In a post on Truth Social, he said the US "will immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland".

He added: "This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special."

In a statement, prime minister Mette Frederiksen said both Denmark and Greenland expect to sign an agreement with the US next week to strengthen security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic region.

Mr Trump previously called on Denmark to sell the island to the US, and repeatedly insisted that Greenland is crucial for US security.

Denmark and Greenland have both consistently asserted that the island is not for sale.

However, Mr Trump suggested in his social media post that an understanding may have been reached.

He went on: "We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land. We will be very protective of it!"

Parliamentary action by the Danish and Greenland governments will be required before the deal can be enforced.

Ms Frederiksen said: "I am pleased that there is a prospect of a good agreement for Greenland, the kingdom of Denmark and the US.

"An agreement that strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic area and is therefore also good for NATO and Europe.

"And an agreement that at the same time recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the kingdom and the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination."

Greenland's prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said it would "ensure and strengthen" the security of Greenland, Denmark, the US, and the Western alliance - calling it "to the benefit of us all".

More from Sky News:
Explainer: Trump's deal with Denmark over Greenland
'Millisecond' software error caused air traffic outage

US secretary of state Marco Rubio said that the deal "permanently and completely" addressed Washington's national security concerns with respect to the island.

"Greenland will forever be part of the strategic defence area of North America and exclude any adversary from it and the surrounding area," he added.

Sky's US correspondent James Matthews said that conversations over the territory had centred around US security concerns.

Reacting to the news, he said: "Discussions focused on Greenland territory being used for the golden dome - the defence shield to guard against missiles being fired over the Arctic region from the likes, potentially, of China and Russia.

"There have also been American concerns about Chinese influence over Greenland and the US - it's been keen to ringfence its interests there."

The allegations were made in the book Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail - and is due to be published next week.

In an excerpt from the book about the events following his sister's deadly car crash in 1997, the earl claims that the King told him "we'll forget her soon enough", which Buckingham Palace responded to with an unusually punchy public statement.

In an interview published on Friday, Earl Spencer insisted, however, that he was "telling the truth" about the phone call.

"I can tell you here and now, those are exactly the words he said," Earl Spencer told the BBC, adding he had only ever had two calls on the line with Prince Charles.

"I was hyper alert to what he was saying and those are precisely the words that he said and I promise that to you now," the earl said.

"Genuinely, that is what he said. I don't hear him saying he didn't say that."

Royals latest: Diana's brother's new claims

Earl Spencer also shared new details from the call, saying the King went "ballistic" and accused his family of lacking a sense of duty after the earl insisted Prince William and Prince Harry should not walk behind their mother's coffin during the funeral procession.

The King then "stopped", the earl added, which made him think he was going to "pull himself together and say something more appropriate".

But it was then that the King said Diana would be forgotten "soon enough", according to the earl.

Earl Spencer added: "I really was so stunned, and I just, after a stunned silence, I said, 'I cannot believe you just said that', and I hung up on him."

On Wednesday, after the first excerpts were published, the Palace said in a statement: "While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle, His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss."

Regarding the King's reaction, the earl said: "Is he furious or is he embarrassed?"

"They've sort of smudged that one, haven't they?" he said. "They've said that recollections may vary."

Asked whether he has "evidence" of the King's comments, the earl said: "I told friends and family straight away, close friends and family, about what had been said, because it was so monstrous."

Read more from Sky News
The Palace denies Charles said Diana would be forgotten "soon enough"
Father of Noah Woods, 3, pays tribute to his boy

In an excerpt from the memoir published on Friday, the earl revealed he was "concerned" over the well-being of his nephew during and after Diana's funeral.

The princess's brother said he worried about the "lack of obvious care" for the then 12-year-old Prince Harry who, he said, "needed Diana's hugs... and they would forever be denied him".

Instead, the prince was "allowed to spin out of control", Earl Spencer added, writing that "a more caring hand" might have helped him cope while growing up.

"I could not get over how tiny, and slight, and bereft, Harry looked," the earl said.

"Too small to be doing this, I thought, and wondered how on earth this heartbroken child could bear the ordeal of that moment, or how he could possibly be expected to deal with the agony that the day ahead would insist upon."

Diana's brother also shared what he said was the late Queen's first reaction to Diana's traffic accident in Paris: "When the Queen had heard the first news of Diana's being in a traffic accident, she had asked, 'What is she up to now?'

