“I cannot divulge the details, as they are being worked out, but the framework builds on the 1941 and 1951 defense agreements between the United States and Denmark and would enhance American, NATO and Greenlandic security and reaffirm longstanding trans-Atlantic defense obligations,” he wrote.

The new deal would expand the U.S.’s “operational freedom, support new bases and infrastructure, facilitate deployment of advanced missile-defense systems like the Golden Dome and crowd out hostile Chinese and Russian influence,” he added.

“These measures are not provocative — they are preventive,” Landry stressed, cognizant of the controversy surrounding the island.

In Landry’s telling, the core purpose of the deal is to signal that it will no longer outsource key national security needs to other parties.

“The era when the Arctic could be treated as remote, static, or secondary has passed. President Trump’s Greenland agreement confronts this reality directly. The president has been unequivocal: American dominance in the Arctic is nonnegotiable,” he wrote, adding that the deal “signals to allies and adversaries alike that the United States will not outsource its security responsibilities or retreat from critical terrain.”

Though still vague, Landry’s comments offer new hints as to what exactly was struck in the framework of a deal that Trump touted as a success at Davos, Switzerland.

TRUMP’S GREENLAND BID DRAWS FOCUS TO RARE EARTHS MINING POSSIBILITIES

On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was similarly cagey on exact details, but promised that the new framework was much more favorable than the 1951 deal Denmark struck with the U.S. over the island.

“I promise you, the deal is not what we had before. It is much more fulsome for the United States.” Bessent said in an interview with ABC News’s This Week.