involves transfer of sovereignty, fulfillment of the enhanced conditions of Article 20: 5/6 majority of the chamber or simple majority plus referendum. All this based on complete information to Parliament, committee debate, and, where applicable, adoption of internal development legislation that allows the treaty to be executed once ratified.