"This, before the seriousness of it all became clear."

After Diana's death, Queen Elizabeth had, however, offered via her private secretary to give Diana her HRH style back, the earl adds, in a part that was reported before the publication of the full excerpt.

Sky News has asked the Palace for a response to the full excerpt.

Five days after Diana's death in Paris on 31 August 1997, the Queen paid tribute to her in a live television broadcast, saying no one who knew the princess would ever forget her.

Earl Spencer's revelations have, however, been questioned.

"Those comments just do not, and I promise you, do not add up. It absolutely does not make sense," Grant Harrold, who was Charles's butler while he was the Prince of Wales, told Sky News.

Mr Harrold said, in his opinion, the claims have "more to do with selling books".

Sky News' royal correspondent Laura Bundock said the revelations pose a greater risk to the King than Earl Spencer at a time when the Royal Family has come under increased scrutiny.

Bundock said the claims constituted "blistering broadsides" and may "reignite one of the most traumatic and damaging episodes in recent royal history".

Since Harry and his wife, Meghan, returned to the UK last month, they have been involved in a public feud with the Palace about their status. Their children have moved schools after issues were raised by their security team.

The headline polling numbers give one cause for concern.

The Liberal Democrats are polling lower now than a year ago with every pollster. On average, the party are down over two percentage points from 12.7% to just over 10.3%, substantially below their vote share in the last general election (12.6% GB wide).

There is some evidence that a resurgent Labour are squeezing the Lib Dems. The party's poll numbers are notably weaker since Andy Burnham became prime minister.

But the Lib Dems were already on the slide when Burnham arrived - they regularly posted shares above 15% in 2025 YouGov polls but have not hit this level with the pollster since early January 2026.

Leader approval

In September 2025, an average of 22% of those polled approved of Davey's leadership, and 28% disapproved, giving a solid but unspectacular net approval of -6. A year later, those figures have barely moved: 21% approve, 28% disapprove, -6 net approval on average.

These figures can be viewed two ways. The optimist's take is that voters have not turned against Davey, even as voter approvals of three other leaders - Sir Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage, and Zack Polanski - have slumped.

Yet while Davey hasn't annoyed voters, he hasn't impressed them either. Low and flat approvals and high "don't knows" suggest a leader who is failing to cut through.

Davey gets positive marks from just a fifth of voters. That's not great. And after more than six years as party leader, nearly half of voters are unable even to offer a view on Davey. That's not great either.

Liberal Democrat leaders typically struggle for a hearing at mid-term, squeezed out by bigger, louder parties. The task may be even harder now in a more fragmented and polarised media and political environment. And a lack of definition can be a plus, giving a leader a chance to (re)introduce himself to voters when the general election arrives.

Past Lib Dem leaders Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg all made big gains during the short campaign. This happened to Davey too in 2024. Davey's current lack of definition may work in his favour once voters begin comparing him with more divisive alternatives in a short campaign.

Davey does not, however, do brilliantly in straight comparisons with other leaders. YouGov has occasionally asked which of various pairs of leaders they would prefer as prime minister. Davey does well against radicals. His lead over Reform leader Nigel Farage and Green leader Zack Polanski on this question has grown over the past year or so.

But Davey struggles in matchups against the current leaders of the traditional governing parties. He does much worse against the new Labour leader Andy Burnham than he did against Sir Keir Starmer a year ago.

Davey trailed Starmer by just seven points on the best PM question; he now polls 35 points behind Burnham. Davey beat Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch by eight points in "best PM" matchups a year ago. He now trails the Tory leader by a similar margin.

It is the decline in Davey's ratings versus Badenoch which will most worry Liberal Democrat strategists. The Conservatives are the main competitor to the Lib Dems in most of the seats the party currently holds or is targeting. A year ago, the Lib Dem leader was a clear campaigning asset.

His value added is less obvious today.

Election performance

This was a good year once again for the Lib Dems in local elections. The party made a net gain of over 150 council seats and made a net gain of three councils, with both of the newly created unitary authorities governing Surrey, where they have several target seats, among those gains.

The Lib Dems have made gains in every set of local elections held since Davey took over as leader. This six-year advance has clawed back almost all the ground the Lib Dems lost in their post-Coalition collapse. The Lib Dems now have more councillors, and a higher share of all councillors, than in any year since 2010.

