Denmark’s parliament has approved a defence agreement granting the United States expanded access to Danish military facilities, including the establishment of U.S. military bases on Danish soil.
The measure, passed by 94 votes to 11 in the Folketing, represents a significant deepening of defence cooperation between the two NATO allies but has triggered domestic debate over sovereignty.
The bill builds upon a 2023 agreement concluded under the Biden administration, which allowed U.S. forces broad access to key Danish airbases. The new legislation, passed on Wednesday, formalises and extends that arrangement, giving the United States the right to maintain a permanent military presence at multiple locations in Denmark.
The decision comes at a time of heightened geopolitical sensitivity, as U.S. President Donald Trump has revived longstanding American interest in Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory. While the new agreement makes no mention of Greenland directly, the proximity of the Arctic island and its strategic importance are seen as closely linked to Washington’s renewed defence engagement with Copenhagen.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen sought to allay concerns in parliament, stating that Denmark retains the right to revoke the agreement unilaterally in the event that the United States makes any move to annex all or part of Greenland.
“This agreement does not imply a cession of sovereignty,” Rasmussen said. “We are reinforcing cooperation with our closest ally while maintaining full control over our national territory and foreign policy.”
Critics, however, argue that the legislation compromises Denmark’s legal and political authority. Under the terms of the deal, U.S. military personnel stationed in Denmark will be governed by American jurisdiction, meaning that any criminal offences committed by U.S. troops would initially fall under U.S. military law. This extraterritorial provision, opponents contend, amounts to a partial surrender of Danish sovereignty and raises constitutional questions.
Among the 11 MPs who voted against the measure were representatives from the Red-Green Alliance and other smaller parties, who warned of the implications for Denmark’s legal system and international standing. One MP described the agreement as “a blank cheque for foreign forces operating on Danish soil”.
The agreement designates access to airbases in Karup, Skrydstrup and Aalborg, and permits the U.S. to undertake activities such as stationing personnel, storing equipment, and conducting training exercises. It also allows U.S. military police to operate on and around these facilities.
The Danish government has justified the move on the grounds of growing security threats in Europe and the Arctic. The Ministry of Defence stated that the agreement is a response to the “changing security environment” following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and increased military activity in the High North.
The legislation now awaits the formal assent of King Frederik X, a procedural step that is expected to be completed without delay.
Meanwhile, the issue of Greenland continues to generate political friction. President Trump’s renewed comments about acquiring the island have prompted sharp responses from both Copenhagen and Nuuk. Greenland’s Prime Minister has dismissed the idea outright, saying the territory “will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone”.
Though no formal proposal for acquisition has been tabled, the remarks have stirred memories of Trump’s 2019 suggestion to purchase Greenland, which Denmark flatly rejected at the time. The island, rich in minerals and critical to Arctic defence strategy, hosts the Thule Air Base, a long-standing U.S. military installation.
Analysts note that the new basing agreement could serve to consolidate U.S. military posture in the North Atlantic, particularly amid rising tensions with Russia and increased competition in the Arctic. However, questions remain over how the agreement will be implemented in practice, particularly in relation to legal jurisdiction and oversight.
Read also:
Will the EU Sacrifice Greenland to Safeguard Its “Broader Interests”?
