Trump Says America Has Secured Greenland. The Reality Is More Complicated

September 21, 2026

The new Arctic security agreement strengthens Washington’s position in Greenland and shuts the door on a Russian or Chinese military foothold. But despite the president’s sweeping announcement, the United States has not taken possession of Greenland — and many of the military rights being celebrated today have existed for decades.

After several days traveling through Ukraine, Poland and Germany, I finally made it back home to Panama. I had barely unpacked — or, more accurately, discovered that the airline had apparently decided to keep my luggage — when President Donald Trump announced what he described as a historic agreement over Greenland.

Trump said the United States had secured “permanent control over security” in Greenland and would have the ability to prevent American adversaries from establishing military bases, deploying forces or making sensitive investments there. He called it an agreement without an expiration date and said the United States would begin developing a larger military presence on the island.

That sounds enormous. It sounds almost as if the United States finally got Greenland after all.

But that is not what happened.

Denmark and Greenland remain sovereign over the territory, and their leaders have been considerably more restrained in describing the agreement. They say the arrangement strengthens security in the Arctic and North Atlantic while preserving Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination. The final agreement is expected to be signed around the United Nations General Assembly and still must go through the appropriate parliamentary procedures.

The more interesting question is not whether Trump “got Greenland.” He didn’t.

The question is what America actually gained.

America Was Already There

One of the most important pieces of context has largely disappeared beneath the headlines: the United States has had extensive military rights in Greenland since 1951.

Under the existing defense agreement with Denmark, American forces already have broad authority to operate military facilities, station personnel, move supplies and conduct military operations in Greenland. The United States once operated more than a dozen installations there and today maintains Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base.

That is why I think some of the celebration surrounding this new agreement needs to be put into perspective.

When I compared what we already possessed under the old arrangement with what has been publicly described in the new one, much of it looked familiar. The United States already had an enormous amount of latitude to defend Greenland and use it as part of the broader defense of North America and NATO.

There are, however, potentially important additions.

According to reporting on the negotiations, the new framework is intended to survive even if Greenland eventually becomes independent from Denmark. It also restricts non-NATO countries from establishing military bases and places tighter limits on sensitive investments by countries such as Russia and China. Depending on the final language, that could give Washington a more durable position in an Arctic region that is becoming increasingly important strategically.

That matters.

But it is a long way from annexation.

Trump’s Negotiating Style on Display

When I traveled to Greenland earlier this year, Trump was openly talking about acquiring the island and repeatedly refusing to rule out force. Those statements infuriated Denmark, alarmed European governments and were deeply unpopular among many Greenlanders.

At the time, I argued that if the United States wanted a larger military footprint or stronger guarantees against Chinese and Russian influence, there were far less destructive ways to accomplish that than threatening a NATO ally.

What we are seeing now looks very much like the end result of Trump’s familiar negotiating method: begin with a demand so extreme that everyone assumes it is impossible, create enormous pressure around it, and then retreat toward an agreement that would previously have looked ambitious.

You can like that method or hate it. I have never thought it was necessary to insult allies in order to negotiate with them. But in this case, Trump appears to have emerged with a strengthened American security position while Denmark retains sovereignty and Greenland retains its right to determine its own future.

That is a meaningful result.

It is simply not the same thing as America taking Greenland.

There is another reason for caution. As I recorded the live discussion, the complete text of the agreement had not yet been publicly released. That makes some of the sweeping claims surrounding it impossible to evaluate definitively. The governments involved have also described the arrangement differently, with Trump emphasizing permanent American control while Danish and Greenlandic officials emphasize sovereignty and shared security.
Until the final text is public, the details matter more than the victory speeches.

The Bigger Story Is Europe

Greenland is only one piece of a much larger strategic shift I watched unfolding during my trip through Europe.

Poland is becoming increasingly important to American military planning. Trump announced that progress is being made toward establishing a new permanent U.S. Army base there, while roughly 10,000 American troops are already stationed in the country on a rotational basis. Poland has spent years asking Washington for a more permanent American military commitment.

I saw that concern firsthand.

While I was in Warsaw, I visited the Polish parliament and interviewed Poland’s defense leadership about the growing security pressure along NATO’s eastern flank. Polish officials are deeply concerned about sabotage, drone incursions and other asymmetric threats connected to Russia, while the alliance is simultaneously watching conventional military activity around Belarus, Kaliningrad and the narrow Suwałki corridor connecting Poland with Lithuania.

The Polish message to Americans was remarkably straightforward: they consider the alliance with the United States central to their security.

That makes the movement we are seeing from Washington particularly interesting.

