A Proposal That Revives an Old Obsession

According to a report emerging in early January 2026, figures within the Trump administration are weighing an extraordinary idea: offering direct cash payments to Greenland’s residents to encourage a break from Denmark and a closer alignment with the United States. The discussions, still informal, reportedly involve one-time payouts ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person. While no official policy has been announced, the proposal has reignited global debate over sovereignty, influence, and the growing strategic value of the Arctic.

America’s Longstanding Greenland Dream

Washington’s interest in Greenland is not new. From Cold War-era defense planning to Donald Trump’s aborted 2019 bid to purchase the island outright, the territory has long figured in American strategic thinking. Greenland’s vast landmass, sparse population, and location between North America and Europe make it geopolitically unique. Today, as climate change opens Arctic Sea routes and exposes critical mineral reserves, the US sees Greenland not as a peripheral outpost but as a central piece in great-power competition.

Strategic Calculus: Why Greenland Matters More Than Ever

The reported payment proposal reflects renewed urgency in Washington. Greenland sits atop significant rare earth mineral deposits, essential for advanced manufacturing and defense technologies. It also hosts the US-operated Thule Air Base—now Pituffik Space Base—a cornerstone of American missile warning and space surveillance systems.

With Russia expanding its Arctic military footprint and China branding itself a “near-Arctic” power, US policymakers increasingly question whether Denmark has the capacity to secure the island in an era of intensifying competition. From this perspective, economic inducements are framed as a non-coercive shortcut to influence—cheaper than territorial acquisition, and politically less explosive than military escalation.

Denmark’s Likely Response: Diplomacy First, Law Always

Copenhagen would almost certainly view such payments as a direct challenge to its sovereignty. Diplomatically, Denmark’s initial move would be firm but measured: summoning US diplomats, issuing public denunciations, and coordinating closely with European Union partners and Nordic allies. Past precedent suggests Danish leaders would characterize the proposal as illegitimate interference rather than negotiation.

Legally, Denmark holds strong ground. Under Greenland’s 2009 Self-Government Act, the island controls most domestic affairs, but foreign policy and defense remain under Danish authority. Any move toward independence requires a lawful referendum followed by negotiations with Copenhagen—free of external inducement. Denmark could argue that US payments violate international norms against interference in internal affairs, potentially raising the issue in multilateral forums or seeking advisory opinions from international legal bodies.

Risks of Escalation and Strategic Blowback

While some Greenlanders may view financial incentives as attractive—particularly in an economy reliant on Danish subsidies—polling consistently shows majority support for remaining within the Danish realm. Heavy-handed US tactics risk alienating the very population Washington hopes to persuade.

More broadly, the plan could strain NATO unity, undermine US credibility among allies, and reinforce narratives of American neo-colonialism. Even within the US, such payments may face legal scrutiny under domestic anti-corruption and foreign influence statutes.

Ambition Meets Reality in the High North

The idea of paying Greenlanders to shift allegiance underscores how central the Arctic has become to global power politics. Yet it also highlights the limits of transactional diplomacy. Denmark’s legal authority, Greenland’s political identity, and the sensitivities of alliance politics form formidable barriers. In the end, America’s Greenland dream may reveal less about what money can buy—and more about how sovereignty, law, and legitimacy still constrain even the most powerful states.

(With agency inputs)