US May Have to Spend as Much as $700 Billion to Buy Greenland: Report
The idea sounds extraordinary, almost unreal, yet it has resurfaced once again at the highest political level. According to a report by NBC News, the United States may have to spend up to $700 billion if it were to seriously pursue the purchase of Greenland. The renewed discussion comes after former US President Donald Trump repeated his long-standing claim that Greenland is vital for America’s national security.
Trump’s remarks have once again brought global attention to the world’s largest island and reignited debate over geopolitics, sovereignty, and the growing strategic importance of the Arctic. While the idea of buying territory in the 21st century feels outdated to many, the motivations behind it reflect very modern concerns.
Why Greenland Matters to the United States
Greenland may appear remote and sparsely populated, but its location makes it strategically invaluable. Positioned between North America and Europe, Greenland sits at the heart of the Arctic region, an area that is rapidly becoming a focal point of global competition.
As climate change melts Arctic ice, new shipping routes are opening up, reducing travel time between major markets. At the same time, the region is believed to hold vast untapped reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and gas. Control over Arctic access points is increasingly seen as a long-term strategic advantage.
The US already maintains a military presence in Greenland, including an airbase that plays a key role in missile warning and space surveillance. From Washington’s perspective, deeper control over Greenland would strengthen its position against rivals like Russia and China, both of which have shown growing interest in the Arctic.
Trump’s National Security Argument
Donald Trump has framed Greenland almost entirely through a national security lens. Speaking on Wednesday, he reiterated that the United States “needs” Greenland for security purposes, a statement that has unsettled allies and raised eyebrows across NATO.
Trump’s argument is rooted in the belief that America cannot afford strategic blind spots in the Arctic. With Russia expanding its military infrastructure in the region and China branding itself a “near-Arctic state,” the US sees Greenland as a critical piece of the puzzle.
However, critics argue that security cooperation already exists through alliances and agreements, making outright ownership unnecessary and diplomatically explosive.
The $700 Billion Price Tag Explained
According to NBC News, internal discussions within the Trump administration had once explored the financial implications of buying Greenland. The estimated cost, as high as $700 billion, reflects not only land value but also infrastructure investment, compensation, and long-term economic considerations.
Greenland is currently an autonomous territory of Denmark, which provides annual subsidies to support its economy. Any purchase would likely require the US to assume financial responsibility for public services, development, and governance on the island.
At $700 billion, the acquisition would be one of the most expensive land purchases in history, dwarfing deals like the Louisiana Purchase when adjusted for inflation.
Denmark’s Firm Rejection
Denmark has consistently rejected the idea of selling Greenland. Danish leaders have called the proposal absurd and offensive, emphasising that Greenland is not a commodity.
Greenland itself has its own elected government and a strong independence movement. Many Greenlanders see their future as one of greater autonomy, not becoming part of another country. The idea that their homeland could be traded between global powers has sparked anger and concern.
From Copenhagen’s perspective, any discussion about Greenland’s future must involve Greenlanders first, not foreign capitals.
NATO Allies Feel Uneasy
Trump’s comments have also caused discomfort within NATO. The suggestion that the US might use economic or even military pressure to acquire territory from a fellow NATO ally cuts against the alliance’s core principles.
NATO is built on mutual trust and collective defence. Any hint of coercion between allies risks undermining unity at a time when the alliance is already facing pressure from external threats.
European leaders worry that such rhetoric could weaken transatlantic relations and embolden adversaries who benefit from divisions among Western powers.
Can the US Actually Buy Greenland?
From a legal and political standpoint, buying Greenland would be extraordinarily complex. Denmark would need to agree, Greenland’s government and population would need to consent, and the US Congress would have to approve the funding.
Public opinion in Greenland has shown little support for joining the United States. Many residents prioritise environmental protection, cultural preservation, and self-governance over economic promises from abroad.
Even within the US, spending $700 billion on a territorial acquisition would likely face intense scrutiny, especially when compared to domestic priorities such as healthcare, infrastructure, and education.
The Bigger Arctic Power Struggle
The Greenland debate cannot be separated from the broader struggle for influence in the Arctic. As ice retreats, competition is intensifying over shipping lanes, military positioning, and access to resources.
The US sees Greenland as a stabilising asset in this competition. Critics argue that cooperation, not ownership, is the more sustainable path. Strengthening partnerships with Denmark and Greenland, they say, would achieve security goals without triggering diplomatic fallout.
Why This Debate Keeps Returning
What makes the Greenland story remarkable is not just its price tag, but how often it resurfaces. It highlights how geopolitical thinking is shifting toward long-term strategic geography rather than short-term political cycles.
In a world where climate change is reshaping maps and resources, territory once considered marginal is gaining new importance. Greenland sits at the intersection of climate, security, economics, and sovereignty, making it a symbol of the new geopolitical era.
Conclusion
The idea that the United States might spend up to $700 billion to buy Greenland may sound far-fetched, but it reflects genuine strategic anxieties in Washington. Donald Trump’s renewed comments have reopened a debate that touches on national security, alliance politics, and the future of the Arctic.
For Denmark and Greenland, the message is clear: sovereignty is not for sale. For NATO allies, the episode serves as a reminder of how fragile unity can be when national interests collide. And for the rest of the world, it underscores how climate change and shifting power dynamics are redefining what matters on the global stage.
Whether or not the US ever makes a formal move, the Greenland debate is less about a real estate transaction and more about how major powers prepare for a rapidly changing world.
Click Here to subscribe to our newsletters and get the latest updates directly to your inbox