Trump and Greenland
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly pursued acquiring Greenland, first publicly in 2019 and again after his 2024 reelection, framing it as a strategic and resource-driven objective that he described in 2019 as “essentially a real estate deal” [1] [2]. The White House says all options remain on the table — including purchase, a Compact of Free Association, economic inducements to Greenlanders, and even military measures — a stance that has provoked strong rebukes from Denmark, Greenland and several European allies [3] [4] [5].
1. How the idea resurfaced and what Trump says he wants
Trump revived a proposal first floated in 2019 to acquire Greenland, repeating claims that the island is vital for U.S. national security and rich in minerals the United States needs, and calling acquisition a U.S. priority after his 2024 win [2] [6] [7]. Administration officials have publicly discussed buying the territory, forming different legal relationships such as a Compact of Free Association, and reportedly even considered directly paying Greenland residents as a path to transfer — an idea Reuters reports the White House has mulled [3] [4].
2. The legal, political and diplomatic barriers
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark; both Copenhagen and Nuuk have insisted the island is “not for sale,” and Denmark and other NATO allies have issued joint statements defending that principle [6] [4] [5]. Experts and European outlets argue a sale would violate contemporary notions of self-determination and alliance politics, and that buying Greenland belongs to a 19th‑century playbook rather than 21st‑century diplomacy [8] [5]. Historical precedents of territorial purchase exist — Alaska and the U.S. acquisition of the Danish West Indies — but commentators note those precedents do not make a modern transaction politically or legally straightforward [1] [8].
3. The range of U.S. options under discussion
Reporting indicates the administration is exploring a spectrum of approaches: outright purchase, compact-like arrangements exchanging military presence for economic benefits, targeted economic inducements to Greenlanders, and enhanced military positioning — with officials publicly refusing to rule out force while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others emphasize negotiations with Denmark [3] [9] [4]. Some Republican lawmakers are even proposing bills to authorize steps toward acquisition or statehood, reflecting a fringe but vocal domestic political current [10].
4. Strategic rationale vs. practical costs
The administration frames Greenland as an Arctic hub critical to deterring Russia and China and as a source of rare earths and other minerals; these arguments underpin the push for control or privileged access [7] [2]. But analysts cited by Fortune and other outlets warn the economic payoff would likely be far in the future and that the political, diplomatic and military costs — including the potential rupture of NATO ties and high financial outlays to develop mining and infrastructure — could be enormous [11] [5].
5. Greenlandic public opinion and the limits of coercion
Polls reported in international coverage show overwhelming Greenlander opposition to joining the U.S., with leaders and unions publicly rejecting annexation and asserting self-determination [6] [12]. While Reuters and Fortune note U.S. strategists are considering ways to change local political dynamics through incentives, the sources also show Greenlandic and Danish governments remain firmly opposed, and any unilateral U.S. approach would face severe legal and political obstacles [4] [11].
6. What is certain and what remains unclear
What is certain from the reporting is that Trump has made Greenland a public priority, the White House has signaled a willingness to explore multiple avenues, and European allies have reacted strongly in defense of Danish sovereignty [2] [3] [4]. What remains unclear from available reporting is the administration’s concrete legal plan to effectuate any transfer of sovereignty without Greenlandic and Danish consent, the specific financial figures proposed for purchase or compensation, and how Congress would respond — areas where primary documentation or formal treaties have not been published in the cited coverage [4] [9].