根據2026年1月多家國際媒體的最新報導，以及美國與北歐外交圈內部流出的多方消息交叉證實，外界盛傳的「美國考慮向格陵蘭島居民發放高額現金，以說服其支持加入美國」並非空穴來風，而是一項確實正在川普政府內部被討論與評估中的構想。不過，這項構想目前仍停留在政策沙盤推演與戰略選項層級，距離正式成為美國政府的公開政策，仍存在相當大的距離與阻力。

從目前披露的內容來看，該計畫的核心思路是以「一次性經濟補償」作為政治說服工具。川普政府部分官員提出，若未來格陵蘭走向脫離丹麥的獨立進程，美國可考慮對島上約5.7萬名居民發放單筆現金補償，每人金額介於1萬至10萬美元之間。這筆資金的目的並非直接購買領土主權，而是希望在公投或政治表態過程中，增加當地居民對「與美國建立更緊密政治與安全關係」的支持度，包括最終加入美國，或採取類似美國與部分太平洋島國之間的《自由聯合協定》模式。若以最高金額估算，整體財政支出將逼近 60 億美元，對美國而言並非難以承受，但政治成本極高。

此一構想曝光後，各方反應相當激烈且立場分明。丹麥政府與格陵蘭自治政府第一時間即明確表示，「格陵蘭島不可出售」，並強調任何涉及主權變更的決定，必須完全尊重格陵蘭人民的自主意志。丹麥方面對此議題高度警惕，部分強硬表態甚至警告，若出現違背格陵蘭與丹麥意願的強制行為，丹麥軍方將依法行使自衛權。格陵蘭當地的民意則呈現出相對複雜的結構：多數居民確實支持逐步擺脫丹麥、邁向完全獨立，但同時也普遍對「加入美國」持保留甚至反對態度，擔憂文化、社會制度與環境保護將受到衝擊。

在美國國內，白宮並未完全否認相關傳聞。白宮新聞秘書僅表示，政府正在「研究多種與格陵蘭未來相關的政策選項」，並未確認金錢補償是否為正式方案之一。值得注意的是，時任國務卿兼國家安全事務助理的魯比歐，已計畫於近期與丹麥外交大臣會面，討論北極安全、能源供應鏈與格陵蘭地位等敏感議題，顯示該問題已正式進入高層外交議程。

從更宏觀的角度來看，這項構想並非單純的領土擴張幻想，而是深植於特朗普政府對北極地區的戰略判斷之中。美方認為，在氣候變遷加速、北極航道逐步開放的背景下，格陵蘭的地緣戰略價值正急速上升。其地理位置不僅對美國本土防禦、導彈預警系統具有關鍵意義，也直接影響美國在北極地區與中國、俄羅斯的戰略競逐。此外，格陵蘭蘊藏大量關鍵礦產資源，包括稀土與新能源相關礦物，被美國視為降低對外依賴、重塑全球供應鏈的重要拼圖。

因此，在內部討論中，美國並未將「金錢誘因」視為唯一手段，而是與外交協議、支持獨立運動、長期經濟投資，甚至在極端情境下的軍事選項一併納入戰略評估。不過，這些方案無論哪一條路線，都將面臨嚴重的國際法爭議、北約內部摩擦，以及道德與民主正當性的質疑。

總體而言，向格陵蘭居民發放高額現金以影響其政治選擇的構想，確實存在於川普政府的政策討論之中，但目前仍屬於高度敏感且爭議極大的「假設性方案」。在丹麥、格陵蘭民意與國際社會普遍反對的現實下，該計畫短期內轉化為實際行動的可能性並不高，但它已清楚反映出北極地區 2026年全球地緣政治格局中的戰略重量，正持續快速上升。

According to the latest media reports in January 2026 and corroboration from multiple sources within U.S. and Nordic diplomatic circles, the widely circulated claim that “the United States is considering offering large cash payments to Greenland residents to persuade them to join the U.S.” is not groundless. It is, in fact, a proposal currently being discussed and assessed internally within the Trump administration. However, this idea remains at the stage of strategic scenario planning and has not been adopted as an official or publicly announced U.S. policy, nor is it close to that point given the significant obstacles involved.

Based on information disclosed so far, the core concept of the plan centers on using one-time financial compensation as a political persuasion tool. Some officials within the Trump administration have floated the idea that, should Greenland move toward independence from Denmark, the United States could consider offering a lump-sum payment to the island’s approximately 57,000 residents, with individual amounts ranging from US$10,000 to US$100,000. The intent of this funding would not be to directly purchase sovereignty, but rather to influence public opinion during potential referendums or political processes, encouraging support for closer political and security ties with the United States. These ties could include eventual U.S. statehood or an arrangement similar to the Compacts of Free Association that the U.S. maintains with certain Pacific island nations. If calculated at the highest proposed level, the total cost would approach US$6 billion, a figure that is fiscally manageable for the United States but politically extremely costly.

The revelation of this idea has triggered strong and clearly defined reactions from all sides. Both the Danish government and the Greenlandic autonomous government have responded unequivocally that “Greenland is not for sale,” emphasizing that any change in sovereignty must be based entirely on the free will of the Greenlandic people. Denmark, in particular, has treated the matter with heightened vigilance, with some officials issuing unusually firm warnings that any attempt to alter Greenland’s status through coercion or against its will would be met with lawful self-defense by Danish forces. Public opinion in Greenland itself appears nuanced: while a majority of residents support eventual independence from Denmark, most do not wish to join the United States, expressing concerns about cultural erosion, social systems, and environmental protection.

Within the United States, the White House has not fully denied the reports. The White House press secretary stated only that the administration is “studying multiple policy options related to Greenland’s future,” without confirming whether direct cash payments are among them. Notably, then–Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet with Denmark’s foreign minister in the near future to discuss Arctic security, energy supply chains, and Greenland’s strategic position, indicating that the issue has already entered high-level diplomatic discussions.

From a broader perspective, this proposal is not merely an impulsive territorial ambition, but rather reflects the Trump administration’s strategic assessment of the Arctic’s growing importance. U.S. policymakers argue that, as climate change accelerates and Arctic shipping routes gradually open, Greenland’s geopolitical value is rising rapidly. Its location is critical to U.S. homeland defense and missile early-warning systems, and it plays a key role in strategic competition with China and Russia in the Arctic region. In addition, Greenland possesses substantial reserves of critical minerals, including rare earth elements and materials vital to renewable energy technologies, making it a potentially important asset for reducing supply-chain dependence and reshaping global resource security.

As a result, internal U.S. discussions reportedly do not treat financial incentives as the sole option. Instead, they are considered alongside diplomatic agreements, long-term economic investment, support for independence movements, and—under extreme hypothetical scenarios—even military measures. All of these options, however, would face serious challenges under international law, risk straining relations within NATO, and provoke intense ethical and democratic legitimacy debates.

In summary, the idea of offering large cash payments to Greenland residents to influence their political choices does exist within internal Trump administration discussions, but it remains a highly sensitive and controversial hypothetical proposal. Given the firm opposition from Denmark, the complex views of Greenland’s population, and the broader international backlash such a move would provoke, the likelihood of this plan being implemented in the near term is low. Nevertheless, its emergence underscores a broader reality: by 2026, the Arctic—and Greenland in particular—has become an increasingly central focal point in global geopolitical strategy.