The Trump administration is reportedly weighing a controversial proposal to offer direct cash payments to Greenland’s residents as part of a broader effort to draw the Arctic island closer to the United States. According to multiple sources familiar with internal discussions, White House officials have debated sending lump-sum payments to Greenlanders to encourage them to support separation from Denmark and potential alignment with Washington.
The idea has triggered sharp reactions in Europe and Greenland, where leaders insist the territory is not for sale. Despite the backlash, the discussions highlight how seriously the White House is exploring options to secure control over the strategically important island.
Cash Incentives and Strategic Motives
Sources say US officials have discussed payment figures ranging from $10,000 to as much as $100,000 per person. Greenland’s population is roughly 57,000. At the higher end, the proposal could cost nearly $6 billion.
While the exact structure of the payments remains unclear, the plan reflects one of several strategies under review. US officials see Greenland as vital due to its vast mineral resources and its location near key Arctic military routes. The island already hosts the Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, which plays a critical role in US missile defense and space surveillance.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly argued that Greenland is essential for US national security. He has also said Denmark lacks the capacity to defend or develop the island adequately. Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump recently described Greenland as “so strategic” that US involvement was necessary.
White House deliberations about acquiring Greenland began well before Trump’s current term. However, sources say urgency increased after the US captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in a high-profile operation. Some aides reportedly want to build on that momentum to pursue other long-standing geopolitical goals.
Greenland and Europe Push Back
Greenland’s leaders have strongly rejected the idea of annexation. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen dismissed US ambitions in a blunt social media post, calling for an end to what he described as fantasies about taking over the island.
Denmark and its European allies have also reacted with frustration. Denmark and the United States are NATO partners, bound by mutual defense commitments. European officials say Trump’s remarks undermine alliance unity.
Earlier this week, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Britain, and Denmark issued a joint statement. They stressed that only Greenland and Denmark have the right to decide the island’s future.
The White House has not denied the internal discussions. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Trump and his national security team are examining what a potential purchase could involve. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he plans to discuss Greenland with Denmark’s foreign minister during talks in Washington.
Independence, COFA, and Public Opinion
Another option under consideration is a Compact of Free Association, or COFA. Such agreements allow the US to provide defense and essential services in exchange for broad military access and close economic ties. Similar agreements exist with Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands.
However, COFA agreements apply only to independent nations. Greenland would first need to separate from Denmark. Payments could theoretically be used to encourage voters to support independence or later back a free association deal with the US.
Polls show most Greenlanders favor independence in principle. Yet many fear the economic risks of leaving Denmark, which provides significant financial support. Surveys also indicate that while Greenlanders want greater autonomy, most do not want to become part of the United States.
Critics warn that offering cash payments risks appearing transactional and disrespectful. They say it ignores Greenland’s long-standing political debate and cultural identity.
As discussions continue, the proposal has deepened tensions between Washington and its allies. It has also raised broader questions about sovereignty, influence, and power politics in the Arctic.
