Selling Greenland could make Denmark the most prosperous nation on Earth
There are serious estimates of a sales price for Greenland of up to $1.5 trillion. A well-negotiated sale could be a win for the people of Greenland, Denmark, the United States, and for Western geopolitical stability.
Wealth of this magnitude, for a small country like Denmark, would allow us to become one of the lowest-taxed first-world countries, while simultaneously further enhancing our public services.
Ignoring such an opportunity could be the biggest blunder in Danish history. At a minimum, exploring serious negotiations would be prudent.
The proposal
In 2019, Trump first suggested the idea that the U.S. would purchase Greenland from Denmark. The Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen at the time called it an absurd idea, and said that "thankfully, the time where you buy and sell other countries and populations is over".
In 2025, Trump reaffirmed his intent to purchase Greenland, saying: "We need Greenland for national security and even international security." Again, Mette Frederiksen rejected the idea without hearing an offer, saying "Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders."
Our Prime Minister seems determined, but she does not speak for the Danish people, or the people of Greenland. The people must hear an offer and decide by referendum, as is customary in Denmark for questions concerning sovereignty transfers.
The possible sale of Greenland brings up a number of questions:
How much is $1.5 trillion?
A price that has been suggested is $1.5 trillion. The essential, crucial thing to understand is how much money $1.5 trillion is for a small nation like Denmark. Most people do not intuitively understand such large numbers, and likely neither do Mette Frederiksen or the Danish people at this time. So let us look at what it would mean.
As it happens, we have a close comparison which is the Norwegian Oil Fund, which has a value of about $1.5 trillion. This fund has generated an annual return of 6.34% on average. This means 95 billion dollars in annual returns. Adjusted for inflation, this is $66 billion.
Denmark has one of the largest government sectors in the world, with almost 50% of GDP going to public spending. This is about $190 billion a year. This means that the Danish tax burden could be reduced by 35% while still maintaining the same level of government services! Or alternatively, both increase services by 10% and lower taxes by 25% at the same time.
These numbers are almost incomprehensibly large and important for the Danish economy. Indeed, there will practically never be a financial question debated in Danish parliament that has even a twentieth of the importance of this one.
Denmark is already a strong country for business, owing to minimal corruption, exceptional regulatory efficiency, cutting-edge digital infrastructure, and a highly educated workforce. The primary obstacle to international competitiveness remains its substantial tax burden. By reducing this burden by 35%, Denmark would transform from having one of the highest tax rates among developed economies to enjoying one of the most competitive tax environments in the OECD.
This would mean that more successful companies would seek out or stay in Denmark, which would bring further prosperity and riches. Furthermore, Denmark is likely near the top of the Laffer curve, meaning that a 35% reduction in taxes would result in people working harder, thereby bringing back a large part of the tax reduction to the state. These factors combined would mean that, even assuming that the whole revenue from the sale would go to tax cuts, these second-order effects would further increase revenue, and thereby bring much improved government services on top of the full 35% tax reduction.
Of course, such a large amount of wealth would also mean that the people of Greenland could get an attractive deal that they would agree to.
Is $1.5 trillion a serious number?
Yes. It is important to consider that while this amount of money is a life-altering amount of wealth to a small country like Denmark, it is not as much to the much larger United States. It is for example less than what was spent on the war in Afghanistan.
An estimate of $1.5 trillion was made by Brian Kilmeade. An estimate of $1.1 trillion was made the the Financial Times. This research report gives an estimate of $2.8 trillion. Importantly, even considering a price such as $500 billion (from 24/7 Wall Street) would still be a huge number for Denmark.
What is also clear is that Donald Trump is very interested in Greenland, quote: "We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it."
What would the U.S. get from purchasing greenland?
• Control over sea routes.
There are already important sea routes in Greenlandic ocean territory, and in the future, more are expected to open up from melting of ice caps. This is important for shipping and military control. Strong U.S. control of these routes could benefit not only the U.S., but the whole Western world.
• Other military control on the island.
There is an important U.S. military base on Greenland. This use can of course continue under cooperation between Denmark and the U.S., but nonetheless, actual ownership would make the U.S. more long-term secure in larger scale military investment in the region. Quote from Donald Trump: "We have to have that land because it’s not possible to properly defend a large section of this Earth, not just the United States, without it. It’s an island that from a defensive posture, and even offensive posture, is something we need, especially with the world the way it is, and we’re going to have to have it,"
• Oil and gas.
This report estimates that Greenland has 31 billion barrels of oil underground. That is a very large number, more than 10% of that of Saudi Arabia. And more than 4 times the reserves that are in the Norwegian oil reserves, from which Norway already has extracted $1.5 trillion in value.
Of course, a crucial difference is that the oil is much harder to extract in Greenland, and possibly not worth it at this time. But this may change in the future with new technology.
• Metals and minerals.
This report describes how Greenland possesses 25 out of 34 minerals that are considered to be critical raw materials. The value of these in themselves is not worth the price tag. But it is worth considering the potential question of access rather than current price. In a hypothetical future with a conflict against China and Russia, some materials may be hard to acquire at any price. And then the real value of having access to them from Greenland would be in a different category.
What about the Greenlanders?
The status quo is not great for Greenland, and a deal may be far better for the people of Greenland, and for their quality of life.
Greenland is not a well-functioning place as it is now. There is widespread poverty, alcoholism, incest, corruption and suicide. If counted as a country, Greenland would have by far the highest suicide rate in the world. "Every young person in Greenland knows someone who has committed suicide."
This is the case even though greenland get a third of their GDP in grants from Denmark, equivalent to about $10,000 per person per year.
