Will Denmark and the United States sign a deal, treaty, or similar international agreement of any kind relating to Greenland by March 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET?
According to Polymarket, any U.S.–Danish agreement relating to Greenland will qualify, regardless of subject matter, including but not limited to sovereignty, governance, security arrangements, or access to natural resources.
As of 10 pm ET on January 12th, there’s a 29% chance via Polymarket that the U.S. and Denmark will sign a deal, treaty, or similar international agreement of any kind relating to Greenland by March 31. A successful $100 wager on that deal happening by March 31 would net $221.88 ($321.88 overall), and a winning $100 bet on that deal not happening by March 31 would net $35.34.
Backdrop: There’s already a 1951 agreement that gives the U.S. significant military access, but Trump and some U.S. strategists insist the agreement is too constraining. The U.S. wants more independence and flexibility in the region, which can only happen if 1) the current deal is modified, 2) a new deal is created, or 3) the U.S. seizes the territory militarily. Of course, the Polymarket bet is limited to a deal, treaty, or similar international agreement.
Once again, a deal could involve a purchase, shared sovereignty, or a phased arrangement.
Why might an agreement work
Money talks.
Perhaps Trump will make offers that are too good to refuse and try to implement a deal where the spoils outweigh the benefits of holding onto the island. Denmark already relies heavily on US capabilities to secure Greenland and the wider Arctic, and analysts point out that Copenhagen has struggled to meet the defense requirements of the region.
A deal that formalizes more US responsibility—whether through expanded bases, joint administration, or partial transfer—could let Denmark offload a burdensome security role while still claiming it safeguards Greenland’s defense and development. Regardless, the U.S. would have to come to the table with a SWEET PACKAGE. If it’s for nothing else but to save face, Denmark/Greenland will want something big in exchange for giving up sovereignty—or partial sovereignty.
Denmark’s position is that Greenland is not for sale and that any change in its status is for Greenlanders themselves to decide, not for foreign buyers.
Why an agreement wouldn’t work
Principles over money.
Denmark insists it will not “sell” Greenland because the island is not a disposable colonial asset but a self-governing community whose future must be decided by Greenlanders under Danish and international law. And Greenland’s Self-Government Act explicitly gives Greenlanders the right to choose independence via referendum, after which Denmark and Greenland would negotiate the terms; there is no provision for Denmark to sell the territory to a third state.
Both the Greenlanders and the Danes would need to approve the terms. If one approves and the other doesn’t, it’s a no-go. As a result, the onus is likely on the U.S. to satisfy both commonwealths, something they might not be prepared to do. Hence, Trump might be able to meet Greenlanders’ requests but not Danes’.
Also, Trump’s bullying attitude may have already offended too many Greenlanders and Danes, who may ultimately decide to spite him regardless of the offer.
What are your odds for a U.S.-Greenland/Denmark deal?
