The United States and Greenland: Trump’s Strategy

In recent days, the White House has been the scene of intense and unprecedented discussions: the Trump administration is considering the possibility of sending direct payments to the citizens of Greenland in an attempt to persuade them to separate from Denmark and potentially join the United States.

This revelation, confirmed by four sources close to the dossier, sheds new light on American ambitions towards the Arctic island and the strategies adopted to pursue them.

The Payment Hypothesis: Figures and Details

According to reports, among the options discussed by U.S. officials—including White House aides—is the offer of one-time payments to the approximately 57,000 residents of Greenland. The proposed figures range from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, although neither the exact amount nor the logistics of a potential disbursement have been defined yet. The aim would be to encourage Greenlanders to support a separation from Denmark and facilitate a potential annexation to the United States.

This strategy marks a departure from traditional diplomatic dynamics: instead of dealing exclusively with governments, the Trump administration seems to aim directly at the local population, in an attempt to “buy” the necessary consensus to implement a project of historical significance.

The Reaction of Greenland and Denmark

The American proposal, however, met with firm opposition both in Copenhagen and Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. Authorities from both countries have decisively reiterated that Greenland is not for sale. The Greenlandic Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, expressed his unequivocal dissent by posting on Facebook: “Enough is enough… No more fantasies about annexation,” after Trump once again declared to journalists the United States’ intention to acquire the island.

Nielsen’s stance reflects a widespread sentiment among Greenlanders, who have long debated their independence and economic relationship with Denmark. The idea of a monetary offer risks being perceived as degrading and purely transactional, fueling discontent and distrust towards Washington.

Europe United Alongside Denmark and Greenland

The issue has quickly taken on an international dimension. Leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Great Britain, and Denmark have released a joint statement asserting that only Greenland and Denmark have the right to decide on their own relations. The message is clear: Europe supports the sovereignty of Copenhagen and Nuuk and rejects any attempts at external pressure.

The European reaction was particularly harsh, especially considering that the United States and Denmark are allies within NATO, bound by a mutual defense agreement. The statements by Trump and his collaborators were met with disdain and concern, as they risk undermining the balance between historical partners.

Official Statements and the Silence of the Embassies

When questioned about the ongoing discussions, the White House referred to statements from spokesperson Karoline Leavitt and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. During a press conference, Leavitt confirmed that Trump and his national security team are “assessing what a potential purchase would have been like.” Rubio, for his part, announced a meeting with his Danish counterpart in Washington to discuss the situation.

On the Danish side, however, there has been silence: the embassy in Washington declined to comment, while the Greenland representation office did not respond to requests for clarification.

The Stakes: Between Geopolitics and Identity

The idea of the United States acquiring Greenland is not new, but the current administration seems determined to explore every avenue, including direct payments to the population. However, this strategy risks appearing as a coercion and may provoke negative reactions both locally and internationally.

For Greenland, the issue is not just about money, but touches on profound themes such as national identity, sovereignty, and the relationship with Denmark. For Europe, on the other hand, it is about defending the principles of self-determination and preventing a purely economic logic from prevailing over the rules of international diplomacy.

Future Prospects and Uncertainties

While the White House continues to assess its moves, the future of Greenland remains uncertain. Trump’s determination, along with his collaborators, to pursue the acquisition of the island clashes with the resistance from Copenhagen, Nuuk, and major European capitals. The possibility of also using the U.S. military has been discussed, but currently appears remote and risky.

In this scenario, Greenland finds itself at the center of a significant geopolitical game, where money, diplomacy, and the will of the people intertwine in a complex and unpredictable manner. It remains to be seen whether the strategy of direct payments will break through among the Greenlanders, or if the defense of autonomy and national sovereignty will prevail.