Very few diplomatic proposals in modern history have been as controversial as President Donald Trump’s recent bid to purchase Greenland from Denmark. Perhaps only Brexit or the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement sparked similar levels of international debate. The proposal was quickly dismissed by Danish officials and widely criticized. While some know that the U.S. was built through territorial expansion, fewer people realize that this is not the first time Greenland has been an acquisition target by the US. What makes this remote Arctic island so desirable, and why has it been on Washington’s wishlist for so long?

Historical Precedents: U.S. Territorial Expansion

For thousands of years, North America was populated by Native Americans and remained largely unknown to Europeans. It wasn’t until the 1500s that they arrived and found a land of many natural resources. The French headed north, the Spanish settled south and west, and the British colonies developed along the east coast. The United States would originally form as 13 separate colonies under the rule of the British Crown. However, the Patriots¹ were tired of having to follow rules and having to pay taxes to a government where they did not have representation. Eventually, these issues culminated in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). After the British defeat, a peace treaty was signed that same year². The colonies took their first steps toward a new system of government by drawing up what would become the Articles of Confederation, adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777 and fully ratified by 1781. This was the widely known first constitution of the United States.

We should note that the U.S. political system was at first organized as a confederation. These are formed when independent states come together voluntarily to achieve some common objectives. In the past, confederations have usually been the predecessors of federal unions. For example, the modern Swiss Confederation, only in its name, was preceded by an association of cantons.

The reason why confederations usually do not survive and, in fact, there are none today, is that they often tend to evolve into a weak central government. Most power remains with the individual states, thereby depriving the central authority from functioning properly. Take, for example, the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation. In this case, the Congress could pass laws but they needed a two-thirds majority vote, which made it too difficult to pass any legislation. Without direct power over state finances, the government could not collect taxes, resulting in it not having any money to operate or to pay the huge debts it owed to Europe. More importantly, it had no national military and could not defend itself.³ In the end, this led to the adoption of a more centralized federal system, established by the Constitution of 1787.

The U.S. expanded significantly through land purchases and annexations from 1783 to 1853. In 1803, through the “Louisiana Purchase”, its size doubled by acquiring territory from France. It is important to mention that this transaction included much of the central part of the United States, not just what we know today as the modern state of Louisiana.

Later, in 1867, the U.S. purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire for 7.2 million dollars⁴, marking its first Arctic land acquisition. After being defeated in the Crimean War, Russia was facing economic difficulties and feared it could not defend Alaska, especially against British forces. Tsar Alexander II ultimately chose to sell Alaska to the United States, seeing it as a way to strengthen Russian Empire–United States relations, while preventing British expansion in North America.

The United States had actually already even negotiated with Denmark back in 1917. They bought St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, jointly known as the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) for 25 million dollars⁵ to enhance its strategic position in the Caribbean.

More Historical Precedents: Negotiations on Greenland

The first mention of acquiring Greenland (and also Iceland) first occurred during President Andrew Johnson’s administration in 1867, the same year Alaska was bought. Some sources suggest that negotiations for purchasing both territories for 5.5 million dollars⁶ were nearly complete, but no formal offer was made, likely due to political challenges in the U.S. Congress at the time.

The idea resurfaced in 1910 under President William Taft, who proposed a land swap with Denmark. The U.S. would swap Mindanao in the Philippines for Greenland and the Danish West Indies. As we saw, the swap only ended up being Mindanao for the Caribbean Islands. Greenland was put aside.

During World War II, when Germany occupied Denmark, a threat emerged that the Nazi forces could invade Greenland. The U.S. then, with authorization from Denmark, occupied the island temporarily in 1941 and created military bases to frustrate such eventualities by Germany. After the end of the war, President Harry Truman, now preoccupied by the growth of the Soviet Union, officially offered 100 million dollars⁷ to Denmark for Greenland. The Kingdom of Denmark refused, but later allowed the U.S to establish military bases on Greenland, such as the Thule Air Base, which is still operating today.

The idea resurfaced once again under President Donald Trump, who formally attempted to purchase Greenland in 2019, which is a surprisingly little talked about fact in the current news cycle. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed the proposal as absurd, prompting Trump to cancel a state visit in response.

Why is the U.S. Interested in Greenland today?

Greenland is attractive to the U.S. for both its strategic location and natural resources. As Arctic ice melts because of climate change, the trade routes around the area are becoming more navigable. Eventually, different routes will open up, allowing for ships to more efficiently take Northern routes instead of the traditional Southern ones, since a lot of these Arctic trade routes can be shorter.

Mining in Greenland is on the rise as global demand increases for rare earth elements, 17 metals crucial to technologies such as consumer electronics, renewable energy systems, and military equipment. Greenland has rich unexploited REE resources, and its ice is melting to reveal these resources due to climate change. China dominates 60% of the total supply of REEs globally and controls 90% of refining, something that has stimulated countries such as the U.S. to seek other sources in Greenland. However, mining faces challenges like environmental concerns, infrastructure needs, and opposition by local communities due to ecological and cultural impacts.

