In 2019, President Trump described Greenlandâs potential as similar to a âlarge real estate dealâ and said âstrategically itâs interesting.â At the time, the idea was a blip on the radar. Today, the rhetoric is more intense.
National Defense: At first, he said US control of the territory is âessentialâ for US national security, and that anything less would be âunacceptable.â He then clarified that the US would not take Greenland by military force.
After a meeting with Trump, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said, âWe have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.â The resolve followed Trumpâs since-withdrawn threat of a 10% tariff on European countries that had sent small deployments to Greenland.
Part of the presidentâs argument was, âIf we donât take [it], Russia or China will.â Russiaâs top diplomat, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said neither Russia nor China has âany such plansâ and he is sure Trumpâs administration is âfully awareâ of that.
President Trump has spoken of creating a âGolden Domeâ missile defense system that would utilize land, sea, and space to protect the US mainland. A recent Fox News (online news rated Right) segment explains Greenlandâs significance in detecting and responding to a potential Russian missile attack:
Natural Resources: According to data from the US Geological Survey, Greenland has the 8th-richest natural resource reserves of any country or territory in the world. And unlike many other high-ranking regions, its resources are largely untapped.
Global Trade: Some alsocite how melting Arctic ice sheets near Greenland could open new international shipping lanes.
2. What have people in Greenland and Denmark said?
âDo local/indigenous perspectives think that the US could help them achieve independence? / Is it actually plausible that the US can help Greenland achieve independence?â
AllSides reader Katie K., Michigan, Lean Left
âWeâre not going to sell our soul. Weâre not foolish.â
- Pipaluk Lynge, Greenlandic politician
âBegin the process in Danish law of becoming independent, and negotiate directly with the United States for American military and financial support.â
- Vittus Qujaukitsoq, Greenlandic politician
âStronger cooperationâ with the US, but sovereignty is ânonânegotiableâ
- Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen
Public Opinion: Greenlanders tend to oppose a US acquisition, but also generally support independence from Denmark. Results vary from source to source.
â85% of Greenlanders do not want to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the United Statesâ - Verian, 2025
âA new poll shows that 84% of Greenlanders want their homeland to be independent from Denmark.â - Euractiv, 2025
âData from a recent survey shows that Greenlanders do not want their country to be sold, with only eight percent of respondents stating that they would want to have U.S. citizenship. Denmark was the preferred passport of the two countries, selected by 55 percent of Greenlandic respondents, while 37 percent said they did not know which they would choose.â - Statista, 2025
âOur survey finds that [57.3%] of Greenlandic residents support joining the United States. During the time that this poll was conducted, Donald Trump Jr. made a visit to Greenland.â Patriot Polling, Jan. 2025
đĽ Conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley went to Greenland last year and asked locals about a potential US takeover. Hear what they had to say.
3. How have past US leaders tried to utilize Greenlandâs strategic importance?
Trumpâs not the first US leader to covet the island.
The rest of this blog is for Sustaining Members only.
The US may have acquired it in 1868, if the deal brokered for Alaska a year earlier by then-Secretary of State William Seward for $7.2 million hadnât been âpolitically brandedâ and âpopularly known as âSewardâs Folly.ââ
On top of widespread negative feelings toward then-President Andrew Johnson, many Americans saw Alaska as a âbarren wasteland.â But its plentiful oil and gas reserves soon proved extremely valuable as the fossil fuel age dawned, and its proximity to Russia ended up being a huge advantage in the Cold War. Today, Greenland could play a similar role as a reserve of rare earth minerals (the equivalent of oil for the digital age) and a bulwark against Russian missiles launched over the Atlantic. A few other attempts and strategic usages followed:
1910: the US Ambassador to Denmark wrote a letter to the US State Department proposing to acquire Greenland and the West Indies under a complex land exchange that included Germany. Ultimately, the US dismissed the idea, but later in 1917 signed a treaty with Denmark for the West Indies, renaming them the US Virgin Islands.
World War II: When Nazi forces overran Denmark in April of 1940, Greenland was left defenseless and separated from the Danish government. In April 1941, the US signed a defense agreement to assume responsibility for protecting Greenland from Germany. The agreement was one of the USâ first overseas deployments of the war, as the troops sent there built bases, guarded resources, and covertly attacked German weather stations on Greenlandâs coast.
Cold War: As described by the Associated Press in a 1991 article, in 1946 the Truman administration proposed to pay Denmark $100 million in gold (worth roughly $1.66 billion in todayâs market) to purchase Greenland. According to the National Archives, this proposal was âTop Secret,â as then-Secretary of State James F. Byrnes urged Danish Foreign Minister Gustav Rasmussen to âdefer taking any steps that might result in leaks and consequent publicity.â
Initially, the proposal merely added security agreements following World War II, but evolved into buying the land outright for the $100 million in gold. Itâs still unknown whether Denmark denied or just let the issue die out without providing an answer.
4. How much could a Greenland purchase cost?
As for the would-be price tag, officials and scholars have speculated widely.
NBC News (Lean Left) reported that âthree people familiar with the cost estimateâ said the territory could cost up to $700 billion.
David Barker, a former economist at the New York Fed, told The New York Times (Lean Left) it could cost between $12.5 billion and $77 billion.
The American Action Forum, a DC-based think tank, said its estimates range from $186 billion to $4.4 trillion.
5. How would a Greenland purchase affect the economy?
Greenland wouldnât bring immediate profit to the US. As Trump has previously pointed out, it actually costs Denmark money at the moment. Earlier this month, Euronews (Center) succinctly wrote:
âGreenland is not rich in the conventional sense. Its economy is small, heavily dependent on fisheries, and it survives largely on an annual block grant from Denmark of about DKK 3.9bn (âŹ520mn), equivalent to roughly âŹ9,000 per resident per year.
According to the World Bank, Greenland's gross domestic product is estimated at around $3.5â4bn (âŹ3.2â3.7bn), serving a population of roughly 56,000 people. Around 90% of exports derive from fishery-related products.â
The main financial appeal is long-term security provided by Greenlandâs resource reserves.
6. How would this affect NATO and transatlantic defense?
Since 1951, the Defense of Greenland Agreement has given the US extensive defense rights over the island without questioning or infringing upon Danish sovereignty.
Previously, though, several world leaders had expressed concerns that US control of Greenland would cause disruptions within NATO. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen and other European leaders issued a joint statement saying Trumpâs rhetoric on taking the territory could âundermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.â
Talking Points and a Range of ViewsâŚ:
If youâre having a conversation about Greenland, consider who you might be talking to:
Strategic Realist: See Greenlandâs location and expansive territory as critical to US national defense.
Transactionalist: Interested in possible financial benefits of acquiring Greenland.
Decolonialist: Focused on Denmarkâs and Greenlandersâ opposition to US ownership.
Internationaist: Worried that global alliances will be disrupted.