For much of Trump’s second term, Europeans have questioned whether the United States was moving away from NATO. Now Washington is discussing a permanent base in Poland while simultaneously strengthening its long-term position in Greenland.

Those two developments should be viewed together.

One sits on NATO’s Arctic and North Atlantic flank. The other sits near the alliance’s eastern frontier with Russia and Belarus.

Whatever the rhetoric surrounding NATO has been, the military geography is moving in the opposite direction from American withdrawal.

Washington Turns Up the Pressure on Moscow

There is another important development.

Trump signed a sweeping bipartisan Russia sanctions bill on September 18 after it passed the Senate 86-11 and the House 262-159. The legislation expands sanctions against Russian officials, banks and the so-called shadow fleet used to move Russian energy, while giving the president authority to impose tariffs as high as 100 percent on major importers of Russian oil and natural gas.

That does not guarantee that every available sanction or tariff will be used. As I pointed out during the live broadcast, giving the executive branch authority to apply economic pressure and actually exercising that authority are two different things.

Still, taken together with the discussions over Poland and Greenland, the direction is notable.

The United States is strengthening its ability to operate in the Arctic, discussing a more permanent military presence on NATO’s eastern flank and giving the administration powerful new economic tools against Russia.

That is not the posture of a country abandoning Europe.

Greenland Was Never Just About Greenland

This is why I think the Greenland story is being misunderstood.

The important part is not the idea that America somehow conquered an enormous Arctic island without firing a shot. It didn’t. Greenland remains Greenland, and Denmark remains sovereign.

The important part is that Washington appears to have secured a more durable strategic arrangement in one of the most important pieces of geography on the planet.

Greenland sits between North America, Europe and the Arctic. It matters for missile warning, space operations, air and maritime access and the emerging competition over the High North. Russia possesses an enormous Arctic coastline, while China has spent years seeking economic and strategic access to the region.

Keeping hostile military infrastructure out of Greenland is unquestionably important to American security.

Trump deserves credit if the final agreement strengthens that position while preserving the relationship with Denmark and Greenland.

But we should also be precise about what happened.

America did not take Greenland.

It appears to have strengthened an arrangement that has existed for 75 years, made that relationship more durable and secured additional guarantees against Russian and Chinese influence. That is less dramatic than the rhetoric surrounding the announcement, but strategically it may be far more useful.

And after what I just saw traveling through Poland and along NATO’s eastern frontier, I suspect Greenland will not be the last place where we see the United States quietly strengthening its position as the confrontation with Russia moves into a more dangerous phase.

Join the Chuck Holton Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

Chuck Holton@ChuckHolton

October 09, 2026

FBI Foils Alleged Mall of America Attack as Online Radicalization Raises New Concerns

The arrest of an 18-year-old accused of planning a mass shooting in Minnesota has renewed questions about extremist recruitment, youth violence and the growing influence of online networks.

Federal authorities have reportedly disrupted a potential mass-casualty attack at the Mall of America in Minnesota, arresting an 18-year-old man accused of preparing to open fire on shoppers in what investigators believe was an act of jihadist-inspired violence.

The Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, was the alleged target of a mass shooting planned for October 24, 2026. Federal investigators say an 18-year-old suspect intended to kill dozens of shoppers during a Hmong arts celebration before FBI agents arrested him on October 6.

According to details discussed during my latest broadcast, the suspect had allegedly obtained an AK-47-style rifle and approximately 200 rounds of ammunition, with the intention of killing between 30 and 60 people inside one of the country's largest shopping centers. Authorities reportedly had been investigating him for an extended period before intervening.

The allegations, if substantiated, describe a potentially catastrophic attack prevented before innocent people were killed. They also raise questions extending well beyond the circumstances of one arrest: how does a young American become radicalized to the point that he is allegedly willing to murder dozens of strangers, and what can be done to identify that process before it turns violent?

Having spent more than two decades reporting on terrorism, insurgencies and armed conflict around the world, I have seen how extremist organizations exploit alienation, resentment and ideological grievance to recruit people into violence. What concerns me about this case is that the alleged suspect did not have to travel to a foreign battlefield to encounter those influences. According to the account presented during the broadcast, he was born and raised in the United States.

That distinction is central to understanding the threat.

A Suspect Already Known to Investigators

One of the most troubling details emerging from the case is the suggestion that the suspect had been under investigation for approximately two years.

U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen, FBI Special Agent in Charge Christopher Dotson and Bloomington Police Chief Booker Hodges announce federal charges against an 18-year-old Minnesota man on October 7, 2026. Investigators allege the suspect planned an ISIS-inspired mass shooting at the Mall of America before being arrested during an undercover operation.

