USD 10,000?, USD 100,000?.... or does it take a cool USD 2.5 million to seal the deal? That is the rather cheeky debate circulating in our office, prompted by rumours that the Trump administration might offer payments in that lower range to entice Greenlanders to become Americans.
As reports from Washington suggest, it forms part of a broader gambit to acquire the world's largest island from Denmark. Yet USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 strikes one as rather meagre for such a profound change. Why?
Nationality encompasses far more than a mere passport; it is about identity, security, and a share in the future. For Greenland's roughly 56,000 residents, who would be exchanging Danish affiliations for the stars and stripes, the threshold ought to be considerably higher. Consider the cultural adjustments, the geopolitical ramifications, and the sheer intrigue of it all. Europe might protest vigorously, viewing it as a resurgence of American expansionism.
Greenlanders? They might well hesitate, weighing loyalty against transformative sums.
A brief aside on geography: Greenland is indeed regarded as the world's largest island, spanning 2.166 million square kilometres. Australia, at some 7.7 million square kilometres, is vastly larger but classified as a continent, owing to its position on a distinct tectonic plate, its unique biodiversity, and its status as a standalone landmass. Greenland, by contrast, sits on the North American plate and is treated as an island extension of that continent.
Now, let us examine a more ambitious proposal, one that might genuinely tip the scales:
“The Greenland Golden Citizenship Package” drawn from Trump’s deal making mindset. Begin with a signing bonus of USD 500,000 per resident, disbursed immediately. Follow this with additional payments of USD 500,000 every decade from age 20 to 70, up to five instalments, totalling USD 2.5m per person. Why staggered? Historical precedents, including lump-sum settlements with Native American tribes, have often produced fraught, long-lived disputes and unhappy second-order effects; a phased approach is likelier to foster sustained trust, policy continuity, and economic resilience.
The figures align neatly: USD 2.5 million for 56,000 people equates to USD 140bn, a modest 0.45 per cent of US GDP.
For perspective, Denmark grants annually to Greenland approximately USD 600m, accounting for 20 per cent of its GDP and half its public budget. Trump could enhance this to USD1.2bn annually, effectively doubling it while integrating Greenland as US territory. Moreover, establish a “Greenland Wealth Fund”, modelled on Alaska's Permanent Fund, which manages around USD 86bn for roughly 740,000 residents and provides annual dividends. An initial endowment of $10 billion for Greenland's version would be fitting, drawing from future mining royalties, where resource estimates range from hundreds of billions to trillions. This brings the upfront commitment to USD 150bn; still a bargain in strategic terms (as a reminder theUS financial support to Ukraine including military, financial and humanitarian aid, has amounted to USD 180bn).
Such an arrangement fits America's longstanding tradition of territorial acquisitions through purchase: think of the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803, the cession of California and other lands from Mexico in 1848, or Alaska from Russia in 1867. Trump would not price Greenland by what it “should” be worth on paper. He would price it by what it is worth to him strategically in the Arctic, the “Panama Canal of the North”.
Should Greenlanders, exercising their legal right to independence via referendum under the 2009 Self-Government Act, vote to accept such terms, Denmark would find it challenging to resist. Arguments in favour include respect for self-determination, embedded in that very Act; adherence to democratic principles, where a clear majority vote would carry moral weight; and international norms under the UN Charter, which prioritise the will of the people in decolonisation matters. Blocking it might invite accusations of paternalism or infringement on autonomy.
What renders this deal particularly feasible is Greenland's sparse population density: roughly 56,000 souls across a territory that dwarfs many nations.
A comparable overture elsewhere, say China vis-à-vis Taiwan, would falter amid far greater numbers and complexities.
This is no mere cartographic merger and acquisition; it is a spread play. The rumoured USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 bid against our USD 2.5m proposal is a huge gap, and a neat teaser for our forthcoming FOLIO edition “SPREADS” (due for release this coming spring). This article is published now as we couldn’t wait for the actuality to render it obsolete.
On a related note, there is a practical way to make this more than a cocktail-party thought experiment. Treat it like a Swiss-style signature collection, not a vibes-based poll. In a matter of a few days, we could create an app for Greenlanders-only “statement of support” that lays out the proposed terms in plain language, the citizen payments, the enhanced annual transfer, the Greenland Wealth Fund, and asks residents to sign, by name, in support of triggering a formal independence process and opening negotiations on a US association or accession package along these lines. It would be explicitly non-constitutional and non-binding, not a referendum, not a government process, but it would a verifiable list of Greenland residents willing to put their name to a specific proposal.
William Raynar