The answer appears to be considerably more than before.
The United States already maintained a major military installation on the island.
The new arrangement could expand that presence, restrict rival powers and establish long-term American access.
That represents a substantial strategic development even without changing the map.
The Arctic Is Becoming More Important
The significance of Greenland extends beyond the personalities involved.
The Arctic is changing rapidly.
As the region becomes more accessible, countries are paying greater attention to shipping routes, natural resources, military positioning and communications infrastructure.
Greenland sits at the center of many of those strategic calculations.
Its location makes it important to North American defense.
Its proximity to the North Atlantic connects it to European security.
Its vast territory gives it enormous geographic significance despite its relatively small population.
And its political status makes it an unusual participant in international affairs.
The island has roughly 56,000 residents.
Yet decisions about its security involve Washington, Copenhagen, Nuuk, NATO and other international actors.
That imbalance helps explain why Greenland's future attracts so much attention.
A New Chapter After Months of Tension
The agreement also marks a significant shift from the tense rhetoric that preceded it.
Trump's earlier statements about potentially taking Greenland by force alarmed Denmark and other European allies.
Those comments raised questions about the durability of NATO solidarity and America's relationship with Europe.
The new agreement moves the conversation back toward diplomacy.
Rather than attempting to acquire Greenland, Washington and Copenhagen have negotiated over military access and security.
For Denmark, that provides a way to strengthen Arctic defense without surrendering sovereignty.
For the United States, it provides greater strategic access.
For Greenland, the challenge will be ensuring that increased cooperation does not undermine its own political interests and right to self-determination.
The Real Test Will Come Later
The announcement is significant.
But the real test will be implementation.
A headline can describe an agreement in broad terms.
A treaty or formal legal document determines what governments can actually do.
The coming weeks should therefore provide much more information.
If the agreement allows extensive American construction and military activity, it could transform Greenland's strategic role.
If the provisions are narrower, its impact could be more limited.
The reaction in Greenland will also matter.
So will the response from Denmark's parliament and Greenland's political institutions.
And the relationship between Washington and Copenhagen will remain important.
The agreement may reduce one major source of tension between the two countries, but it cannot erase the diplomatic damage caused by months of confrontation.
Greenland Remains Greenland
Perhaps the most important fact is also the simplest.
Greenland has not become American.
The island remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Its people continue to have the right to determine their political future.
What has changed is the framework governing American security involvement.
The United States appears set to receive stronger and potentially permanent military access.
Washington will gain greater influence over the exclusion of adversarial military and certain investment activities.
And the two governments are attempting to establish a long-term Arctic security arrangement without changing Greenland's formal sovereignty.
That is a major development—but it is not annexation.
For Trump, it represents a way to claim that his administration has addressed what he has repeatedly described as an important American security concern.
For Denmark, it provides a diplomatic solution that preserves sovereignty.
For Greenland, it creates both opportunities and difficult questions about how to balance security cooperation with self-determination.
And for NATO, it could strengthen the alliance's position in a region that is becoming increasingly important.
The full consequences will depend on the agreement's final text and how it is implemented.
For now, one thing is clear: Washington has not acquired Greenland.
Instead, the United States and Denmark have negotiated a new security relationship around one of the world's most strategically important Arctic territories.
And that may prove to be only the beginning of a much larger conversation about who controls security, investment and influence in the Arctic.