Danish citizens sign petition to buy California
Executive summary
A satirical online petition called “Denmarkification” sought to “buy” California as a tongue‑in‑cheek response to U.S. talk about buying Greenland and drew viral attention, with multiple outlets reporting signatory totals in the low hundreds of thousands rather than any real diplomatic proposal [1] [2] [3]. Organizers framed the effort as parody — a political joke that amassed significant social‑media traction but had no official backing from the Danish government or any legal pathway to change sovereignty [3] [4].
1. The stunt and its origins: Denmarkification as satire
The petition sprang from a satirical project called “Denmarkification,” explicitly designed to lampoon the logic of buying territory by proposing that Denmark purchase California for roughly $1 trillion; multiple news organizations traced the campaign to early 2025 and noted its comedic framing rather than any serious diplomatic intent [1] [5] [6]. The site plays with cultural tropes — promising hygge in Hollywood, bike lanes in Beverly Hills, and even a lifetime supply of Danish pastries — language that outlets and organizers themselves presented as irony, not policy [7] [2] [8].
2. Numbers and reach: how many Danes actually signed?
Reporting on signature totals varies: outlets cited figures “more than 200,000,” “nearly 200,000,” roughly 270,000, up to claims near 280,000 or 300,000, reflecting the petition’s viral circulation and differing snapshots over time [3] [2] [9] [6] [10]. News organizations from The Guardian to local U.S. TV stations confirmed that hundreds of thousands engaged with the page, but those counts were reported as evidence of online momentum rather than proof of organized political power [2] [10].
3. Who organized it and why: political theatre, not diplomacy
The campaign was fronted by a figure identified as Xavier Dutoit and associates; journalists noted Dutoit is not Danish and that Danish collaborators helped shape the joke, signalling a cross‑border prank more than a domestic policy movement [5] [4]. Multiple outlets and organizers described the action as deliberate political theatre aimed at ridiculing talk of territorial purchase — a mirror image response to President Trump’s public comments about Greenland — using absurdity to make a point about the ethics and logic of treating territory as tradable [1] [11].
4. Reactions and interpretation: amusement, critique, and misreading risks
Media coverage ranged from amused curiosity to pointed political commentary; some Americans shared the petition as a lighthearted take on Denmark’s supposed virtues, while others used it to underline international perceptions of U.S. politics [3] [6]. Commentators warned that viral satire can be misread as genuine policy pressure, and local and national officials took no formal steps in response — the Danish prime minister publicly stressed strong U.S.–Denmark ties in related reporting about Greenland, underscoring that the petition had no government endorsement [8].
5. What it is not: no legal purchase, no state action
Nowhere in the reporting is there evidence the petition represented an official Danish state effort or that it created any legitimate mechanism to transfer sovereignty; outlets consistently framed it as a crowdsourced prank with a fanciful $1 trillion crowdfunding goal, not a binding offer nor a treaty‑level initiative [5] [8] [3]. Coverage makes clear the petition’s power lay in satire and social engagement rather than in altering international law or provoking a transactional sale of California.
6. The hidden agenda and takeaway: satire as diplomatic commentary
The implicit agenda of the Denmarkification campaign was to expose what organizers and sympathizers saw as the absurdity of geopolitics when reduced to transactional rhetoric, using humor to highlight disagreements over environment, immigration, and governance — and to puncture the idea that territories can be casually traded [1] [2]. The episode demonstrates how digital stunts can become international talking points: they reveal public sentiment, provoke media follow‑up, and risk being amplified beyond their comic intentions, but they do not substitute for official foreign‑policy processes [3] [4].