Talk of the United States attempting to purchase Greenland has resurfaced in global political discourse, despite firm opposition from Denmark and strong assertions by Greenlandic leaders that the territory is not for sale. The idea recently gained attention after the White House acknowledged that President Donald Trump and senior advisers have discussed what a hypothetical sale of the vast Arctic island might entail, although officials maintain that diplomacy, rather than coercion, remains the preferred approach.
Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark with a population of about 56,000 people primarily of Inuit descent, already hosts a significant U.S. military presence and has grown in strategic importance as climate change melts Arctic ice, opening shipping lanes and exposing potential mineral wealth. But experts caution that even entertaining the notion of buying a sovereign or semi-autonomous territory raises immediate questions about feasibility under international law and established norms.
Economists point out that there is no global market for the sale of countries or territories, making it extraordinarily difficult to put a legitimate price tag on Greenland. “There’s not a market for buying and selling countries,” said Nick Kounis, chief economist at Dutch bank ABN AMRO, noting that no accepted framework exists for such a transaction. Historical attempts to value Greenland offer little guidance: in 1946, the United States offered Denmark $100 million for the island — a figure that, when adjusted for inflation, would be roughly $1.6 billion today — but Copenhagen rejected the proposal. Earlier U.S. territorial acquisitions, like Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase, are poor parallels because those deals involved willing sellers under very different political contexts.
Another analytical approach would be to value Greenland as if it were a commercial enterprise, based on economic output. Yet that, too, presents problems. Greenland’s economy is relatively small and heavily subsidised by Denmark, with fishing as its principal industry and Danish support accounting for a significant share of its public budget, including services such as healthcare and infrastructure. Greenland’s gross domestic product — estimated at about $3.6 billion in 2023 — does not reflect the broader economic complexities of sovereignty and cultural heritage.
The territory’s untapped mineral and energy resources further complicate any theoretical valuation. Geological surveys suggest potential reserves worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and research indicates that a majority of minerals deemed critical by the European Commission are present on the island. However, Greenland has environmental protections in place that ban oil and gas extraction, and Indigenous communities have strongly opposed large mining projects. “Because you are adding the intangible notions of Indigenous peoples’ culture and history, there is no way to price it,” explained Andreas Østhagen of Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
Despite the complexity, the United States continues to frame the conversation around national interest and strategic positioning in the Arctic. Danish authorities have repeatedly countered that Greenland is not for sale and stressed that only Denmark and Greenlanders themselves can determine the territory’s future. The persistent debate underscores broader geopolitical tensions in the Arctic, where interests from global powers including Russia and China are increasingly prominent.
