Tangle - The U.S.–Greenland Deal.

Episode Date: September 23, 2026

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed a defense agreement with Denmark and the semiautonomous territory of Greenland. The three-party compact was signed in New York City, concurrent with a United Nations General Assembly meeting, and it follows several months of statements from President Trump about the United States increasing its control over the island territory. Ad-free podcasts are here!Get 20% off your first year of ad-free episodes, exclusive interviews, and deep dives with Tangle’s podcast membership!The DSA debate.On Friday, Ross Barkan authored a guest column making the case for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The piece has generated over 500 comments and a robust debate over Barkan’s arguments and the DSA’s merit. Check out the piece and join the conversation here.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today’s “Under the radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Take the survey: What do you think of the deal? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Carina Pacheco and audio engineered and edited by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Audrey Moorehead, and Carina Pacheco. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast. I'm your host today, Associate editor Karina Pacheco, stepping into the arena for the first time here on the show. And wow, what a day to do it. It is a gorgeous early fall morning here on the East Coast. It is sunny and clear with just a hint of chilling the air. Speaking of Chile, today's edition is taking us somewhere much chillier up to the island of Greenland in the Arctic. Today's edition, we're going to discuss the freshly inked deal between the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland,

and we have an under-the-radar story about AI air traffic control and a heartwarming one about a heroic 10-year-old. I'm going to go ahead to throw it to Will for the pod before I'm back for my take. Will, over to you. Thanks, Karina. All right, here are today's quick hits. In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Donald Trump said he is weighing whether to, quote, annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly,

never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again, end quote. He also said he believes Iran will strike a deal with the U.S. to end the war after the November midterms. Number two, Vice President J.D. Vance and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator, Mement Oz, announced that the Trump administration has canceled approximately 750,000 people's Affordable Care Act health care plans, alleging that they were improperly enrolled in the healthcare marketplace. Number three, President Trump announced his support for a ban on U.S. diesel exports as fuel

prices continue to rise. Number four, Senator John Curtis, a Republican from Utah, called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden to testify about their business activities and connections to foreign entities. The request follows reports that a Russian oligarch paid for part of Trump Jr.'s wedding celebrations. And number five, the Justice Department indicted a former U.S. Postal Service worker who allegedly discarded roughly 300 mail-in ballots he was meant to deliver for Utah's primaries. President Trump, just now saying he has reached a deal with Denmark and it relates to Greenland.

The president says this deal would give the United States, quote, permanent control over security and other, all other needs in Greenland. And he added, we will immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed a defense agreement with Denmark. and the semi-autonomous territory of Greenland. The multinational compact was signed in New York City, concurrent with a United Nations General Assembly meeting, and it follows several months of statements from President Trump about the United States increasing its control over the island territory.

In his first term, President Trump proposed buying Greenland and has returned to the idea in his second, citing the territory's vast natural resources and its strategic geographic positioning for trade and national security. In January, Trump escalated his efforts to acquire the island, explicitly declining to rule out the potential use of force and threatening to impose tariffs on European nations that opposed the move. Denmark's and Greenland's leaders have rebuffed the president's efforts to acquire the territory. Trump announced the agreement on Friday, saying on social media that it would give the United

States, quote, permanent control over Greenland's security and, quote, other needs. The deal The bill extends the United States' existing authority on the island with new specifications that allow the United States to build more military bases with Danish and Greenlandic consultation. It also forbids any non-NATO state from unapproved military or civilian investment that would threaten the U.S. Additionally, the text of the deal specifies that the agreement would remain in place if Greenland declares independence from Denmark, should the territory decide to pursue the move. Denmark and the United States have had a defense agreement over Greenland dating back to 1951,

which allows the U.S. to build and maintain military bases on the island, gives Denmark sovereign control, and allows Greenland semi-autonomous self-governance. The U.S. currently operates one base, Bidufiq Space Base, in northwestern Greenland, which has roughly 150 personnel. At the agreement signing, President Trump said the deal will lead to a, quote, tremendous relationship between the three parties. Quote, we will have the complete ability to do what is necessary to defend the American continent and also Europe in other places, he said. Quote, no U.S. adversary will ever be permitted to establish a military presence in Greenland anymore.

