Is Greenland comfortable with US taking over
Executive summary
Greenland is not comfortable with the idea of the United States taking it over: Greenland’s government has explicitly rejected any U.S. takeover and public polling shows overwhelming opposition among Greenlanders to leaving Denmark or being seized, while Copenhagen and NATO officials have also voiced alarm [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, elements within the U.S. administration have pursued options ranging from purchase offers to payments and even to military contingency planning, creating a tense diplomatic standoff rather than a negotiated transfer [4] [5] [6].
1. Greenland’s elected leaders say “no” and residents feel threatened
Greenland’s government has publicly declared it “cannot under any circumstances accept” a U.S. takeover, language that underlines formal rejection from Nuuk and reflects deep unease among many residents who told reporters they felt “terrified” by rhetoric treating Greenland as an object to be claimed [1] [5].
2. Polling and public opinion overwhelmingly resist a U.S. switch of sovereignty
Multiple polls cited by international outlets show Greenlanders largely oppose leaving the Danish realm — a 2025 Verian Group poll found 85% opposed joining the United States — and U.S. polling likewise shows limited domestic backing for forcible acquisition, with only a minority of Americans supporting such a move and strong opposition to military seizure [2] [7] [8].
3. Copenhagen is firmly protective and Denmark’s ministers pressed the point in Washington
Denmark’s foreign minister and other Danish officials met U.S. counterparts and explicitly told Washington that acquisition is “not in the interest of the Kingdom,” signaling that Denmark will defend its sovereignty claims and press for respectful cooperation instead of transfer of territory [3].
4. Washington is divided: strategic rationales meet unorthodox tactics
Inside the U.S. government, strategists point to Greenland’s Arctic geography and security value—including U.S. bases already operating under the 1951 pact—as reasons to expand influence, and senior U.S. officials reportedly discussed options ranging from buying the island to offering compacts or even using military force as a contingency, steps that worry European allies [2] [5] [6].
5. Proposals to “sway” Greenlanders — money, compacts, and defense bargains — raise ethical and legal concerns
Reuters reported U.S. consideration of lump-sum payments to Greenlanders to persuade secession from Denmark, an idea that would both challenge international norms and face obvious legal and diplomatic hurdles; experts note that changing Greenland’s status would require congressional consent and risk undermining NATO relations [4] [2].
6. Historical context complicates present rhetoric but does not make takeover acceptable to Greenland
This is not a new American obsession: the U.S. has considered purchasing or otherwise acquiring Greenland several times since the 19th century, including a formal post‑World War II offer, a history that explains strategic interest but does not diminish contemporary Greenlandic resistance [9] [10].
7. The clearest answer: Greenland is not comfortable, and the path to any change is politically fraught
On the evidence available, Greenland does not want to be taken over by the United States — its government rejects the idea, polls show strong opposition among residents, Denmark objects, and NATO allies warn of risks — while the U.S. side remains internalized around a mix of strategic justification and controversial tactics, meaning any attempt to alter sovereignty would be met by profound political and diplomatic resistance [1] [2] [3] [4].
8. Unanswered questions and limits of reporting
Reporting establishes the positions and proposals but cannot confirm private deliberations beyond cited leaks or predict future U.S. policy choices; it also does not fully capture the full spectrum of opinion among Greenland’s diverse communities, which some polls and interviews suggest vary by region and demography, a nuance not exhaustively covered in the available sources [2] [5].