The Biden administration is quietly assessing whether a little-known legal tool, used until now only in the Pacific, could hand Washington sweeping control over Greenland’s defense and security while leaving the Arctic island internally self-governing.
Us looks at a Pacific-style deal for the Arctic
American officials are studying whether a Compact of Free Association, or COFA, could be extended to Greenland, according to recent reporting and diplomatic briefings. The model has only ever been applied to three small Pacific nations: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau.
Under such a compact, Greenland would keep its own parliament and domestic autonomy, but responsibility for external defense and security would move almost entirely to Washington. The island, formally part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has enjoyed extensive self-rule since 1979, while Copenhagen still manages foreign affairs and defense.
At stake is whether an Arctic territory within NATO could see its defense placed under near-total U.S. control via a bilateral deal.
The idea surfaces amid sharper American rhetoric about Greenland’s strategic value, and renewed talk in Washington circles of acquiring or annexing the island – language that has alarmed European governments and Greenlandic leaders alike.
What a compact of free association would mean
A COFA is not a standard alliance treaty like NATO’s Article 5. It is a far more asymmetric arrangement. The associated state remains internationally recognized and runs its internal affairs, but Washington gets broad rights to manage all external defense.
In practice, this framework has several key features:
- U.S. forces can deploy, operate bases and conduct military activities with long-term guarantees.
- The partner state cannot host foreign armed forces without U.S. consent.
- Washington takes on the obligation to defend the partner against external threats.
- The partner receives multi-year financial assistance and trade benefits.
For Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, the arrangement effectively removed the need for full national armed forces. Their security rests on the U.S. military, while domestic agencies focus on policing, civil defense and maritime patrol.
Under a COFA-style deal, political self-rule continues, but defense sovereignty shrinks dramatically and, in practice, may vanish.
➡️ Heating: the 19°C rule is over, here is the experts’ recommendation
➡️ U.S. Navy achieves first F-35B fighter jet landing on amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge
➡️ Spain confirms order for 30 Turkish Hürjet training jets worth €2.6 billion
➡️ An ‘ingenious’ Ukrainian weapon so disruptive NATO fears it more than Russia does
➡️ MBDA Brings Its Thundart Rocket Out Of The Shadows For The French Army
Applying this template to Greenland would be unprecedented. Unlike the Pacific states, Greenland is inside the NATO area, tied to a European monarchy, and sits on sea lanes that matter to both the U.S. and its closest allies.
Greenland’s unique strategic position
Greenland has only around 56,000–57,000 inhabitants but occupies a vast, ice-covered landmass bridging North America and Europe. Its location dominates any serious map of Arctic and North Atlantic security.
The island overlooks the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, a chokepoint vital for tracking Russian submarines moving from the Arctic into the wider Atlantic. It already hosts Pituffik Space Force Base (formerly Thule), a crucial node for missile warning, space surveillance and communications.
U.S. planners argue that a compact would lock in decades of guaranteed access, allowing:
- Dense radar and sensor coverage across the Arctic.
- Forward basing for anti-submarine and air-defense assets.
- Faster response to Russian or Chinese naval activity.
- Protection of shipping lanes linking North America and Europe.
Greenland is not just another outpost; it sits on the hinge between the Arctic, the North Atlantic and Europe’s northern flank.
Officials in Washington increasingly frame the island as a frontline in a broader competition with Russia and China, pointing to Russian submarine patrols and Chinese research and commercial projects around the Arctic rim.
Resources beneath the ice
Beyond geography, Greenland’s mineral wealth weighs heavily in U.S. calculations. American assessments indicate the island has known reserves of 43 of the 50 minerals Washington classifies as critical, including rare earths used in precision-guided weapons, radars, fighter jets and clean-energy technologies.
Geologists have also flagged offshore oil and gas potential. Greenland’s government imposed a ban on new oil and gas exploration in 2021, citing climate and environmental concerns, but rising Arctic temperatures and receding sea ice are making extraction technically easier in the long term.
For Washington, tighter control over Greenland’s security environment would indirectly shape who gets access to these resources and under what conditions. It would also limit space for Russian or Chinese companies to gain leverage in the island’s extractive industries or infrastructure.