Critics of the deal say that President Trump incurred significant diplomatic costs in pursuing the agreement. Tori Tosig of the Atlantic Council said it is, quote, unlikely to quiet concerns European allies have over America's broader commitment to NATO, end quote. We'll get into what the left and right are saying about this deal below, and then Associate Editor Karina Pacheco will come back to give her take. We'll be right back after this quick break. Here's what the left is saying. Many on the left say that Trump could have secured this arrangement without his political

theater. Some argued that the deal came at a great cost to America's global standing. and others suggest the agreement doesn't accomplish the president's stated goals. In USA Today, Chris Brennan suggested the president could have had this Greenland agreement all along. As always, Trump's announcement ran long on bluster and short on details. Here's the party left out. Everything Trump now claims as a win was available to him 20 months ago on the very first day of his second term. It was also available for Trump during his first term when he floated the idea of,

of buying Greenland before threatening to take it by force in his second term after those threats were rebuffed by Greenland and Denmark. Greenland and Denmark have existing non-expiring security agreements and treaties that have always allowed for an American military expansion in Greenland, which has significant strategic value in the Arctic Circle. Trump's rhetoric about Greenland has been all braggadocio and bombast, and that has destabilized America's relationship not just with Greenland and Denmark, but across Europe and around the world.

Trump is trying to sell an embarrassment as a win. In the Atlantic, Isaac Stanley Becker said the deal appeared to satisfy all parties, but came at great cost. The promised future deal appears to be here. It builds on a Cold War agreement between the U.S. and Denmark and includes no transfer of territory to the United States. Instead, it envisions the kind of expanded U.S. military access and multilateral cooperation that leaders from Denmark and Greenland said was available all along,

and it doesn't threaten to blow up the security architecture that the U.S. has helped maintain for nearly 80 years. The new agreement will also include Greenland and bind all three parties to a more permanent U.S. presence. Statements from Greenland and Denmark leaders were positive but restrained, reflecting the pain inflicted by this saga. Europeans found it difficult to decipher Trump's motives or to understand whether they were about to be attacked or simply trolled. Washington may have achieved its security objectives, but it has lost something else.

Trust among its hosts. The economist argued the harm has been done. The Arctic is a safer place for America and its allies today. Due credit must go to President Donald Trump. In these cynical times, it is a relief when war talk turns out to be bluster, but not grounds for a medal. By Mr. Trump's own previously stated standards, the deal falls short. He has settled for what amounts to a reworded lease term, with demands for ownership quietly dropped. Mr. Trump calls the new agreement a, quote, dream come true for America,

which he says now controls Greenland's security and, quote, all other needs in perpetuity. He adds that there will be no cost to America as it develops a large military presence in Greenland. It remains unclear what he means by that, for Denmark, a country of six million people, is not about to foot the whole bill for America's Arctic garrison. America's desire for Arctic bases and Europe's need for American help to deter Russia resolved this particular presidential tantrum. But jibes asking why America should defend foreign soil cannot be unsaid. The transatlantic bond is growing colder and far more transactional.

Mr. Trump wanted Greenland to be a part of his legacy, and so it will be, just not as he imagined. And now here's what the right is saying. The right is mixed with some saying that the agreement again proves Trump's dealmaking ability. Others praised the deal for addressing national security concerns. Still others accused the president of misunderstanding the interests of other nations. The Washington Times editorial board wrote, Trump cemented his status as master dealmaker.

Initially, the president spoke of the United States taking over the world's largest island. That led to accusations of gunboat diplomacy. Mr. Trump's critics missed his modus operandi, which usually starts with the big ask and then settles for something more modest and achievable. Greenland's strategic importance cannot be overstated. Control of Greenland affects control of the Arctic. Whoever controls the Arctic will probably win a future world war. The deal is a win. all the way around. Denmark could never hope to defend the territory from a hostile takeover bid. Greenland is vital to America's security interests, and Greenlanders need help extracting their

valuable mineral reserves. As important as getting America in is keeping Russia and China out. There can be no doubt of the hostile intentions of either nation. For either hostile power to secure a foothold in Greenland would be disastrous. Mr. Trump's masterful deal precludes that. in unheard, Tom Rogan suggested the agreement will offer protection against foreign threats. It strongly appears that Trump has abandoned his always foolish demand that Greenland be brought under American sovereign control. That demand was incompatible with America's moral obligation to support the will of free peoples and its political obligation to NATO allies. While this concord could have been reached with far less acrimony earlier in the Trump administration, it still represents a positive development.

There's no question, after all, that Russia and China pose significant and growing threats in the Arctic high north. These nations seek to exploit the region's natural resources and expand their Arctic military footprints. These ambitions are intolerable from an American perspective, and Friday's deal helps address these concerns by facilitating a rapid, wide-ranging U.S. military buildup.

That presence will boost the U.S. military's freedom of action and increase NATO deterrence credibility. This agreement provides a mutually beneficial resolution to a contentious issue. National Review's editors called the saga Trump's costly Greenland play. To be clear, Trump was right about one big thing, that Greenland merited much more attention than it had been getting. The island is a potential backdoor through U.S. defenses and a key North Atlantic vantage point.

Given the limited resources Denmark has at its disposal to defend Greenland, an agreement to upgrade the U.S. presidents needed doing. Asking politely to upgrade the existing agreement might well have delivered just that and done so without creating all of the geopolitical self-harm. Unfortunately, Trump went about defending the U.S. strategic interest in a different way, and that was the wrong way. The core of the problem has been that, despite his own nationalist instincts, the president is oblivious when it comes to the national sensitivities of others.

