Will the US purchase Greenland in 2026? — Will the US purchase Greenland in 2026?

ResolutionThe resolution criteria aren't published inline — they link out to PredictIt's market page — which means the definition of 'purchase' is ambiguous: does a preliminary agreement count, a treaty ratification, an actual transfer of sovereignty, or a lease arrangement rebranded as a purchase? This ambiguity is a serious trap because politically, the US could announce a deal that satisfies Trump's rhetoric without meeting PredictIt's stricter contractual definition, leaving 'Yes' holders holding a losing ticket on a technically true outcome. The 'purchase and annex' related market adds another layer: if PredictIt resolves 'purchase' on different criteria than 'purchase and annex,' a news event that triggers one may not trigger the other.

CalibrationPolitical markets show the strongest systematic underpricing of favorites and overpricing of longshots — the cognitive bias research confirms this is persistent and driven by retail participants who love longshots. This contract trades as a longshot, which means the market is statistically likely to overprice the 'Yes' side relative to its true probability, making 'No' the structurally favored side purely on calibration grounds. However, the long horizon means the crowd-compression effect pulls prices toward 50% and masks this longshot overpricing, so the mispricing may not be exploitable until the contract approaches resolution and calibration tightens.

RisksThis is a long-dated political contract, and Le's research shows that all markets compress toward 50% at long horizons — meaning this contract is likely systematically underpriced relative to where it will trade as resolution approaches, regardless of the actual probability. The danger for 'No' holders isn't that Greenland gets purchased; it's that political noise and Trump statements repeatedly spike the price upward, and if you're caught short on a market-order position during a volatility spike, the execution research confirms you'll pay a punishing spread. Correlated exposure is also real: anyone holding positions across 'purchase,' 'acquire part of,' and 'invasion' markets simultaneously has much higher directional exposure to a single geopolitical shock than they might realize.