
$918.03K
1
1

1 market tracked

No data available
| Market | Platform | Price |
|---|---|---|
![]() | Poly | 5% |
Trader mode: Actionable analysis for identifying opportunities and edge
This market will resolve to “Yes” if both 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. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. 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. Examples of qualifying deals include but are not limited t
Prediction markets give this deal only a 5% chance of happening. This means traders see roughly a 1 in 20 possibility that the US and Denmark will sign any formal agreement about Greenland by the March 31 deadline. The market is expressing very low confidence that a deal will be completed in time.
The low probability is tied to the history of this idea and current political realities. The topic gained attention in 2019 when then-President Donald Trump publicly confirmed he had discussed the idea of the US purchasing Greenland. The Danish government immediately and firmly rejected the concept, calling it "absurd." This created a significant diplomatic rift.
Since then, the underlying situation has not changed. Greenland is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, and its government has repeatedly stated it is not for sale. There is no visible, active negotiation between the US and Denmark on any major agreement concerning Greenland's sovereignty, resources, or security arrangements that would meet the market's criteria. The lack of any recent, serious diplomatic movement toward a deal is the main reason for the pessimistic forecast.
The primary date is the market's resolution deadline of March 31, 2026. For the odds to shift dramatically, we would likely need an official, unexpected announcement from the White House, the Danish government, or the Greenlandic authorities. Watch for any joint statements or scheduled high-level meetings between US and Danish officials specifically mentioning Greenland. Without such a concrete signal in the next few weeks, the current low probability is likely to hold.
Markets are generally reliable at aggregating known information about political processes, especially when a clear "no" is the strong default position. In this case, the overwhelming public stance of the involved governments makes a sudden deal appear very unlikely. However, prediction markets can be less reliable for forecasting unexpected, discretionary actions by political leaders, which are by nature hard to predict. The 5% chance essentially accounts for the small possibility of a surprise announcement that contradicts all recent diplomatic signals.
The market assigns a 5% probability that the United States and Denmark will sign any formal agreement relating to Greenland by March 31, 2026. This price, equivalent to 5¢ per share, indicates traders view a deal as highly unlikely within the timeframe. With nearly $1 million in trading volume, this is a liquid market with a strong consensus for a "No" outcome.
The low probability directly reflects the political reality surrounding Greenland. While former President Donald Trump publicly expressed interest in purchasing Greenland in 2019, the proposal was immediately and firmly rejected by the Danish government as "absurd." Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and its foreign and security policy remains under Copenhagen's authority. Any significant international agreement would require consent from both the Danish parliament and Greenland's own elected government, which has shown no appetite for such a transaction or a major shift in its constitutional status. The current U.S. administration has not signaled any renewed initiative on this front, making the 2019 episode appear as a historical anomaly rather than a live policy objective.
A dramatic shift in the political landscape in both Washington and Copenhagen before the March 2026 deadline would be necessary to move the price. The primary catalyst would be Donald Trump winning the November 2024 U.S. election and then actively reviving the proposal as official policy. Even then, Danish and Greenlandic opposition remains a formidable barrier. A smaller, non-sovereignty agreement, such as a new resource extraction or defense cooperation pact, could theoretically qualify under the market's broad rules. However, such deals are typically negotiated over years, not months, making a signature by the end of March 2026 a remote possibility. The market will be most sensitive to statements from a potential second Trump administration or from the Greenlandic government indicating a sudden openness to negotiations.
AI-generated analysis based on market data. Not financial advice.
$918.03K
1
1
This prediction market asks whether the United States and Denmark will sign any formal agreement related to Greenland by March 31, 2026. The topic stems from former President Donald Trump's publicly expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark in 2019, an idea the Danish government immediately rejected as absurd. While a direct sale is politically impossible, the underlying strategic interest in Greenland's geography and resources persists. The market resolves to 'Yes' if any bilateral U.S.-Danish agreement concerning Greenland is signed, covering potential deals on security, resource access, or scientific cooperation. Interest in this market reflects ongoing speculation about whether the geopolitical and economic rationale for deeper U.S. engagement with Greenland could materialize into a concrete pact, especially if Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. Observers track diplomatic statements, military investments in the Arctic, and Greenland's own evolving relationship with Denmark for signals.
The United States' strategic interest in Greenland dates to World War II. In 1941, the U.S. established protective custody over Greenland after Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany, building several weather stations and airfields. After the war, this interest crystallized in 1951 with the Denmark-U.S. Defense Agreement, which allowed the establishment of Thule Air Base in northwestern Greenland. Thule became a cornerstone of North American aerospace defense during the Cold War. The U.S. also attempted to purchase Greenland in 1946, with Secretary of State James F. Byrnes offering Denmark $100 million in gold. Denmark refused. Greenland gained home rule from Denmark in 1979 and further self-rule in 2009, gaining control over its natural resources. The 2019 episode was not an isolated historical anomaly but a revival of a long-standing American geopolitical calculation.
An agreement would significantly alter the geopolitical balance in the Arctic, a region becoming more accessible and contested due to climate change. It could lead to expanded U.S. military infrastructure, affecting strategic competition with Russia and China, both of which have increased their Arctic presence. For Greenland, a deal could bring substantial investment for infrastructure and resource extraction but also stir domestic debate about sovereignty and environmental protection. Economically, Greenland possesses potentially vast deposits of rare earth elements, uranium, and other minerals critical for modern technology and green energy transitions. A formal agreement granting U.S. access or preferential rights could reshape global supply chains. Domestically in Denmark and the U.S., such a deal would become a major political issue, testing transatlantic alliances and provoking debates about post-colonial sovereignty and the ethics of large-scale resource exploitation.
As of late 2024, there is no active bilateral negotiation between the U.S. and Denmark regarding a Greenland-specific deal. The U.S. continues to invest in military infrastructure at Thule Air Base under existing agreements. The political situation is in flux pending the outcome of the November 2024 U.S. presidential election. A Trump victory would likely resurrect public discussion of a deal, while a second Biden term would continue the current policy of strategic engagement without pursuing a major new bilateral pact. In Greenland, the self-rule government continues to seek economic development partners but remains within the Kingdom of Denmark.
No, not without the consent of both Denmark and Greenland. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its sale would require a constitutional amendment in Denmark and, critically, the approval of the Greenlandic people, which is politically inconceivable.
Thule Air Base is a U.S. Air Force installation in northwestern Greenland, established under a 1951 defense agreement. It is the U.S. military's northernmost base and hosts key missile warning and space surveillance systems, making it a vital part of U.S. and NATO defense architecture.
Greenland's location between North America and Europe offers strategic military positioning. Its northern coastline provides access to the Arctic Ocean, and it sits along potential trans-Arctic shipping routes. Its resources, including rare earth minerals, are also of significant economic and strategic interest.
Independence is a long-term goal for many Greenlandic political parties, but it is contingent on achieving economic self-sufficiency. Currently, Greenland relies on a large annual block grant from Denmark, making immediate independence economically challenging.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the idea of selling Greenland 'absurd' and stated it was not up for discussion. The response caused a diplomatic rift, leading Trump to postpone a planned state visit to Denmark.
Educational content is AI-generated and sourced from Wikipedia. It should not be considered financial advice.

No related news found
Add this market to your website
<iframe src="https://predictpedia.com/embed/08IoCQ" width="400" height="160" frameborder="0" style="border-radius: 8px; max-width: 100%;" title="Trump-Denmark Greenland deal signed by March 31?"></iframe>