Do Americans Want Greenland? Short answer: No. And the spin doesn’t survive a fact-check.

Most Americans oppose the idea of the United States taking control of Greenland. That’s the headline. But behind it is a story of tough talk, nervous allies, and a few claims that don’t match the data.

The big reveal: Public opinion is a wall, not a speed bump

• Only 17% of Americans support efforts to acquire Greenland, according to a January 14–15 Reuters/Ipsos poll. That’s a hard “no” from four in five people. Source
• A separate CNN/SSRS poll found just 25% support for “attempting to take control” of the Danish territory. Source

Those numbers undercut the political case for a dramatic land grab—even before you get to the price tag and alliance backlash.

What’s true, what’s exaggerated, what’s wrong

Here’s what our reporting confirms, and what needed correcting.

Verified facts

• Trump really is pushing to control Greenland. He’s argued the U.S. must control the island “for national security,” saying anything less is “unacceptable.” Source
• He hasn’t ruled out force. Trump said on Meet the Press in May 2025 he wouldn’t rule out using force, and reporting has described internal deliberations that included military options. That’s coercive rhetoric—though not a formal threat to invade. Source
• Europe pushed back—hard. Denmark publicly defended its sovereignty; some European allies signaled support and small deployments to Greenland. Denmark’s foreign minister even warned that a U.S. seizure could mean “the end of NATO.” There’s strain, but no formal NATO “crisis.” Source
• The White House meeting happened and talks continue. On Jan. 14, 2026, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met their Danish and Greenlandic counterparts. They acknowledged “fundamental differences” and announced a high-level working group—so the door isn’t shut. Source
• Costs could be eye-watering. An NBC report put a hypothetical “purchase” at up to $700 billion. Source
• Greenland basics: about 56,700 residents; more than three times the size of Texas, not “almost four.” Population Size

Important corrections

• Republican support isn’t “only 40%.” CNN/SSRS found Republicans and Republican-leaners split 50–50 on “attempting to take control” of Greenland. The 40% figure isn’t confirmed in Reuters’ write-up. Source
• Support for an invasion is microscopic—but not 8% among Republicans. Reuters/Ipsos found 4% overall say using military force to take Greenland would be a “good idea,” including about 1 in 10 Republicans, not 8%. Source
• “NATO is in crisis” is overstated. The alliance is under strain, and Danish officials used stark language. But there’s no formal crisis declaration. Talks are ongoing. Source
• Public concern is far higher than “one in six.” CNN/SSRS reports nearly six in ten say Trump has gone too far trying to expand U.S. power; Reuters/Ipsos found 66% worry the Greenland push will damage NATO ties. Source

Nuance worth noting

• Buying vs. taking. When framed as a purchase, the public is still cool: 47% against, 35% undecided, 18% in favor (Reuters/Ipsos). That 35% “not sure” suggests opinions aren’t fully formed—but support is nowhere near a majority. Source
• Security framing matches the rhetoric. Trump and Vance argue Denmark under-invests in Greenland’s defense against Russia and China. That aligns with their public messaging. Source

How we got here: The week Washington chilled Copenhagen

The scene: a White House meeting on January 14. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat down with Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s foreign minister Vivian Motzfeldt. Hours later, Trump doubled down, posting that “Greenland is vital to our national security.” Diplomats called the differences “fundamental,” yet kept talking. Source

This wasn’t happening in a vacuum. In early January, U.S. forces captured Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro—part of a broader phase of high-risk moves and threats toward Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and Iran. That backdrop helps explain why polls show broad war-weariness and anxiety about alliances. Maduro capture Cuba Colombia Mexico Iran

The numbers that matter

• Support for taking control of Greenland: 17% (Reuters/Ipsos); 25% (CNN/SSRS)
• Support for using military force to take it: 4% overall; about 10% among Republicans (Reuters/Ipsos)
• Attitudes toward a purchase: 47% against, 35% undecided, 18% in favor (Reuters/Ipsos)
• Concern about consequences: Roughly two-thirds worry about NATO damage (Reuters/Ipsos); nearly six in ten say Trump has gone too far (CNN/SSRS)

Bottom line: There is no public mandate.

