U.S. President Donald Trump‘s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland sparked worldwide discussions about a theoretical price for the territory. Trump first proposed the idea in 2019, though he acknowledged that he was not the first U.S. president to consider such a purchase. The U.S. has long valued Greenland for its strategic position, dating back to the Cold War. In 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold for Greenland, but Denmark rejected the proposal, much like it did in 2019 and again in 2025.
Although the concept of purchasing land from another country may seem outdated, history provides numerous examples. The United States expanded its territory through purchases such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 (15 million USD, equivalent to 416 million USD today), the acquisition of Alaska from Russia in 1867 (7.2 million USD, over 150 million USD today), and the purchase of the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 (25 million USD in gold, over 600 million USD today). Other nations, including Japan, Russia, Pakistan, Germany, and Saudi Arabia, have also used land acquisitions to gain access to resources, waterways, or buffer zones. Determining Greenland’s value is complex. Unlike businesses or financial assets, countries consist of tangible and intangible factors that resist simple valuation. A common starting point is GDP, which reflects a nation’s economic output over a given period. However, since purchases are long-term investments, GDP alone may not capture a territory’s future economic potential. Greenland’s GDP was estimated at around 3.236 billion USD in 2021, but its true value depends on its capacity to generate wealth in the future. Greenland’s worth extends beyond its current economy. The island possesses valuable natural resources, including coal, rare earth elements, gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, uranium, and marble. Additionally, offshore oil reserves could significantly enhance its economic importance. These resources are largely untapped, meaning their potential is not reflected in Greenland’s present GDP. Asset valuation theory, used in finance since the 18th century, could help estimate Greenland’s price. For example, pricing the Panama Canal—another asset Trump wanted under U.S. control—would involve calculating future revenue from usage fees, subtracting maintenance costs, and adjusting for risk. Greenland’s valuation could follow a similar model, incorporating expected resource extraction profits and economic growth. Despite financial models, the feasibility of selling Greenland is doubtful. Historically, land sales often benefited political elites rather than the general population. In modern democracies, selling national territory would likely face strong opposition unless clear benefits for citizens were demonstrated. Furthermore, national identity is deeply tied to land, making territorial sales politically and emotionally sensitive. Governments are unlikely to sell land, regardless of the price, to avoid being seen as betraying national sovereignty. Additionally, international norms discourage altering borders, fearing that such moves could trigger territorial disputes elsewhere. Given these factors, while Greenland might have a theoretical price, its sale remains highly improbable in today’s political and ethical climate.