If Greenland was under the United States, this may bring more jobs and more prosperity. Importantly they could get part of the fund as part of the deal. For example, for a mere 28 billion, there could be a fund for Greenland that contained $500,000 for every Greenlandic citizen, comfortably ensuring things like medical services into the future.
The Greenlandic prime minister Mute Egede has repeatedly spoken out against a deal, and saying we "need to toughen our rejection of Trump". However, we should strongly consider that the goals of the prime minister and that of the population may not align. The Greenlandic population, if presented with an offer that came with a fund with value of half a million dollars per resident, would likely be strongly in favor. As with Denmark, a single person should not make such enormous decisions on behalf of a whole population. The people of Greenland should have the right to be presented with a deal and make their choice.
Would Denmark just use it all for semi-useless government spending?
As mentioned, a very close comparison to Denmark is the country of Norway. Norway has a similar population to Denmark, a similar economy, and in fact has an oil fund with a value of $1.5 trillion. And Norway is not doing much better than Denmark. They are not vastly richer, and their taxes are not particularly lower. They have even introduced extremely damaging taxes, such as wealth taxes of unrealized gains.
So it is natural to think that if Denmark received a $1.5 trillion boon, the same thing would simply happen here.
However, with an important assumption, I believe it is possible for the Danish right-wing to foresee and prevent this outcome. The assumption is that the broad Danish population is informed about the financial advantages of selling Greenland and becomes convinced this is a great idea, both for Denmark, the Greenlanders, and themselves. If Danish people became informed about this and genuinely understood it, would they vote for politicians who cost them 50% extra in taxes every year compared to what they could have paid, in perpetuity? Likely not.
Furthermore, changing the Constitution in Denmark has strong requirements in the Danish Constitution:
It must first pass in the parliament
Then there must be a general election, followed by the resolution passing a second time.
Finally, there would be a national referendum, in which 40% of all eligible voters must vote "yes".
Such strict requirements necessitate that most parties on both sides of the aisle are in support of the resolution, which gives the right-wing parties strong political power. So therefore the right-wing parties would have the power to make a proposal such as this:
We support the sale of Greenland if and only if it is accompanied by a Constitutional amendment that public spending would not be raised by more than 10% over what it reasonably otherwise would have been, following the sale.
This would give the left-wing parties two choices:
Denying this reasonable deal that would both make Denmark much richer, and improve government services.
Approving the deal.
If they deny the deal, the sale will likely fail, and the population will likely blame the left-wing politicians for the failure. And given the assumption that the population was informed and could see the enormous benefits, the voters would not be happy with this.
In the comparison to Norway, there was never such a strict requirement, and therefore never an opportunity for the right wing to be assertive in this way. Which means that there is a real possibility that Denmark would not just squander it all on semi-useless government spending.
Does Greenland belong to the Greenlanders?
Mette Frederiksen has said "Greenland is not Danish. Greenland is Greenlandic". Greenland has had self-rule since 2009, and in general Danish left-wing politicians are advocating for Greenland moving towards independence.
First of all, it should be known that Norse people were in Southern Greenland before the current Inuit inhabitants (Thule culture in the image below). Denmark is the rightful owner, and have owned Greenland since before the United States was founded.
Second, it should be understood that Greenland cannot be a fully independent nation on the world stage. Greenland is a small country of only 56,000 people, and there is widespread corruption. An independent Greenland could easily be bribed by China to sell their mineral rights, and even grant military access to China. This cannot happen. And the talk as if it can and that's where we should be headed is irresponsible. In reality, if Greenland becomes fully independent, they will likely fall under the sphere of the U.S. anyway. Just without Denmark receiving anything for our territory.
Is it important for Denmark to keep Greenland?
No. Greenland is a large expense for Denmark, and we get little out of it. About a third of their GDP is grants from Denmark. Denmark doesn't have the capability (or the will) to mine the metals, extract the fossil fuels, or exert strong military control.
Even to the degree Greenland is important to Denmark, it is obviously not as important as lowering taxes overall by, say, 15%.
Furthermore, a likely future alternative for Denmark is not even that Denmark keeps Greenland. Many Danish and Greenlandic politicians advocate for full Greenland independence from Denmark, and that is the direction we are increasingly headed in.
Conclusion
Denmark selling Greenland is obviously an attractive idea for all involved, and not least for Denmark. Yet our Prime Minister has thus far declined even hearing potential offers, without facing major backlash for this. A major reason for this lack of public scrutiny is the Danish media's apparent inability or unwillingness to engage deeply with the scale of this issue. Danish journalists have failed to highlight just how transformative an amount of $1.5 trillion would be for our country, suggesting they do not grasp the magnitude of the economic potential involved.
The media's failure to facilitate an informed, numbers-driven discussion has left the Danish public largely unaware of what could be the greatest economic opportunity in our nation's history. Greater transparency, combined with rigorous journalistic inquiry into the economic realities, would almost certainly shift public opinion toward demanding at least a serious debate.
A decision of such historic significance should never rest with a single politician or political party. Denmark deserves a comprehensive, fact-based public discussion followed by a referendum to ensure that the final decision genuinely reflects the will of the Danish people.
Selling Greenland to the U.S., provided the price is right and the interests of Greenlanders are respected, could genuinely represent a win-win-win-win scenario: a victory for Denmark, a benefit to the United States, improved outcomes for Greenland, and a strategic advantage for the Western world.
I would love to know who gave Trump the idea to purchase Greenland.
As you correctly point out, it's not such a bad idea. The United States could more easily exploit the natural resources and the strategic location of Greenland than Denmark could. That's the definition of a win-win trade.
Unfortunately, Trump has gone about it badly. He's frightened Danes and Greenlanders with empty talk, rather than emphasizing the benefits of such a trade. It seems like he doesn't really understand the idea himself.