How do Greenlandic public opinion and political institutions view independence or changes in sovereignty?
Executive summary
Greenlandic public opinion tilts toward eventual independence but is conditional: recent polls show a majority would vote yes in a hypothetical referendum today while many explicitly reject independence that would lower living standards and overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of the United States [1] [2] [3]. Political institutions have legalized a clear, gradual path to sovereignty under the 2009 Self-Government Act, and Greenland’s parties and parliament combine long-term pro‑independence aspirations with pragmatic caution about timing, finance and international law [4] [5] [6].
1. Public opinion: a majority wants independence, but not at any cost
Multiple recent polls find a pro-independence plurality or majority: a January 2025 Verian poll reported 56% saying they would vote yes in a referendum now, with 28% against and 17% undecided [1], and other surveys suggest large majorities support independence as a long‑term objective even if fewer would vote yes tomorrow [7] [8]. Yet a significant share of Greenlanders condition that support on economic security—Verian found 45% oppose independence if it would reduce living standards—underscoring that enthusiasm for sovereignty is frequently tempered by worries about public services and budgets [1] [9].
2. A firm rejection of U.S. annexation or transfer of sovereignty
Across polls and reporting, Greenlanders almost unanimously reject the notion of becoming part of the United States: about 85% opposed incorporation into the U.S. in a January 2025 poll, with only small minorities receptive to U.S. citizenship or annexation [2] [3] [9]. That rejection persists even among some independence advocates who want sovereignty without replacing Danish ties with American control [3] [10].
3. Political parties: pro‑independence as mainstream, timing as the battleground
Most of Greenland’s major parties and political movements embrace independence as an aspiration—parties such as Siumut, Inuit Ataqatigiit, Naleraq and Nunatta Qitornai are associated with the goal—but they disagree on sequencing, timing and prerequisites; the clearest divide in practice is between those seeking a nearer‑term referendum and those treating independence as a long‑term project tied to institution‑building and economic viability [4] [11] [12].
4. Legal and institutional pathway: an orderly, consent‑based process
The Self‑Government Act of 2009 codified Greenland’s right to increased self‑determination and created a legal route to full independence that requires consent in the Inatsisartut (parliament), a Greenlandic referendum and final endorsement by the Danish Folketing, embedding a staged and lawful transition rather than unilateral secession [4] [5] [6].
5. Economics and institutions constrain immediacy — Copenhagen’s grant and capacity gaps
Economic reality shapes politics: Danish transfers cover a material share of Greenland’s public finances and GDP (estimates cited in reporting place the Danish grant at roughly 20% of GDP and historically over half of public expenditure in analyses), which fuels public concern that independence could erode welfare and services unless mining, investment and institutional capacity scale up [9] [8] [13]. That constraint explains why many pro‑independence parties stress phased capacity building rather than abrupt separation [8] [10].
6. External pressure and geopolitics have hardened domestic positions and revealed vulnerabilities
High‑profile foreign interest—most visibly from the U.S.—has provoked both domestic backlash and institutional caution: Greenlandic leaders assert that the island is “not for sale,” polls show strong opposition to U.S. takeover, and Denmark, think tanks and parliaments have moved to underline legal protections and monitor foreign influence, turning sovereignty debates into a geopolitical flashpoint that both rallies domestic support for self‑determination and complicates the calculus for when and how to exercise it [12] [2] [14] [15].
7. Conclusion: convergence around conditional independence under legal guardrails
The equilibrium across public opinion and institutions is clear: Greenlanders broadly favor independence as an objective but insist it must not come at the cost of living standards or external domination, and Greenland’s political institutions have mapped a consensual, legally framed road to sovereignty that prioritizes capacity, negotiation with Denmark and protection under international law—while geopolitics amplifies urgency and risk without erasing the economic and institutional prudence that still governs the debate [1] [4] [5] [14].