If and when an agreement is concluded, the best way to maximize its benefits to the U.S. will be to repair the diplomatic damage that this episode has caused by rebuilding a deeper relationship with Denmark and Greenland. All right, that is it for what the left and right are saying. So now back over to Karina for her take. When President Trump announced the deal between the United States, Greenland, and Denmark, I was taken aback. I'd almost completely forgotten about the semi-autonomous island,

but sure enough, one utterance and the memories of Trumpian threats of invasion and annexation all came flooding back. It reminded me of a very important lesson that we've been hearing about the president for a long time. Take Trump seriously, not literally. Now, I admit that it would be nice to be able to take the president both literally and seriously and not have to guess which of his statements should be taken at face value. But alas, we live in interesting times, and the decades defining political character

is a showman by trade. If the past decade plus has taught us anything, is that we've to put it with a little drama. This administration's foreign policy has a recurring pattern. Trump puts out an outlandish, maximalist demand, which is met with an outsized emotional reaction

from his political opponents. Behind the scenes, negotiations and deliberations ensue, and the end result is much more normal, than the original, more absurd demand. The left decries the process that got us to the end result and laments the embarrassment they feel about our president, while Trump's supporters focus on the wins in the deal and then mock the left for overreacting.

Rince, repeat. To illustrate my point, let's look at Trump's relationship with NATO. Trump has scrutinized the U.S. is outside NATO spending since the 80s, and that rhetoric has been present in each of his presidential campaigns. He charged other member nations with ripping off the U.S. with delinquent payments and even hinted at the possibility of not defending NATO allies if they hadn't fulfilled their obligations. He doubled down on that possibility during his first term and even suggested that he would withdraw the U.S. from the alliance, which, of course, would require approval from Congress.

Trump's grievances are well-founded. The U.S. has been financing the alliance's defenses at disproportionate levels, accounting for approximately 66% of total NATO spending in 2024. Of course, that's partially due to our significantly larger economy, but many member nations have historically skimped on the 2014 pledge

to contribute at least 2% of their GDP. I'm speculating here, but I'm sure our media-focused president wasn't taking too kindly to allies criticizing him in the press, bragging about their national social safety nets and then relying on the good old American military safety net for their continental security. In his second term, Trump continued a campaign of rhetoric against his NATO allies.

He publicly criticized low-spending members, leveraged his threats to not honor NATO's collective defense principle, and teased withdrawing from the alliance completely. But last year, all 32 members had complied. This is no small feat, considering that only five members met the 2% target in the last pre-Trump year of 2016. And only 11 met it in 2023, the year following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. At the 2025 NATO summit, the alliance formally adopted a 5% of GDP target for 2035, also a Trump proposal. I suspect Trump's threats to leave NATO were a negotiating tactic and not something he'd ever follow through on, nor do I think the U.S. would ever fail to come to the aid of an ally. But the upside of Trump's maximalist strategy is that you never really know, which makes him a difficult but imposing negotiating partner.

This maximalist strategy has certainly bruised some relationships and garnered plenty of negative press that the president might pay for politically. But with NATO, he got what he wanted, a stronger shared defense budget. So the two worst case outcomes were avoided. We're still in NATO and everyone is contributing more money. Kumbaya, right? Trump proved that his maximalism and unpredictability are powerful forms of leverage. And that leverage is heightened further by the sensationalist tendencies of the mainstream media, which often ignore the contextual pattern that any clear-eyed Trump watcher could see coming a mile away.

I understand this dynamic creates tension for the media, whose job is to report on the president. But how many more examples are required to understand how Trump operates? I liken his approach to an angry teenager slamming the door and yelling, I'm running away. It's always less of an actual plan and more of an opening bid designed to extract maximum concessions. Treating Trump's theoretical tendencies as incompetence or lunacy misses most of the story. That brings back to Greenland, that big, beautiful, icy island with its wonderful, colorful houses and immensely strategic geopolitical positioning.

Trump has shown interest in Greenland in his first term, but American presidential interest in acquiring the territory dates back to at least 1946. Just after the Second World War and at the start of the Cold War, President Harry S. Truman proposed buying Greenland outright. Denmark promptly rejected his $100 million offer. The island is the last piece of the puzzle that encircles the Arctic, along with North America, Northern Europe, and Russia. It sits at a vital marine intersection and is rich in rare earth minerals.

Russia and China are striving to assert dominance in the Arctic by developing military bases, research ships, and energy initiatives in the region, edging up against Alaska, Scandinavia, and Greenland. In late 2024, then President-elect Trump declared that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity for national security and freedom throughout the world. then in the first joint address to Congress of his second term, Trump did not mince words when he said that the U.S. will achieve that control, quote, one way or the other.

