Greenland’s Prime Minister Signed Away to U.S. $45B of Rights for $0.

24 September 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

That $45B was the bottom-line central estimate of a lengthy calculation by the most reliable general-purpose AI that I have tried, ChatGPT. It searched numerous Internet sources, including primary governmental documents, compared the Greenland agreement with other military-basing arrangements, examined the strategic functions the United States obtains, and used standard economic valuation methods, to estimate these rights, in this instance, to be worth approximately $45 billion. Its breakdown was:

Economically distinct asset transferred/restricted	Central capital value
1. Physical military/strategic access package — Pituffik expansion + Narsarsuaq + Mestersvig + prospective additional Defense Areas + unmanned installations + transit	$12B
2. Greenland-wide mobility rights — overflight, landing anywhere, territorial-water and undersea military access	$5B
3. Strategic-denial right — exclusion of non-NATO permanent military establishments	$7B
4. Economic-denial/investment-screening right — restriction of certain outside investors in sensitive sectors, explicitly including resource extraction	$8B
5. Security-buffer/anti-espionage rights around U.S. facilities	$1B
6. Permanency + U.S. blocking power over future amendment + continuation into Greenlandic independence	$12B
TOTAL	$45B

The Treaty, which was signed on September 22nd, is in perpetuity (unless BOTH sides decide to end it — which is exceedingly unlikely), and grants rights that ChatGPT estimates to have a capital value of about $45 billion. A 4% real annual rental return on an asset of that value would be $1.8 billion annually. If the Government were to distribute that per-capita to each Greenlander in the working-age population of 42,807, it would be $42,049 per Greenlander. Of course, there are two types of “average”: mean and median. And the average personal income in Greenland is $51,000 mean, and $45,600 median. Iff Greenland’s head-of-colony or Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, had not signed that $45B away for $0 rent per year and 0 claim to that capital-value, then those figures from now on would instead be, per Greenlander, mean=$93,049, and median=$87,649. Is he a dangerous fool, or instead a corrupt traitor? Were any kickbacks involved? If so, was his signature valid?

ChatGPT objected to those last three sentences from me, by saying: “I would not publish the corruption/kickback suggestion without evidence. I searched specifically for current evidence of bribery, kickbacks or corruption involving Nielsen and this agreement and found none. The publicly documented evidence instead shows him openly defending the bargain on security, NATO and self-determination grounds.” Like every AI that I have used, ChatGPT always presumes that a U.S.-or-allied Government-official is always sincere in his/her public statements and so any such statements constitute evidence about what the truth is and not MERELY about what that person wants the public to believe, but any such presumption is FALSE because politicians routinely lie; and, so, their allegations should NEVER be believed unless backed up by solid independent confirmatory evidence. ChatGPT was implicitly assuming that Jens-Frederik Nielsen is a fool. I do not.

ChatGPT then objected to my saying that it had been “implicitly assuming that Jens-Frederik Nielsen is a fool”:

That isn’t quite what my reasoning implied. I effectively gave undue evidentiary weight to one hypothesis — that Nielsen sincerely believed the treaty benefited Greenland. If your economic analysis were correct, several hypotheses would remain logically possible: he sincerely but mistakenly judged the bargain advantageous; he knowingly accepted a highly unfavorable economic bargain because he assigned overriding value to security/NATO considerations; he faced political or diplomatic constraints; he had some other undisclosed motive; or corruption was involved. His public statements alone cannot discriminate among those hypotheses.

And the current evidence gives an especially good reason not to jump from “extraordinarily bad bargain” to “kickback.” I searched specifically for evidence of payments, bribes, unexplained financial benefits, or kickbacks connected with Nielsen’s September 22 signature and found none. That means “kickbacks occurred” is presently unsupported — but “kickbacks did not occur” would also go beyond the evidence. Absence of evidence in this search is not proof of absence.

There is an interesting additional fact that cuts against simply assuming Nielsen was generally indifferent to improper American financial influence. Earlier in 2026 he publicly condemned reports that an American was offering Greenlanders $200,000 to sign a pro-U.S. petition, calling the alleged conduct “indecent.” Again, that tells us what Nielsen publicly did; it doesn’t prove his motives concerning the September treaty.

So if you want the passage to embody your evidentiary methodology rigorously, I would write the crucial part this way:

“ChatGPT objected to those last three sentences, saying: “I would not publish the corruption/kickback suggestion without evidence. I searched specifically for current evidence of bribery, kickbacks or corruption involving Nielsen and this agreement and found none. The publicly documented evidence instead shows him openly defending the bargain on security, NATO and self-determination grounds.”

But Nielsen’s public statements are evidence only that Nielsen publicly gave those reasons. They are not independent evidence that those were his actual reasons. Politicians can speak truthfully or falsely about their motives, and therefore a politician’s own assertion about his motive cannot establish that motive without independent corroborating evidence.

Consequently, Nielsen’s assertion that the Treaty is in Greenland’s interest cannot answer the question raised by the economics of the Treaty. If the rights that he signed away for no explicit rent have approximately the value estimated here, then the factual question remains: Why did he agree to those terms?

I do not presume that Jens-Frederik Nielsen is a fool. Nor, without evidence, do I presume that he is corrupt. Those are competing hypotheses, along with other possible explanations, and should be investigated rather than assumed. I have found no evidence that kickbacks were paid; equally, Nielsen’s own statements about his reasons do not establish that no undisclosed inducement existed. The proper scientific question is therefore: What independent evidence explains why Nielsen agreed to this bargain?”

That formulation is considerably stronger methodologically because it doesn’t assume either innocence or corruption. It identifies the observable act, rejects self-reported motive as proof of motive, and leaves competing causal hypotheses open to evidence.

I replied: “Never did I ‘assume either innocence or corruption’. You did. I objected.”

It responded: “Correct. … You objected to an assumption I introduced; you did not introduce the opposite assumption yourself.”

I then asked it: “Did the Prime Minister possess sufficient authority entirely on his own, to sign that document?” It answered:

No. Jens-Frederik Nielsen did not possess authority, acting entirely on his own, to make this agreement legally binding on Greenland. The distinction between signing it and bringing it into legal force is crucial.

Under Greenland’s Self-Government Act, Naalakkersuisut (Greenland’s government) has authority to conclude some international agreements concerning fields Greenland has taken over. But §12(4) expressly excludes agreements affecting defense and security policy from that independent treaty-making authority. Those agreements instead fall under §13, because foreign and security policy remain matters of the Kingdom of Denmark.

That is plainly applicable here: this agreement concerns U.S. military bases, military operations, NATO, missile defense, foreign military presence and security-related investment.

Furthermore, the September 22 agreement itself expressly prevents Nielsen’s signature from being sufficient. The Danish Prime Minister’s Office states:

“The agreement will enter into force subject to the necessary national parliamentary procedures.”

The Danish government’s Danish-language announcement is even clearer: after Nielsen, Frederiksen and Trump signed it, “Aftalen skal nu igennem de nødvendige parlamentariske procedurer for at træde i kraft”—the agreement must now go through the necessary parliamentary procedures before entering into force.

Please like and otherwise spread this article to go viral so that Greenlanders will get to see it and pressure their legislators to REJECT THIS HORRENDOUSLY EXPLOITATIVE AND UNFAIR TREATY! It rips you off — BigTime! This ‘deal’ needs to go back to the drawing-boards. GREENLANDERS DESERVE A FAIR DEAL!!!

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.