Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands and former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray are among the figures praising a reported security agreement involving Denmark, Greenland and the United States, according to an account published by Newsmax. The two former officials, both of whom served during the first Trump administration, hailed what the outlet described as President Donald Trump's new Greenland security agreement.
Downing Street, meanwhile, said UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Støre welcomed an agreement between Denmark, Greenland and the United States. The statement, carried by the account @FirstSquawk, came as Burnham hosted Støre in Liverpool, where the two leaders also raised the Lunna House strategic defence agreement between the United Kingdom and Norway, according to a separate post from the same account.
The reaction extended to domestic political media as well. On The Anchormen, the One America News Network program, commentator Pearson Sharp discussed the reported Greenland security arrangement and its potential strategic implications for the United States. In a transcript of the segment, Sharp said the deal could strengthen American defense capabilities in the Arctic while limiting the ability of other countries to establish a presence there.
Sharp said on the program that he would have preferred a more direct approach to Greenland. "I would have rather invaded Greenland than Iran, honestly," he said. "But I would love to have Greenland be a complete new state. That'd be wonderful. But this is the next best thing, and maybe arguably better, because we get what we wanted in the terms of defense, but we don't have the upfront cost of building a new state."
Sharp went on to describe the arrangement as one that would exclude rival powers from building on the territory. "I like the fact that it seems to be in perpetuity," he said. "You know, we don't have the full details of the deal yet, but nobody else can build anything there, just the United States, so that automatically excludes China and Russia. More worried about China than Russia."
He also referenced an existing American installation in Greenland. "But right now, we've already got Petrific Space Base there, which I didn't realize. And so there's talk about, basically, that's up there to watch for incoming missiles and things like that."
The discussion of the agreement's strategic value reflects a broader interest in Arctic defense among commentators and former officials. The reported arrangement, as described across the accounts carrying reaction to it, would grant the United States a defense role in Greenland while foreclosing similar opportunities for other nations.
It is not yet known what specific terms the agreement contains, how long it would remain in force, or what the formal obligations of each party would be. The details cited by Sharp, including the claim that no other country would be permitted to build on the territory and that the arrangement would exist in perpetuity, have not been released publicly.
The British statement adds a European dimension to the reaction. Downing Street said Burnham and Støre welcomed the Denmark-Greenland-United States agreement during their meeting in Liverpool. The same statement noted that the two leaders discussed the Lunna House strategic defence agreement between the UK and Norway, a separate bilateral arrangement that predates the reported Greenland deal.
Coverage of Burnham's domestic agenda has centered on other matters in recent days. The prime minister has proposed a national care service in England, describing the existing social care system as "threadbare," and has said the plan would be put before voters at the next general election. At the Labour conference, Burnham said social care will break the National Health Service, arguing that his vision would leave "people able to have hope again."
Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden told Labour activists that they should not defend the benefits system's "status quo" because it "writes off" claimants. Burnham is also expected to set out an economic vision amid inflation and the ongoing conflict with Iran, according to coverage from Investing.com.
The Greenland agreement has drawn commentary from a range of accounts on social media, with @OANN carrying the Pearson Sharp segment, @NEWSMAX reporting the praise from Sands and Gray, and @FirstSquawk relaying the Downing Street statement. Next News Network could not independently verify the existence or terms of the reported agreement.
Trump's interest in Greenland has been a recurring theme in American politics. During his first term, he proposed purchasing the territory from Denmark, an idea that was rejected by Danish authorities at the time. The reported security agreement, if confirmed, would represent a different approach to the same strategic interest, one framed around defense cooperation rather than outright acquisition.
Separately, President Trump was introduced as honorary chairman of the 2026 Presidents Cup, according to the account @GuntherEagleman, which described him as "the 45th and 47th President of the United States, out there for Team USA on a Sunday." The post added, "That is American strength showing up in person. I love seeing Trump honored where it belongs."
The Presidents Cup, a biennial golf competition between teams representing the United States and an international squad, was holding its 2026 edition on that Sunday. The honorary chairmanship, as described in the post, placed Trump at the event in a ceremonial role.
Attention to the Greenland matter continues to develop, with the full text of any agreement not yet made public and no formal confirmation from the governments involved beyond the British statement relayed by @FirstSquawk.
Our Take
The reaction to the reported Greenland agreement tells us more about the political moment than the deal itself. Figures like Carla Sands and Alex Gray, both veterans of the first Trump administration, are framing this as a strategic win in the Arctic, and the One America News segment pushes that argument further, presenting the arrangement as a way to secure American interests without the cost of statehood. Whether the agreement actually delivers on those promises is a separate question, one that cannot be answered until the terms are released. What is clear is that the people most eager to claim credit for the deal are speaking publicly while the details remain unavailable. That is not an accident. A favorable headline now can do more political work than a detailed policy brief ever could, and the same goes for the British angle: Downing Street's willingness to welcome the arrangement gives it a sheen of international legitimacy, even though London is not a party to it. The reaction from @NEWSMAX, @OANN and @FirstSquawk shows how quickly a claim can become a talking point across media ecosystems before the underlying facts are settled. That is not unique to this story, but it matters here because the stakes involve Arctic defense and relations with Denmark, China and Russia. Next News Network could not independently verify the agreement, and until that changes, the only honest position is caution. The argument that the deal is a win is being made by people who have not seen the fine print, and the enthusiasm is running well ahead of the evidence.
