MAGA hails Trump’s deal with Greenland – but is it any different from what the US already had?

President Donald Trump’s supporters are cheering his deal for “permanent control” of Greenland’s security — as critics charge it hasn’t changed the longtime status quo over the Danish territory.

In a statement on social media, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the surprise agreement Trump announced Friday night “a huge win for the United States and the American people” while praising his boss’s “vision and leadership.”

Trump has threatened for months to seize Greenland, a mineral-rich, 840,000-square-mile island off Canada's northeastern coast that's home to about 56,000 people. While he said he wanted Denmark to sell it to the U.S., he has also refused to rule out using military force.

The unprecedented threats to annex territory from a fellow NATO member have caused deep tensions between the United States and its western allies.

Details of the new agreement — expected to be formally signed at the U.N. General Assembly next week — have not been made public, but Trump said it would give the U.S. “permanent control” over the territory’s security. The president also said in a social media message that the deal would specify that “no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.”

MAGA-aligned commentators have hailed the move as vindication of the president’s longstanding preoccupation with Greenland.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt likewise called it a “very big deal” and claimed on social media that “America’s long term national security is much better today than yesterday.”

Rebeccah Heinrichs, a right-leaning national security commentator, wrote on X : “Huge win for the United States and @POTUS. And we can see Denmark and Greenland leaning in and working hard for shared security against our adversaries. Big improvement for the alliance for decades to come.”

However, critics have argued that the new deal does not yet appear to be much different to arrangements between the U.S. and Greenland since 1951, when the American military was allowed to station bases on the territory while Greenland maintained Danish sovereignty.

Former Navy War College professor Tom Nichols, an expert in national security affairs, responded to Hewitt's social media post by writing, “This is, in fact, not a big deal.”

Nichols, a staff writer for The Atlantic magazine, added that it's “no different from the situation we’ve always had, except our allies now think we’re led by a lunatic.”

Former French ambassador to the U.S. Gérard Araud said, “There is nothing new in this text.”

“The US doesn’t get anything it didn’t have before creating this unnecessary crisis,” Araud wrote on social media.

Foreign policy analyst and military historian Max Boot said an agreement that America “can have a military presence in Greenland and our adversaries can’t” has been in place “since the 1951 US-Denmark treaty.”