A few months later, Trump refused to rule out the use of military force. The media, as well as the leaders of Greenland, Denmark, and NATO, took Trump very literally. And of course, when taken literally, the threats to invade a sparsely populated ally that's also technically a member of NATO, were bizarre. But these Trumpisms, at least to me, were transparent, a negotiation tool rather than a real threat. And I would have thought over 10 years into the Trump era

that others, too, would learn to exercise some discretion when analyzing his truth's social posts. Though the U.S. has owned and operated a military base in Greenland since 1951, Trump believed that we needed an increased military presence to address the perceived threats from adversaries. Greenland is simply too strategically imperative to risk. To say the obvious, Trump's chaotic strategy was not bulletproof. He lost political capital and may, at least to the literalists,

looked like he settled for a deal that he had initially approached much more aggressively. But his strategy ultimately paid off. If we look at this deal in terms of the end result, instead of what was threatened along the way, here's what we come to. The U.S. gets expansive, exclusive rights to stand up and expand new military installations. Greenland's companies are promised first looks for any contract work, and Washington wields explicit authority to approve or block foreign investments

in Greenland's rare earth minerals. And if Greenland ever does become independent, the deal already approves a continuation of the United States and Greenland's agreement, and locks the new government into NATO. From the signing on Tuesday, it appears that each participant is happy with the end result, making it an even more reassuring outcome for the U.S., Greenland, Denmark, and NATO alike.

But we'll all have to suspend our disbelief when Trump doesn't describe it so honestly on true social. Okay, that's it for my take. I'm going to pass it to Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, who has a staff dissent. This is Tangles Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, with a staff dissent. I'm going to start by acknowledging two biases I have with the hopes that maybe they can cancel each other out. First, I used to work for NATO as a lowly library intern at an

educational facility in Rome when I was 23. My other bias is that I just really enjoy reading and editing Karina's work. And I think she really convincingly argues why concern over the saga was overwrought from the start. But I don't think she's quite right. When you look at how Trump's maximalist constantly shifting foreign policy threats play elsewhere, you see externalities everywhere. China investing in South America, Russia investing in Africa, chaos engulfing the Middle East. To me, the whole game here is in her conclusion that Trump's gambit ultimately paid off. If you draw a tight perimeter around all the costs and benefits in the story as they relate to the outcome of the Greenland deal,

then the ends may justify the means, but not when you consider the externalities. Military and economic allies don't typically love being antagonized, and the recent news of the European Union offering Canada associate membership in their alliance signals that the Western Democratic Order is reconsidering whether the U.S. is too erratic to count on as a partner. The U.S. got a somewhat better agreement with Greenland

than the one we already had. That's great. But will our alliance be strong and ready if and when we may call upon it to aid us? I hope we don't need to find out. And I do think it still will be, but I'm less confident in that now. What I am confident in, though, is that this deal is not where the story ends. That's it for my dissent. So I'm going to send it back over to will for the rest of the pod.

We'll be right back after this quick break. Thanks, Ari. All right, here's today's Under the Radar story. On Monday, the Federal Aviation Administration launched an initiative to leverage artificial intelligence to address protracted challenges with air traffic control. The $875 million software overhaul will install the strategic management of airspace, routes, and trajectories, also known as the smart system, which will use AI to survey planned airline flights, weather, wind, and other variables, to suggest flight schedule changes to mitigate the risk.

scope delays. The smart system will be first deployed at three major airports in the Washington, D.C. region, with plans to expand it in the near future. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the system will make airline operations more efficient and lower the cost of flying. Separately, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association has yet to take a stance on smart, saying in a statement that it, quote, has not been involved in the design, testing, or implementation of smart, and therefore cannot speak to its effect on the air traffic control workforce at this time. NPR has this story, and we'll drop the link to it in today's show notes. Finally, here is our Have a Nice Day story.

On September 16th, Major Metzger received a Carnegie Medal, North America's highest honor for civilian heroism, in recognition of his actions during a dangerous ski lift incident, last year. Metzger, now 10 years old, was enjoying a day at the slopes with his six-year-old friend Bryce Radar, when Radar suddenly began slipping off of his seat on the ski lift. Metzger grabbed his friend before he fell, and his two-handed grass became the only thing separating Rader from a 16-foot fall. Ski Mountain employees arrived about four minutes later and rescued the child, but Metzger kept hanging on until they did. Quote, Major is just an outstanding young man.

Bruce Rader, Bryce's father, said, quote, he's brave to be able to do what he did on such short notice immediately. He saved my son's life. W-A-V-Y has the story and we'll drop the link to it in today's show notes. And that is it for today's edition. Thanks as always for being with us and we will talk to you tomorrow when we're back with our Thursday edition. Until then, have a great day, be well, and in the words of John Loll, peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul,

and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.