Local by-elections provide further evidence that the Lib Dem campaigning machine is now in rude health, with substantial net gains between the 2025 and 2026 local elections, and again since the 2026 local elections.

This long, strong run of success in council contests will be encouraging for a party which has long used local government as a springboard to Westminster success.

The Scottish Parliament election was another bright spot. The Lib Dems won seven constituency seats and three list seats, and their resulting ten MSPs is their biggest Holyrood cohort since 2007.

The Lib Dems regained three seats with historical sympathies to the party: Caithness, Sutherland & Ross; Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch and Edinburgh Northern. More remarkably, they came from fourth place to win Strathkelvin & Bearsden, a constituency where the party had never previously finished in the top two.

The Welsh Senedd elections were more disappointing. The Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Jane Dodds remains the only Lib Dem in the Senedd.

Her party was unable to profit either from an expanded Senedd using a more proportional regional list PR electoral system, or from the decline of the hitherto dominant Welsh Labour party.

The Lib Dems' overall vote barely rose, and they didn't come close to the threshold for representation in any of the other six seat Senedd constituencies. Outflanked on the nationalist left by Plaid Cymru and the unionist right by Reform UK, the Lib Dems remain confined to the margins of politics in Wales, once a bastion of Liberal support.

In the last Parliament, Sir Ed Davey benefitted from a series of Westminster by-elections triggered in Conservative seats where the Liberal Democrats were well placed to challenge the incumbent. He has had no such luck this Parliament.

There have so far been no by-elections in seats where a Lib Dem challenge might be credible. Lib Dem performance in the contests we have had has been uniformly dismal. The Lib Dems lost their deposit in three of the four seats they contested over the last year, including a record low 0.4% in the Makerfield by-election. The same tactical voting motivations which buoy the Liberal Democrats where they are in the running also severely squeeze the party in seats where they are not.

Conclusion - glass half full or glass half empty?

How we judge Liberal Democrat performance depends on what we emphasise. If we focus on national polls and views of the leader, it has been a poor year. The Lib Dems are down substantially with all pollsters, falling below their showing at the last general election. Davey sets few hearts racing, and has fallen behind the resurgent Conservative leader Badenoch, his most important competitor given the geography of Lib Dem support.

The picture is rosier if we focus on election results. Despite flagging polling and a forgotten leader, the Liberal Democrats advanced yet again in council elections and in the Scottish Parliament. The party are now a formidable force in town halls across the South of England shires where they are most competitive in Westminster contests.

The Lib Dems have a choice to make. They can cement their position as a (mostly) South of England party, concentrating on the broad arc around London where they usually are the strongest progressive opposition to the Conservatives and Reform. Or they can try to seize the opportunities provided by a more volatile electoral context to compete on a broader front, for example by mobilising progressive opposition to Labour in the big cities.

It may not be possible to ride both horses. Today's moderate, unthreatening Liberal Democrats do not excite young urban radicals. But a more strident approach could alarm the comfortable middle class voters the party relies on in the seats it now holds.

Which way the Liberal Democrats go may depend on how they read the current situation. Glass half full or glass half empty? Sir Ed Davey's fate as leader, and the direction of his party, may depend on the answer.

This is the second in a series of posts reviewing the polling and electoral performance of the parties as they gather for their annual conferences

In a post on Truth Social tonight, he threatened more media bans were "to follow".

He wrote: "I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their named from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them 'alive.' Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!

"Media outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America.

"Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow."

He later told reporters at the White House: "I don't want them in my office. I don't ⁠want them here. I would say the ‌ban would go as far as you can."

CNN said in a statement it was "fully behind" its White House team and their "fair and accurate reporting".

The channel said it had a right "under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government".

"Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right," it added.

Politico said it would "continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones" and defend its "first amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them".

The National Press Club called on Mr Trump to "reverse his declaration immediately".

Its president, Mark Schoeff Jr, said in a statement: "Banning news organizations from the White House based on the administration's disapproval of their coverage is a clear attempt to control which voices are allowed to witness and report on the exercise of presidential power.

"Every American should understand what is at stake. If implemented, this ban would mark an unprecedented assault on press freedom."

There was no immediate suggestion that the president was following through on his remarks.

Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were still on the White House grounds as of late Friday afternoon, US time, with no indication they had been removed.

Mr Trump's defence secretary Pete Hegseth supported the decision in a post on X.

He wrote: "The Department of War fully supports President Trump's decision to kick CNN, MS NOW and Politico to the curb so they can publish their fake news from outside the White House."

Mr Trump has long complained about what he sees as the negative coverage he and his administration receive, coining the phrase "fake news" for those he perceived as unfavourable during his first term in the White House.

He has frequently lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, with several recent attacks on CNN's Kaitlan Collins.

In February last year, Associated Press (AP) journalists were banned from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other events in retaliation for the news agency's refusal to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name to the Gulf of America.

Read more on Sky News:
Anti-vaxxers 'have a friend in the White House'
Trump demands interest rate cut

Since returning to office last year, Mr Trump has pursued other legal action against a variety of different outlets, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the BBC.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, meaning they are likely to challenge any ban in court.

Speaking in the Oval Office on Friday, the president said he would justify banning three news organisations from the White House, despite the First Amendment, "because they're fake news".

AP is fighting its ban in court.

He said that the US will "have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of ​Greenland, and the United States of America" in a post on Truth Social.

Mr Trump added that the US would soon deploy a large military presence on the island without offering further details.

But what does the new deal actually entail and how will it be implemented? Sky News explains.

What does the agreement cover?

A State Department official told Reuters that the deal prohibits non-NATO countries ​from building a base in Greenland.

They added that only the US and its allies will be able to make "sensitive investments" - though the nature of these investments is currently unclear.

The US will also be granted permanent access, basing and overflight rights, the official added.

All of these conditions will reportedly continue to apply even if Greenland becomes independent.

Mr Trump's Truth Social posts lacked specifics and much remains unclear, including whether new US bases may be constructed as a result of the agreement.

Imran Bayoumi, a former Pentagon official now ⁠with the Atlantic Council think tank, said that Washington "could have achieved a lot of ​these objectives through diplomacy and dialogue without straining the broader US-NATO relationship".

Parliamentary action by the Danish and Greenland governments will also be required before the deal can be enforced.

How have Denmark and Greenland reacted?

Denmark's prime minister Mette Frederiksen confirmed the news on Friday evening and said the deal is expected to be signed next week.

She said "there is a prospect of a good agreement for Greenland, the kingdom of Denmark and the US".

Ms Frederiksen called it "an agreement that strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic area".

Greenland's prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen also said it would "ensure and strengthen" the security of Greenland, Denmark, the US, and the Western alliance - calling it "to the benefit of us all".

Why is Greenland strategically important?

Greenland, which is northeast of Canada, is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

The island of just 57,000 people offers a unique geopolitical advantage which the US has coveted for more than 150 years.

Mr Trump has repeatedly made his ambition to own Greenland known and even made implicit threats of military action.

He previously said it is "very important for the national security of the United States, Europe, and other parts of the free world".

The shortest distance between Russia and the US is over Greenland, making it a critical site for the US ballistic missile defence system.

It is already home to a large US military base, called the Pituffik Space Base.

Sky News' military analyst Sean Bell previously said that global warming is melting Greenland's ice sheet and opening up new trade routes that have historically been frozen and impassable for most of the year.

New, cheaper routes for shipping goods from Europe to Japan are consequently opening around Greenland.

Is there really a national security threat in Greenland?

Mr Trump has repeatedly suggested there are immediate threats to the US and NATO countries in Greenland.

Sky's US correspondent James Matthews said that conversations over the territory had centred around US security concerns.

He said: "Discussions focused on Greenland territory being used for the golden dome - the defence shield to guard against missiles being fired over the Arctic region from the likes, potentially, of China and Russia."

However, experts have challenged Mr Trump's claims that Russian and Chinese ships are posing a threat around Greenland.

Read more from Sky News:
'Millisecond' software error caused air traffic outage
All government departments to refresh war plans

Peter Viggo Jakobsen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, previously told Sky News: "There is no acute problem to solve - the Chinese and Russian ships that he keeps talking about are a figment of his imagination.

"There is no security threat to Greenland," he added, explaining that China does not operate warships and submarines in the Arctic and that while Russia may operate the odd submarine near Greenland on occasion, "that is it".

The US military already has de facto military control of Greenland, as it has since the Second World War.