During the broadcast, I discussed reports that FBI agents had previously approached his parents on two occasions because of concerns about his possible radicalization. According to those accounts, the parents referred investigators to their attorneys rather than discussing the matter directly.

The precise circumstances of those encounters, including what investigators disclosed and how the family responded, have not been independently established in the material available to me. Seeking legal representation is not itself evidence of wrongdoing, and the parents have not been shown to have participated in the alleged plot.

Nevertheless, the reported length of the investigation illustrates the difficulties facing counterterrorism agencies. Authorities must distinguish between disturbing statements, ideological extremism and concrete preparations for violence, while also gathering enough evidence to justify an arrest.

That process becomes particularly complicated when a suspect's activities occur primarily online.

Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino addressed that challenge during an interview aired on Fox News, describing how extremist recruitment has evolved alongside social media and other digital communications platforms.

“One of the most prominent significant problems we were faced with ... was this explosion basically of online radicalization where these terror groups were taking advantage of chat room type tools, social media type tools, you know, basically the digital domain to recruit.”

Bongino said the FBI had undertaken changes intended to improve its ability to identify potentially dangerous individuals, including the use of artificial intelligence to analyze large volumes of investigative tips.

He argued that technological advances were making it more difficult for suspects to remain unnoticed, although the effectiveness of those changes cannot be established from his remarks alone.

The larger point is difficult to dispute: extremist organizations no longer need to recruit exclusively through personal relationships, physical meetings or travel to conflict zones. Online platforms can connect vulnerable individuals with violent ideologies across enormous distances, often without the knowledge of their families or communities.

The Challenge of Radicalization at Home

Minnesota is home to one of the largest Somali American communities in the United States, a population that has grown over several decades through refugee resettlement, family reunification and subsequent generations born in America.

The suspect discussed in the broadcast was described as an American-born young man whose parents immigrated from Somalia. His background has attracted considerable attention, but it is important to distinguish the allegations against one individual from the broader community in which he grew up.

Somali American community leaders publicly condemned the reported plot and emphasized that the young people involved in violence are also products of American society.

One community representative made that point directly:

“We strongly condemn gun violence and youth violence. We recognize that Somali American youth were involved and those responsible must be held accountable. But those are also American youth born and raised all here, educated here, and grow up in our communities. This is not simply a Somali problem.”

I have interviewed Somali community leaders in Minnesota during previous reporting assignments, and I believe there is an important truth in that statement.

When a young person is born in America, attends American schools and grows up surrounded by American institutions, it is not enough to explain his behavior solely through his parents' country of origin.

The more difficult question is what happened during those formative years.

How did an American teenager allegedly become convinced that murdering people at a shopping mall was a worthwhile objective? What influences shaped that decision, and at what point did those influences develop into preparations for violence?

Those are questions investigators, parents, educators and community leaders should be asking.

Minneapolis Confronts a Broader Youth Violence Problem

The alleged terrorism case comes amid broader concerns about youth violence in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area.

During the broadcast, I reviewed an interview in which a Minnesota police chief discussed increasingly aggressive behavior among young offenders, including the availability of privately manufactured firearms and the difficulties investigators face in tracing certain weapons.

The chief described a troubling change in the attitudes of some young people involved in criminal activity.

“We're dealing with kids who are just way more violent ... a lot of times they're able to print these guns on printers in their house, which makes it a little bit more difficult too for us to get.”

He also pointed to what he characterized as a growing disregard for social expectations and authority.

“The level of disrespect that they have for society is even far greater than ... a lot of the gang members that I grew up with in North Minneapolis.”

The chief's remarks concern a broader criminal-justice problem and do not establish that ordinary gang violence and ideologically motivated terrorism share the same causes. But they do raise overlapping questions about social isolation, family involvement, access to weapons and the influence of violent peer networks.

I have reported from Minneapolis before, including on gang activity affecting some immigrant neighborhoods. The existence of criminal networks in a community does not mean that the community as a whole supports them. In fact, residents are often among the people most directly harmed by the violence.

The challenge is to confront the individuals responsible without treating an entire population as collectively guilty.

Terrorist Recruitment Has Entered the Digital Age

The internet has fundamentally changed the way extremist movements reach potential recruits.

During earlier reporting assignments in Europe, I investigated the propaganda operations of ISIS and the ways the organization encouraged attacks far beyond the territory it once controlled in Iraq and Syria.

In Dresden, Germany, I reported on the Frauenkirche, the historic church destroyed during the Second World War and later reconstructed. The building had appeared in extremist propaganda identifying symbolic European landmarks as potential targets.