What’s at stake if rhetoric hardens into action

• Alliance cohesion. Danish officials have warned that a forced seizure could break NATO. Even without a formal crisis, the temperature is rising. Source
• Costs and governance. Even the purchase fantasy comes with a price tag up to $700 billion and complex questions about Greenland’s home rule, rights, and resources. Source
• Strategic logic vs. diplomatic fallout. The U.S. already operates Thule Air Base and cooperates with Denmark in the Arctic. Forcing the issue could trade marginal security gains for major diplomatic wounds.

What we know vs. what we don’t

What’s verified:

• Trump is pressing the case that the U.S. should control Greenland for national security. Source
• Public opinion is decisively negative. Reuters/Ipsos, CNN/SSRS
• Allies are alarmed, but talks are continuing. CBS News

What remains unclear:

• Endgame strategy. Is the White House aiming for increased basing rights, economic leverage, or an actual transfer of sovereignty? The working group’s mandate hasn’t been made public.
• Red lines. Officials have not defined what would trigger escalatory steps—or what “using force” would mean in practice.
• Greenland’s voice. Public polling from Greenland itself on these renewed U.S. moves hasn’t been published in the same timeframe.

How we verified this

We cross-checked the original article’s claims against:

• Official and reputable media on who’s in office and what was said or decided (White House, CBS, AP).
• Multiple polls published the same week (Reuters/Ipsos; CNN/SSRS), looking for consistency and GOP crosstabs.
• Primary reporting on costs, size, and demographics (NBC, Britannica, Wikipedia).
• Coverage of related foreign policy actions to assess the “war-weariness” claim (Reuters, Fox News, Axios, ABC, Reuters).

Where numbers diverged, we favored polls with published methods and clear wording. Where language overstated conclusions (e.g., “NATO crisis”), we flagged it and pointed to the precise statements.

The takeaway

• Most Americans do not want the U.S. to take Greenland.
• Support for using force is vanishingly small.
• Allies are rattled, but diplomacy isn’t dead.
• Some headline claims—GOP support levels, invasion backing, NATO “crisis,” even Greenland’s size—were off.

The story to watch next is not about maps changing overnight. It’s whether Washington uses the working group to dial down the confrontation—or to lay the groundwork for a bigger push that the public, and America’s allies, still don’t want.

Sources

• Reuters/Ipsos polling: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/just-one-five-americans-support-trumps-efforts-acquire-greenland-reutersipsos-2026-01-14/
• CNN/SSRS summary: https://www.cbs58.com/news/75-of-americans-oppose-us-attempting-to-take-control-of-greenland-cnn-poll-finds
• Trump’s Greenland control rhetoric: https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/trump-us-control-greenland-unacceptable-national-security-126011401310_1.html
• Force rhetoric and deliberations: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/04/trump-greenland-denmark-military-force
• European/NATO reaction context: https://apnews.com/article/b10f5151008f1f18a788dc0751473c0e
• White House meeting and working group: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenland-meeting-vance-rubio-denmark/
• Cost estimate: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/buying-greenland-could-cost-700-billion/6443735/
• Security framing (Denmark under-invests): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/29/not-how-you-talk-to-allies-danish-fm-tells-the-us-over-greenland
• Greenland demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Greenland
• Greenland size vs Texas: https://www.britannica.com/place/Greenland
• Maduro capture and broader context: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-blocks-effort-rein-trumps-venezuela-war-powers-2026-01-14/
• Cuba rhetoric: https://www.foxnews.com/world/trump-says-cuba-ready-fall-after-capture-venezuelas-maduro/
• Colombia warning: https://www.axios.com/2025/12/22/trump-drug-president-colombia-gustavo-petro
• Mexico threats and pushback: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mexico-dismisses-us-military-intervention-despite-trumps-threats-128927227
• Iran threat context: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-minister-says-there-is-no-plan-hanging-when-asked-about-protests-2026-01-14/
• Public concern levels summary: https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/trumps-greenland-takeover-plan-faces-public-resistance-75-of-americans-say-no-poll-11768483950119.html

Key biographical confirmations:

• Trump, Rubio, Vance are in office as described: https://www.whitehouse.gov/past-events/donald-j-trump-sworn-in-as-the-47th-president-of-the-united-states/
• Marco Rubio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio
• Greenland population reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Greenland