That distinction is important.
"Developing a military presence" does not necessarily mean building multiple permanent bases.
It could involve expanding existing facilities.
It could involve rotational deployments.
It could involve communications and surveillance infrastructure.
It could also involve increased exercises with Danish and Greenlandic authorities.
Until the full agreement is published, it is difficult to determine exactly what the United States will be able to do.
Why Trump Wanted Greenland
Trump's interest in Greenland predates the current agreement.
During his first administration, he famously expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark.
The proposal was rejected by Danish and Greenlandic authorities.
After returning to office, Trump revived the issue with considerably stronger rhetoric.
He argued that Greenland was essential to American national security.
He also refused to completely rule out the possibility of using force to obtain control of the territory.
Those statements caused a major diplomatic crisis with Denmark, a NATO ally.
Danish and Greenlandic officials repeatedly responded that Greenland was not for sale.
The dispute became one of the most unusual controversies within the NATO alliance.
Trump's latest agreement represents a dramatic change in tone.
Instead of demanding that Denmark sell Greenland, Washington has negotiated an arrangement that expands American security access while leaving the territory under Danish sovereignty.
A Diplomatic Compromise
From Washington's perspective, the agreement provides several things Trump has said he wanted.
It strengthens American military access.
It limits potential Chinese and Russian activity.
It reinforces Greenland's role in North American defense.
It potentially creates a long-term framework that survives future political changes.
At the same time, Denmark avoids giving up sovereignty.
Greenland remains within the Danish kingdom.
Its people retain their right to self-determination.
And the agreement is being presented as a NATO security arrangement rather than an act of territorial expansion.
That combination helps explain why negotiations were possible.
The two sides did not need to agree about ownership.
They needed to agree about security.
NATO and the Arctic
The Greenland dispute has broader implications for NATO.
Greenland's geographic position means its defense is closely connected to the security of North America and Europe.
The United States and Denmark are NATO allies.
Canada is also a NATO member and shares close geographic proximity to Greenland.
The Arctic is increasingly becoming an area of strategic competition.
Climate change is reducing sea ice in parts of the region, potentially making shipping routes and resource development more accessible.
Russia maintains extensive Arctic military infrastructure.
China describes itself as a "near-Arctic" state and has pursued economic and scientific interests in the region.
The United States, Canada, Denmark and other NATO countries therefore have strong reasons to coordinate their Arctic policies.
A strengthened American presence in Greenland could become part of a larger NATO strategy.
NATO welcomed the emerging agreement, saying it could help advance security, stability and cooperation in the Arctic and North Atlantic.
That provides an important contrast with the diplomatic tension that surrounded Trump's earlier threats.
The Sovereignty Question
The biggest political question may not concern the United States or Denmark.
It may concern Greenland itself.
Greenlanders have their own political aspirations.
Some support independence from Denmark.
Others favor maintaining the current relationship.
There is no single Greenlandic position on the island's future.
The new American security agreement therefore enters an already complicated political landscape.
Some Greenlanders may view stronger American military involvement as a source of economic opportunity and security.
Others may worry about foreign influence.