The man who wrote The Art of the Deal sure seems bad at deal-making.

Up until early 2026, it would have been fairly easy for the U.S. to take over administration of Greenland. While Greenland’s 57,000 residents tend to aspire for eventual independence and have no desire to become American permanently, they also recognize that Greenland will depend on a larger power for military protection and budget subsidies for the foreseeable future. Greenland – Denmark relations have been strained for some time, so it would have been completely feasible to convince the Greenlanders to swap the relationship they have with Denmark to a similar one with the United States.

The U.S. could have offered to pay the same subsidy that Greenland currently receives from Denmark ($600m per year – even if the U.S. pre-paid this for 100 years, amounting to $1 million per Greenlandic resident, it would cost the U.S. less than 0.2% of its GDP). If Greenland could maintain its current level of autonomy and receive a promise that it is free to pursue independent statehood eventually, the deal would have been entirely palatable to its population.

Presented with an agreement between the U.S. and the Greenlandic government, Denmark would have had zero ability to veto it, and historians would have been compelled to record for eternity the name of Donald Trump as the visionary president who added almost a million square miles of real estate to the U.S. empire (which, let’s admit it, is the main motivation for the project in the first place).

Unfortunately, however, the supposed master dealmaker managed to screw it all up.

First of all, the U.S. is trying to negotiate with the wrong counterparty. As the bewildered Danes have immediately informed the U.S. deal team, Denmark cannot sell Greenland as it does not own it. It would have been the steal of the century had Denmark received billions for a piece of real estate it does not have a marketable title to. It is incrementally bizarre to threaten tariffs on 7 additional European countries who have no signing rights over Greenland, and also do not have the ability to block Greenland from entering into a deal with the U.S..

Secondly, it is puzzling that the U.S. administration made no serious attempt to win over the Greenlanders. It is ultimately the 57,000 residents and their elected coalition government that would have the moral authority and the practical ability to transfer sovereignty over the landmass. Many in the U.S. media have made back-of-the-envelope calculations suggesting that the U.S. could afford very large payments to each resident in exchange for a deal, but the administration have never put a proposal to the Greenlandic people.

More damningly, in addition to not making a monetary proposal, the U.S. never made an attempt to even hear out the Greenlanders. The would-be masters of Greenland in the U.S. seem to have no interest in Greenland’s history, Greenlandic culture, or what Greenland might want out of a potential new relationship with the U.S..

This was the most fatal flaw in the U.S.’s approach to Greenland. The Greenlandic people are immensely proud of their ancestry and of maintaining for centuries their civilisation in the harsh Arctic environment. This is doubly true for the 57,000 Greenlanders who have decided to continue living in Greenland despite having the legal right to relocate to more temperate climates in Denmark or elsewhere in Europe. The U.S. would have needed to approach Greenland with maximum tactfulness to mitigate the risk of culture clash with a small people anxious to maintain their unique heritage. Instead, the “rough wooing” by the White House probably removed the chance for a consensual deal with Greenland for a generation.

Even after all this, the most likely outcome is a fudge that allows the President to claim victory while largely preserving the status quo. None of the European leaders have any desire to face down Trump over this issue where they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain. No one in Europe wished to start 2026 with a trade war with the U.S. as the key European priorities for the year were to find ways to spur economic growth, support Ukraine and substitute Russian energy imports (ironically, in large part, for U.S. liquid natural gas).

Equally, there is a sense that even inside the MAGA camp, the adults are trying to find the fudge that defuses the situation. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to take over Greenland by force and the public would not forgive any noticeable economic cost incurred in conquering it (what % decline in your retirement savings would you tolerate to get Greenland?). Given the apparent complete lack of advance planning and serious proposals to win over the Greenlandic people, it’s hard to imagine that the U.S.’s pursuit of the territory has much staying power.

So here’s hoping that we soon find the magic words that keep Greenland as is, while also prompting the president to move onto the next topic.