Trump rules out force on Greenland but threatens Europe with tariffs at Davos

Donald Trump arrived at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday with a message that managed to be both reassuring and threatening in the same breath. He wanted Greenland, he said, and he wanted to negotiate for it immediately. But he would not use military force to get it—a concession that, while notable, did little to ease the tension crackling through the Alpine resort.

The American president framed his ambition in the language of security. Greenland, he argued, was essential to NATO's defense of the Arctic. Only the United States could truly protect the island, which he described as an expensive piece of ice in the middle of the ocean that could not be defended under Denmark's current arrangement. He had already pushed European allies to increase their defense spending to five percent of GDP. Now he was asking for something more: the rights, the title, the ownership of Greenland itself. "A small request," he called it.

Denmark's answer was swift and unambiguous. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who had traveled to Washington with Greenland's foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, to meet with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, made clear that Denmark does not negotiate with individuals—it negotiates between nations. The two countries would establish a working group to address American concerns, he said, but the island was not for sale. Rasmussen acknowledged that Trump's renunciation of military force was positive. "But that doesn't make the problem disappear," he noted. The challenge remained.

In Nuuk, Greenland's capital, the mayor, Avaaraq S. Olsen, expressed cautious relief. The assurance that Trump would not deploy military force calmed some nerves, she said. But it was clear that the fight for Greenland's independence would continue. "It seems we will have to keep fighting to keep our flag," she told reporters.

Trump's renunciation of force, however, came with economic teeth. On Sunday, he had announced ten percent tariffs on eight European countries that had closed ranks with Denmark and Greenland the previous week, deploying troops to the Arctic enclave. The United States, under its defense agreements with Copenhagen, could station as many troops as it wished in Greenland, where it currently maintained only about a hundred permanent military personnel at Pituffik Air Base in the island's northwest. Trump's vice president, J.D. Vance, had visited the base in March of the previous year.

At the podium in Davos, Trump mixed his pitch with grievance. He reminded the audience that the United States had saved Greenland during World War II and returned it to Denmark—a gesture he now seemed to regret. He called the Danes ungrateful. He confused Iceland with Greenland, a slip reminiscent of earlier mix-ups with Azerbaijan and Albania, and claimed that until recently, when he had spoken to Iceland, they "loved" him and called him "dad." The reference was a jab at NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who was sitting in the audience and had used similar language in private Signal conversations that leaked months earlier.

Trump assured Rutte and the alliance that he would stand with NATO "one hundred percent," even as he questioned whether his partners would do the same for the United States. He then turned his fire on European leadership more broadly. "Certain countries in Europe are unrecognizable, and not in a good way," he said. "I love Europe. I want it to do well. But it's not heading in the right direction." He cited uncontrolled migration as a particular concern, though he said he did not want to offend anyone by raising it.

The economic picture at home told a different story than the one Trump was selling. Forty-four percent of Americans believed his policies had worsened their situation, and thirty-eight percent had noticed no improvement in the past year, according to a recent CBS News poll. Seventy-four percent thought the administration was not focused enough on reducing prices. Yet Trump claimed his citizens were "very happy" with him because "things are going very well" for them. The disconnect between his claims and the polling data underscored the gap between the narrative he was constructing and the reality Americans were experiencing.