Trump's "6 billion USD for territory" special offer, why did it fall flat in Greenland?

What special tactics did the Trump administration want to use to realize its ambition of ruling the Arctic? The answer is shocking—a White House internal plan actually proposed giving cash to Greenland’s 57,000 residents, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, with a total amount potentially reaching $6 billion. The goal was to hold a referendum to let the island secede from Danish sovereignty and join the United States. Once this plan was exposed, over 85% of the local population responded quickly.

Why is the US determined to acquire Greenland?

On the surface, Trump seems to want to replicate the historic achievement of purchasing Alaska. But the deeper logic points more directly to Arctic strategic planning—Greenland’s key position controlling Arctic shipping routes, along with its rich deposits of rare earth elements and oil resources. For the US military-industrial complex and control of shipping lanes, this territory’s strategic value is incalculable. That is the real reason Trump is willing to spend huge sums.

Why is “cash for sovereignty” bound to fail?

From an economic perspective, the Danish government provides Greenland with an annual per capita subsidy of $12,000, covering free healthcare and education. Greenland’s per capita GDP has reached $60,000, and its living standards rank among the best in Scandinavia. The one-time cash temptation appears insignificant in comparison.

More importantly, Greenland’s four major political parties have already jointly declared that “territory cannot be sold.” The residents of the capital Nuuk have straightforwardly stated: “This is our homeland, not a commodity.” Greenlandic politicians have also bluntly said that this plan treats the people as commodities. The fact proves that a sense of identity and belonging cannot be measured by money.

Strong international countermeasures

The response from the Danish Prime Minister was even more resolute—if the US dares to use force, Denmark will withdraw from NATO. Subsequently, 12 NATO countries including France, Germany, and the UK expressed support for Danish sovereignty. This international joint reaction indicates that the US’s unilateral expansion logic has lost its market in the contemporary era.

Reversal of historical logic

Some netizens sharply countered the US argument that “Danish landings 500 years ago do not equal sovereignty”: “According to this logic, should the indigenous peoples of the Americas demand the return of their lands from the US?” This comparison exposes the absurdity of double standards.

The deepest lesson from this incident is: in the era of globalization, force and money are no longer the only political tools. Greenlanders have demonstrated through action that true national identity is built on shared institutions, culture, and welfare.