That reporting followed the deadly ISIS-inspired vehicle attack in Barcelona, Spain, which demonstrated how extremist ideology could inspire violence far from the organization's principal areas of operation.

The significance of these examples is not that every person exposed to extremist propaganda becomes dangerous. Most do not. It is that a relatively small number of susceptible individuals can be encouraged toward violence without ever establishing a conventional relationship with a terrorist organization.

Digital communication allows recruiters to cultivate grievances, reinforce distorted beliefs and provide ideological justification for attacks. In some cases, individuals radicalize largely through their own consumption of propaganda rather than through direct contact with an organized group.

That creates an especially difficult problem for law enforcement because the warning signs can resemble ordinary online behavior until an individual begins making concrete preparations.

Isolation, Resentment and the Search for Belonging

Another subject I discussed during the broadcast was the relationship between social isolation and violent radicalization.

Several years ago, I investigated online communities associated with the so-called incel movement, a term commonly used to describe people who identify as involuntarily celibate. Some violent offenders have adopted extremist ideas associated with that movement, including misogyny and resentment toward society.

It would be inaccurate, however, to suggest that socially isolated men generally become violent or that most mass shootings can be attributed to the incel phenomenon. Social isolation alone does not explain terrorism, and investigators must be careful not to confuse broad personality traits with evidence of an actual threat.

What interests me is how violent extremist movements can exploit a person's existing anger or sense of rejection.

Someone who feels disconnected from family, friends and society may become particularly receptive to an online community promising purpose, recognition or belonging. An extremist recruiter can then redirect those feelings toward an ideological enemy, transforming personal grievances into a justification for violence.

The mechanisms differ among jihadist movements, white supremacist organizations and other forms of extremism, but the underlying exploitation of vulnerability is a recurring concern.

This is why the problem cannot be addressed exclusively through arrests and surveillance. Those tools are necessary when someone poses a credible threat, but they do not eliminate the conditions that make extremist recruitment possible.

The Role of Families and Communities

One of the most important lessons from years of covering conflict is that violent ideologies thrive when people lose meaningful connections to the world around them.

During the broadcast, I urged parents and grandparents to pay attention when young people become increasingly isolated, hostile or absorbed in online environments that encourage hatred.

That does not mean every teenager who spends too much time on a computer is a potential terrorist. It means adults should remain involved in the lives of the young people around them, particularly when troubling behavior is accompanied by threats, fascination with mass violence or efforts to obtain weapons.

My advice was straightforward:

“Reach out to try him some love. Try to make him feel like he's a part of a family.”

I have spent much of my career reporting from places where violence has become an ordinary part of daily life. Again and again, I have seen the damage caused when hatred becomes the organizing principle of a person's identity.

Families, religious institutions, schools and local communities cannot replace professional counterterrorism investigations, but they can provide the relationships and accountability that help prevent alienation from becoming something more dangerous.

That responsibility belongs to all of us, regardless of political affiliation, religion or background.

Security Alone Cannot Defeat an Ideology

The FBI deserves credit when it identifies a credible threat and prevents an attack before innocent people are harmed. If the allegations in the Mall of America case are proven, the intervention may have prevented a devastating loss of life.

But there is a larger problem that no single arrest can resolve.

Counterterrorism agencies face an enormous challenge because they must identify and stop potentially violent individuals before an attack occurs. Extremists, meanwhile, can exploit anonymous accounts, encrypted communications and rapidly changing online networks to spread their messages.

The answer requires effective intelligence gathering, responsible intervention when warning signs emerge and sustained cooperation between authorities and communities.

It also requires recognizing that ideological hatred cannot always be defeated by force alone.

Toward the end of my broadcast, I reflected on something I have learned after more than 25 years of reporting on wars around the world.

“You can force people to be peaceful at the point of a gun, but they can still hate each other.”

That observation applies as much to domestic extremism as it does to foreign battlefields.

Law enforcement can arrest a suspect, seize a weapon and prevent an attack. Those are indispensable achievements. But the underlying hatred that makes such violence attractive to certain individuals requires a different response, one that includes families, communities, education and the willingness to confront extremist ideas before they develop into action.

The reported plot against the Mall of America should serve as a reminder of both the danger and the opportunity before us.

The danger is that a young person growing up in the United States can allegedly become so consumed by an extremist worldview that he prepares to kill dozens of fellow Americans.

The opportunity is that this particular attack was reportedly stopped before it happened.

As investigators work to establish the full circumstances of the case, the country needs to pay attention not only to how the suspect was apprehended, but also to how someone so young allegedly reached that point in the first place.

Preventing the next attack will require understanding both.

Read full Article