Its location is also convenient for military installations, and while the U.S. already operates one air base there, full control over Greenland would provide a big advantage in monitoring activities in the region, especially with growing tensions with China and Russia⁸. China has made the Polar Silk Road, a component of its larger Belt and Road Initiative, to develop Arctic shipping routes and resources-officially part of its foreign trade policy. It has invested in some Russian projects, including the Yamal LNG, one of the largest natural gas operations, which started in 2017, and Arctic LNG 2, scheduled to start by 2026. While the West has imposed sanctions that have limited Russia’s access to world markets, China has been helping them. Meanwhile, Russia is building up its military presence in the Arctic by reopening Soviet-era bases, building new airfields, radar stations, and icebreaker fleets.

This growing alliance between China and Russia contrasts with the U.S. under the Trump administration, which consistently dismisses Europe as a traditional ally, threatening tariffs, withholding support for Ukraine, and adopting policies that strain transatlantic relationships. At the same time, figures like Elon Musk have increasingly shown their backing for far-right parties in Europe, many of which oppose the EU and advocate for reducing European unification. With this shift in perspective and Trump’s stubbornness, it’s likely the U.S. is distancing itself from Europe and will continue to press Denmark and other European countries on this matter.

The Principle of Self-Determination

One of the obstacles to any U.S. attempt to purchase Greenland in the modern era is the principle of self-determination. Both the UN Charter (Article 1(2))⁹ and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 1(3))¹⁰ declare that the inhabitants of Greenland have a right to self-determination regarding their political status. Before World War II, this principle was not broadly recognized or respected. Local populations were not able to consent over these trade agreements, since they had little power. Still, let’s imagine Denmark finally decides to sell Greenland. Even in this case, such a deal would be quite complicated, since Greenland has been gaining more and more self-governing power within the Kingdom of Denmark.

Following the referendum in 2008, only foreign and defense policy remained under Danish jurisdiction. In June 2009, the Act on Greenland Self-Government¹¹ came into force, further confirming Greenland’s autonomy. Additionally, two members of the Danish Parliament are now elected in Greenland. Therefore, no decision on Greenland’s political future can be made unilaterally by Denmark. In fact, a recent poll revealed that 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States. Any attempt to purchase Greenland without the explicit consent of its people would constitute a violation of international law, of which the US has been historically a strong supporter.

While Greenland has been pursuing greater independence from Copenhagen, full independence could create risks, as its current status as part of Denmark ensures its inclusion in NATO. Independence might open the door for Russia or China to gain influence in the region, similarly to what happened in Ukraine, who is now desperate to become a member.

Prediction markets

Will the US acquire Greenland? The situation is complex. We can look at prediction markets to get some clue. Prediction markets are good indicators of events that might happen in the future. In these, people create polls and users can invest in the outcome they believe will occur. The more people vote for an option, the more expensive that option becomes and the more the potential return decreases.

These markets are often more accurate than the polls done by universities or investigation studies that are presented on the news, since there is a financial incentive to predict accurately. Prediction markets run on a type of financial instrument known as an event contract. An event contract has a nominal value, often 1 dollar, and traders can buy “yes” or “no” positions on it for some fraction of that value. When the event happens, the contract pays out to whoever was correct. There are risks, such as manipulation, attempts at manipulating markets include political candidates betting on themselves (or Trump betting on ‘Yes’ on Greenland acquisition and then forcing it through, perhaps against American interests, to win his bet).

One of the most well-known prediction markets is Polymarket, which uses Ethereum blockchain technology under the hood. On Polymarket, users can bet on a wide range of topics, including sports, politics, cryptocurrency and pop culture. The platform covers almost every relevant subject, and the Greenland issue is no exception. As the first month of the year comes to an end, two active markets on Polymarket are focused on this article’s topic: “Will Trump acquire Greenland before July?”¹² and “Will Trump acquire Greenland in 2025?”¹³ The latter market, with its longer-term perspective, shows that while the likelihood of a deal remains very low, participants are slightly more optimistic about the possibility of Trump securing an agreement by the end of 2025 (currently sitting at 13%).

Conclusion

The U.S. has always had a territorial expansion policy based on strategic and economic interests, and Greenland remains a target due to its military advantages and rich natural resources, and perhaps a wish for Trump to make a splash. However, there are several complications in the modern world that were not an issue in earlier purchases, such as Alaska or the U.S. Virgin Islands, not to speak of Denmark’s strong unwillingness to negotiate. The principle of self-determination, recognized by international law, serves as a huge stumbling block toward the outright purchase of the country. It seems politically impossible to acquire Greenland, as 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States while being increasingly autonomous from Denmark.

Rather than grandiose colonial-style acquisitions, the U.S. should seek to build a partnership with Europe based on mutual economic and security interests. By this approach, the U.S. will be able to reach its strategic goals within the Arctic whilst avoiding a conflict with a long term ally, and keeping its position as international arbiter, from which it gains so much.

In the end, Greenland seems poised to stay, yet again, a historically unrealistic fantasy for American expansionists. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico might have to suffice.