Donald Trump’s 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland may have appeared unconventional, but it was not without historical precedent. The acquisition of land through financial transactions has long been a tool of statecraft, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, as geopolitical norms and economic realities have evolved, the feasibility and desirability of such deals have become far more complex.
A History of Land Transactions
Throughout history, powerful nations have expanded their territories through purchases. One of the earliest and most famous examples is the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, in which the United States bought vast swathes of land from France for $15 million. This transaction more than doubled the size of the United States and laid the foundation for its westward expansion.
Other notable acquisitions followed. In 1819, the United States purchased Florida from Spain for $5 million. In 1848, the United States acquired California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona from Mexico for $18 million as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and New Mexico was added in 1853 for $10 million in the Gadsden Purchase.
In 1867, the United States struck a deal with Russia to buy Alaska for $7.2 million. At the time, the transaction was widely criticised as a waste of money—“Seward’s Folly,” critics called it—given Alaska’s remoteness and perceived lack of value. However, the discovery of gold in the 1890s transformed public opinion, making Alaska one of the country’s most significant territorial acquisitions.
Greenland: An Idea Revisited
The idea of purchasing Greenland is not new. As early as 1867, the United States considered acquiring both Greenland and Iceland for $5.5 million. Although negotiations with Denmark progressed, political disagreements in Congress prevented the deal from being finalised.
The concept resurfaced in 1946, when President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland in the aftermath of World War II. At the time, Greenland’s strategic location during the Cold War made it a valuable asset for the United States. The island’s proximity to the Arctic and its potential as a military base were significant factors driving American interest. Although Denmark declined Truman’s offer, the United States maintained a military presence in Greenland, notably at the Thule Air Base, which remains operational today.
Trump’s 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland reflected a similar mix of strategic and economic considerations. His administration cited the island’s abundant natural resources, including rare earth minerals, and its strategic importance in the Arctic as key reasons for the interest. However, the Danish government swiftly dismissed the idea, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen calling it “absurd.”
The Costs and Complexities of Greenland
Greenland represents both an economic burden and an untapped opportunity for Denmark. Each year, the Danish government provides subsidies of 3.9 billion kroner (€520 million) to support Greenland’s economy, covering half of the island’s annual budget. While Greenland has significant potential for resource extraction, including oil, gas, and rare earth minerals, its harsh climate and lack of infrastructure pose challenges. The island currently has just one operational mine, and tourism, rather than mining, has become its most lucrative industry.
The valuation of Greenland has varied widely. During the Cold War, Truman’s offer of $100 million (equivalent to $1.7 billion today) reflected its strategic importance. More recent estimates place Greenland’s value between $12.5 billion and $77 billion, based on historical precedents like the purchases of Alaska and the Virgin Islands. However, modern geopolitical realities and Greenland’s autonomous government complicate the feasibility of such a transaction.
A Broader Context: The Decline of Land Purchases
The sale of territories was once a routine part of international relations, especially during the 19th century. Denmark’s sale of the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) to the United States in 1917 for $25 million is a notable example. The islands had become a financial liability for Denmark following the abolition of slavery in 1848, which led to economic decline and increased costs for public safety.
More recently, land transactions have been rare but not unheard of. In 2012, Japan purchased three of the disputed Senkaku Islands from a private owner for ¥2 billion (€12 million) to strengthen its territorial claim. Similarly, in 2017, Egypt transferred two Red Sea islands, Tiran and Sanafir, to Saudi Arabia, though this occurred without financial compensation.
The Challenges of Modern Land Deals
Unlike in the past, the outright purchase of territories today faces significant legal, political, and ethical obstacles. International norms have shifted to prioritise national sovereignty and self-determination. Greenland, for instance, has had home rule since 1979 and further autonomy since 2009, giving its government significant control over its affairs. Any future proposals to buy Greenland would need not only Denmark’s approval but also the consent of the Greenlandic people.
Moreover, the economic return on such investments remains uncertain. While Alaska proved to be a valuable acquisition due to its natural resources, Greenland’s potential remains largely speculative. Private companies would likely extract and profit from any resources found, leaving governments to rely on licensing fees and royalties.
Conclusion
The idea of purchasing Greenland harks back to an era when territorial expansion was a key tool of geopolitics. While such transactions are no longer common, the historical examples of Louisiana, Alaska, and the Danish West Indies demonstrate how land sales have shaped nations. Greenland’s strategic importance and resource potential continue to make it an object of interest, but modern legal and political frameworks make any future sale highly unlikely.
