Will the US take control of any part of Greenland?

A literal territorial acquisition is an exceptionally high bar. Denmark is a close ally, Greenland’s political leadership has strong incentives to preserve autonomy, and there is no obvious legal or diplomatic mechanism that would make a sale or transfer of sovereignty likely in the next few years. The United States already has strategic access through existing defense arrangements, which reduces the practical need to pursue ownership and makes a formal purchase a low-probability event.

The main path to a yes would be an unusual political sequence, such as major Greenlandic moves toward independence followed by an agreement for the U.S. to obtain a small area for military or security purposes. Even then, the most realistic outcome would be a lease, basing agreement, or special jurisdiction arrangement rather than an actual acquisition. That keeps the true yes case alive, but only as a narrow tail risk driven by political upheaval, not by the baseline strategic logic.

At 27%, the market looks far too optimistic on a literal reading of the question. Traders may be pricing the Trump factor, the region’s strategic importance, and ambiguity around what counts as “control,” but those are not enough to overcome the near-blanket opposition, legal obstacles, and the availability of non-ownership alternatives. I would treat the yes side as materially overvalued unless the market is implicitly counting a much broader definition than formal acquisition.