The United States has eyed Greenland since the 19th century, but President Donald Trump is now amping up the rhetoric.
As per a recent Reuters report , sources revealed that the U.S. officials are considering sending lump sum payments to Greenlanders to convince them to secede from Denmark and join the U.S.
Two anonymous sources told Reuters that U.S. officials, including White House aides, have discussed figures ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per Greenlander. However, the exact figures remain unclear.
As an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland doesn't have its own military, and the Danish military is responsible for the island's defense.
Denmark's defence ministry told the local media outlet Berlingske that the country's forces will "shoot first and ask questions later" if Greenland is invaded.
Related: Treasury Secretary says millions of Americans may see 'largest tax refunds of their lives'
After the attack on Venezuela , Greenland is among Trump's top foreign expansion agendas.
Trump argues that controlling the island is the key to its national security, given the presence of Russian and Chinese ships around it.
As per the CIA's world factbook , Greenland has a population of 57,751 as of a 2024 estimate.
If the Reuters report turns out to be true, the U.S. would have to empty $5.7 billion out of its coffers to acquire Greenland.
Crypto analyst says 'Bitcoin fixes this'
Reacting to the development, popular crypto analyst Kashif Raza said since the U.S. controls the "world's money printer," it can act "recklessly."
"Bitcoin fixes this,"he argued.
It is a common belief within the crypto community that Bitcoin (BTC) is a more valuable currency than the U.S. dollar.
While Bitcoin remains a valuable asset due to its scarcity, the dollar can quickly lose its value because the Federal Reserve can print as much of it as it likes, they argue.
But Raza's argument falls apart when viewed in a broader geopolitical context.
More News:
Bitcoin not big enough to address geopolitical tensions
Even if the U.S. actually goes ahead with the $5.7 billion plan as reported by Reuters, the amount is trivial for a country that has spent over $7 trillion in the fiscal year 2025.
Raza's argument conflates foreign policy and fiscal policy. The government doesn't "print money" every time it pursues a foreign policy agenda.
His argument also confuses monetary sovereignty with abuse. The U.S. "money printer," the Federal Reserve, doesn't print money to fund immigration incentives, geopolitical negotiations, or population transfers.
Such a decision is taken by the president or the Congress, not by the Fed.
Moreover, Bitcoin, with a market cap of only $1.8 trillion, can't stop a government from following its policy goals, however concerning they may be.
Though Bitcoin can tackle monetary issues to an extent, it can't control a government's geopolitical actions or expenditure.
When Bitcoin advocates focus on its role as a hedge against inflation, cross-border payment settlements, or censorship resistance , it establishes the cryptocurrency as a serious contender in the economic discourse.
But relying on simplistic mathematics to frame any cryptocurrency as a definitive tool to address major geopolitical tensions, such as the potential acquisition of Greenland by the U.S., fails to establish Bitcoin as a reliable asset class.
Related: Mysterious trader's $400K profit on Maduro's ouster triggers swift action
This story was originally published by TheStreet on Jan 9, 2026, where it first appeared in the Policy section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.
