Will Trump buy at least part of Greenland?
I think a Trump administration buying any part of Greenland is very unlikely, but not impossible. The realistic probability is low single digits, well below the current market price.
Analysis
The core obstacle is that Greenland is not an ordinary asset that can be purchased on a commercial or diplomatic whim. Any transfer of territory would require a highly unusual convergence of Denmark, Greenland’s elected authorities, and probably a broader geopolitical bargain that all sides would have strong reasons to avoid. Trump has repeatedly shown interest in Greenland as a strategic objective, but interest is far easier to express than sovereignty transfer, and there is no obvious path from rhetoric to an actual sale or acquisition before the term ends.
There are some arguments for a nonzero chance. Greenland’s strategic value has risen because of Arctic shipping, military positioning, and critical minerals, and a deal involving enhanced U.S. control over a base, land rights, or a limited territorial arrangement is more plausible than a classic full purchase. If Trump were to pursue an aggressive transactional foreign-policy agenda, an unconventional partial arrangement could be floated as part of a larger security or investment package. Still, even a “part of Greenland” outcome would face extraordinary legal, political, and nationalist resistance, making execution extremely difficult.
Against that, the historical record strongly favors no. Greenlanders have little incentive to surrender sovereignty, Denmark has repeatedly signaled that Greenland is not for sale, and any meaningful acquisition would face public backlash in Europe and the U.S. alike. Even if negotiations opened, the chances of completion within a single presidential term are slim because territory transfers are slow, politically costly, and vulnerable to collapse. The current market price of 18% looks materially too high relative to the practical barriers; I would treat this as a hype-driven or narrative-driven mispricing rather than a realistic estimate of deal probability.
Arguments
For
- Trump has already signaled that Greenland is strategically important and could pursue a headline-grabbing deal.
- A partial purchase or special jurisdiction arrangement is more conceivable than buying the entire island outright.
Against
- Denmark and Greenland both have strong political incentives to reject any sale of territory.
- The legal, diplomatic, and public-opinion hurdles make completion within the term extremely unlikely.
Key drivers
- Greenland’s sovereignty is politically sensitive and cannot be transferred without consent from multiple governments and populations.
- Trump’s interest in Greenland creates some tail risk for unconventional transactional diplomacy.
Risk factors
- A limited arrangement could be structured to count as buying part of Greenland even if it falls short of full sovereignty transfer.
- A geopolitical shock in the Arctic could increase the odds of an extraordinary deal attempt.
Scenarios
Best case
The U.S. secures an unusual partial territorial arrangement, such as expanded control over a strategically important area, and the market resolves Yes.
Most likely
Trump continues to express interest or seek leverage, but negotiations never produce an actual purchase of any part of Greenland.
Worst case
No substantive acquisition occurs, and Greenland remains fully under Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty through the end of Trump’s term.
More from this day
- pop culturePolymarket11d
"Spider-Man: Brand New Day" total domestic gross by September 30?
AI99%MKT10%Edge+89Hidden GemIt is overwhelmingly likely that Spider-Man: Brand New Day will be below 940 million domestically by September 30. That threshold is far above what even the biggest Spider-Man films typically reach in a single run, especially within roughly two months of release.
- politicsPolymarket3mo
Will the U.S. invade Iran before 2027?
AI84%MKT14%Edge+70Hidden GemThe market looks substantially more likely to resolve Yes than the current price suggests because the reporting already describes U.S. military action in Iran in 2026, and the war is still active with no durable settlement. The main uncertainty is definitional, since a strict ground-control invasion is harder to confirm than strikes and wider offensive operations.
- CompaniesKalshi1y
Starbucks total global stores in 2026
AI66%MKT11%Edge+55Hidden GemI think Starbucks is materially more likely than not to report more than 41,800 global stores in 2026. The market appears to be pricing in a slowdown that is possible, but the threshold is low enough relative to Starbucks’ historical footprint growth that Yes should be favored.