75% of Americans oppose US attempting to take control of Greenland

1. What the polls actually asked and what they show

Recent, reputable surveys asked different questions: Reuters/Ipsos asked Americans about approval of U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland and about using military force, finding just 17% approve of acquisition efforts and an overwhelming majority oppose military seizure (71% bad idea vs. 4% good idea) ^{[1] [5]}. YouGov’s regular tracking likewise reports that roughly three‑quarters of Americans oppose using military force to take Greenland and that fewer than a third back buying it (about 28% overall favor purchase in one YouGov sample) ^{[2] [4] [3]}. Those are the sources behind the “three‑quarters oppose” messaging ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Force versus purchase: a key distinction

The public stance diverges dramatically by proposed method: opposition to a military takeover is overwhelming — generally around 70–75% — while views on purchasing Greenland are more mixed and strongly partisan ^{[1] [2] [3]}. For example, Reuters/Ipsos found extremely low approval for acquisition overall (17%) but is explicit that the “bad idea” response is especially strong for force (71%-4%) ^[1], while YouGov reported about 28% support for purchase with 51% of Republicans but only 10% of Democrats in one sample ^{[3] [4]}. Thus a raw “75% oppose” claim is accurate for military seizure but not for all forms of “taking control.”

3. Partisan and awareness fault lines

Partisan affiliation drives much of the variance: Republicans are more permissive of purchase or assertive moves, while Democrats and independents lean toward opposition ^{[4] [3]}. Polls also show a meaningful level of public uncertainty or low awareness — roughly one in five respondents said they had not heard of the U.S. plans regarding Greenland in the Reuters/Ipsos polling — which complicates headline percentages and suggests opinions can shift as awareness or framing changes ^[5].

4. Legal, diplomatic and Greenlandic context that shapes opinion

Public reluctance to back a seizure is reinforced by legal and diplomatic realities emphasized in reporting: adding U.S. territory requires congressional approval and purchasing or annexing sovereign territory from an allied kingdom raises immediate constitutional and alliance constraints ^{[6] [7]}. Greenlandic and Danish officials have rejected the idea of sale or conquest, and reporting notes widespread opposition in Greenland to becoming part of the U.S., factors that likely inform American judgments about feasibility and legitimacy ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Why the “75%” figure matters and where it can mislead

The 75% figure succinctly captures strong public revulsion to violent seizure — a politically potent number that media and officials cite to delegitimize talk of conquest ^{[1] [2]}. But using that single figure without clarifying whether the question referenced military force, purchase, covert influence, or other means conflates distinct scenarios and obscures partisan divides and low public familiarity; different polls measure different things and yield different topline percentages ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

6. Bottom line

If the claim refers specifically to opposition to a military takeover of Greenland, it is supported by multiple polls showing roughly three‑quarters of Americans oppose such an action ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If it is meant as a blanket statement about any U.S. “attempt to take control,” the claim is oversimplified: approval for nonviolent options like purchase is higher in some subgroups and overall approval for acquisition efforts was measured as much lower (around 17–28%) in different surveys ^{[1] [4] [3]}. Reporting limitations include differing question wordings, partisan skews, and a not‑insignificant share of respondents who were unaware of the proposal ^{[5] [4]}.