How a Greenland compact would differ from NATO
One of the core tensions is that Greenland already falls under NATO’s collective defense umbrella through Denmark. Any armed attack on Greenland would, in principle, trigger consultations under Article 4 and could lead to an Article 5 response.
| Feature | NATO defense | COFA-style deal |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-making | Collective among allies | Primarily bilateral with the U.S. |
| Foreign basing rights | Subject to host and alliance politics | U.S. gets veto over any foreign military presence |
| Partner’s own armed forces | Maintained by each ally | Typically limited to internal security and constabulary roles |
| Economic support | No automatic direct aid mechanism | Built-in financial and development assistance |
European diplomats worry that a COFA with Greenland would sideline NATO structures and put an allied territory under a distinct U.S. chain of command. Some also fear it could set a precedent for Washington to bypass alliance frameworks elsewhere.
Strong pushback from Greenland and Europe
Greenlandic and Danish leaders have publicly rejected any unilateral change to the island’s status. Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, has urged Washington to stop speculation about annexation and warned against external pressure on the small Arctic society.
Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has cautioned that U.S. threats or coercive language must be taken seriously, recalling European concerns after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nordic and Baltic states, as well as the UK and France, have voiced support for Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty.
For many in Europe, the idea that pressure could come from a fellow NATO member is deeply unsettling, even as they rely on U.S. power to deter Russia.
Inside NATO, the issue has forced awkward discussions about scenarios in which a major ally pushes hard against the wishes of a smaller partner. German officials have underlined that Greenland remains covered by NATO guarantees, a pointed reminder that collective security was built to manage external threats, not disputes within the alliance.
Why Washington wants more than existing access
The U.S. already enjoys extensive military rights in Greenland under agreements with Denmark. There are no formal caps on American troop numbers, and Pituffik gives Washington a permanent foothold. Any large change in posture would, in practice, be negotiated with Copenhagen, but basic access is not in doubt.
So why consider a compact? From Washington’s perspective, a COFA would:
- Provide legal certainty and long-term basing rights insulated from Danish political shifts.
- Give the U.S. an explicit veto over any foreign military presence, including from other allies.
- Clear the way for large-scale infrastructure and surveillance projects without repeated renegotiations.
- Tie Greenland more directly to American strategic planning, separate from wider EU politics.
For European states, the same features look like a loss of influence over a critical Arctic area. Some industry officials warn quietly that a unilateral U.S. move could provoke retaliation, such as limiting European participation in certain U.S. defence programmes or reducing cooperation on key components for systems like the F-35 fighter.
What life under a Greenland compact could look like
If Greenland accepted a COFA-style deal, its daily politics might not change overnight. The local parliament would still run welfare, education and fisheries policy. Danish and Greenlandic languages would remain in public life. But the island’s room to maneuver on anything touching security would narrow sharply.
Greenland could not sign defense agreements with other countries or host foreign research vessels with dual-use capabilities without U.S. consent. Any move to invite, say, a European maritime patrol presence would need Washington’s approval. Intelligence sharing and surveillance networks would run primarily through U.S. channels.
In such a scenario, Greenland’s own security forces would likely resemble those in the Pacific COFA states: a mix of coastguard, police and civil defense units, but no conventional army, navy or air force tasked with territorial defense. Young Greenlanders might see service in the U.S. armed forces as a key career path, as many Pacific islanders do today.
Key terms and risks worth understanding
The debate features technical language that masks very concrete consequences. “External defense” covers more than tanks and missiles. It includes cyber defence, control of airspace, satellite use, undersea cables and rules about which foreign ships can use ports.
A “veto on foreign basing” sounds abstract, yet it affects everything from NATO exercises to scientific projects that rely on dual-use sensors. A stricter U.S. say over foreign presence could limit EU missions or joint monitoring with other Arctic nations, even if Greenland’s own leaders wanted them.
For Greenlanders, the trade-off would be stark. Economic assistance and security guarantees from the U.S. could bring investment, jobs and infrastructure. At the same time, the island would carry the political risk of being seen as an American forward operating platform, making it a more obvious target in any future confrontation involving Russia or China.
For NATO, the scenario tests how far alliance politics can stretch before solidarity frays. A compact that sidelines European input could encourage others to pursue more bilateral deals with Washington, fragmenting an already strained Euro-Atlantic system at a time when Arctic routes, energy security and great-power rivalry are all tightening around the High North.
