What exactly does Greenland's 2025/2026 property law say about foreign buyers and the government’s approval process?
Executive summary
Greenland’s 2025 property law sharply narrows who may acquire real estate or land‑use rights: in principle only persons and companies from Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark (i.e., Danish citizens) are eligible, while other foreigners can qualify only after meeting residency and tax thresholds or by securing government permission [1] [2] [3]. The law also embeds a government screening and approval mechanism — prior written consent from the Greenland Government (Naalakkersuisut) is required for foreign persons or foreign‑owned companies, and the government has powers to reject, prohibit or revoke investments seen as threats to security or public order [4] [5].
1. What the statute defines as eligible buyers and the residency/tax test
The statute draws a bright primary line: people and companies from Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark may, as a rule, buy property or obtain land‑use rights; non‑Danish citizens must have been resident in Greenland and taxable there for at least two years before they can buy without an exemption [2] [3] [5]. Multiple press accounts summarize the rule as permitting only Danish‑citizen holders or those with a documented permanent Greenlandic residence and two years’ local tax contributions to obtain property or land allocation [6] [7] [8]. Reporting notes that politicians had debated whether the residency requirement should be two or five years, with the two‑year threshold adopted in the final text [1].
2. The government approval and screening process spelled out
Beyond the residency test, the law and connected bills create an explicit screening and approval process: foreign persons or foreign‑owned companies may acquire title or rights only with the prior written consent of the Greenland Government (Naalakkersuisut), and a separate foreign‑investment screening act gives the government authority to prohibit, reject or revoke investments judged to threaten security or public order [4] [1]. Legal guidance and industry summaries note that applications typically require disclosure of buyer identity, the property in question and the purpose of acquisition, and that municipal or national authorities decide based on location and proposed use [9] [4].
3. How the law treats land versus buildings and state land ownership
Greenlandic practice separates ownership of buildings from the state’s ownership of land: much land is state‑owned and can be allocated as land‑use rights rather than sold outright, a distinction the new rules preserve by restricting who may receive title or land‑use rights in the first place [3]. Several sources emphasize that undeveloped plots, agricultural areas and strategic sites are especially tightly regulated and more likely to require explicit government justification and approval when foreign parties are involved [9] [4].
4. Political and geopolitical context the legislature invoked
Lawmakers framed the change as a defensive move against growing foreign interest in Greenlandic property — notably heightened attention from U.S. investors after high‑profile political commentary — and as a protection of local housing and sovereignty amid Arctic strategic competition [1] [2] [10]. The bill passed in Inatsisartut with 21 votes in favour and six abstentions, underscoring broad political support though not unanimous consent [2] [11].
5. Where reporting is limited and open questions remain
Public reporting consistently describes the core eligibility, the two‑year residency/tax rule and the government’s prior‑consent requirement, but details on procedural timelines, exact documentation standards, appeal routes for rejected applicants, and whether specific categories (e.g., commercial investors versus private buyers) face different tests are inconsistently reported across sources and are therefore not fully documented here [9] [4] [5]. Legal advisories recommend seeking counsel for exceptions and municipal procedures, indicating practical complexity that national summaries do not fully capture [5] [9].
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Proponents present the law as necessary to safeguard local housing, control strategically important land and prevent speculative or security‑sensitive foreign acquisitions [10] [4], while critics—though less prominent in the cited reporting—could argue the restrictions risk deterring legitimate investment and complicate commercial deals; the coverage also signals an implicit geopolitical motive aimed at limiting U.S. or other extra‑regional influence, which features prominently in media narratives [1] [10]. The government’s reserved discretionary power to grant exemptions creates both a safety valve and a political lever that may shape how the law is applied in practice [4] [3].