US president Donald Trump intensified his long-standing push for the United States to acquire Greenland during a wide-ranging and combative appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, while indicating that military force would not be used to pursue the goal. Instead, the emphasis was placed on economic leverage and diplomatic pressure to influence European allies.
The remarks were delivered amid behind-the-scenes efforts by European leaders to prevent a broader crisis over Greenland. Those efforts appeared to gain traction later in the day, when the White House announced a pause on planned tariffs against several European countries, citing ongoing negotiations.
Speaking before an audience of global political and business leaders, the president argued that US control of Greenland was essential for national and international security. Although force was ruled out for the time being, the speech suggested that Washington would continue to apply pressure through trade and diplomacy to advance its objectives.
The administration signalled its intent to reopen talks on Greenland’s future, presenting the move as a strategic necessity rather than an act of aggression. While military action was dismissed, the message to European partners was framed as a choice between cooperation and long-term consequences in bilateral relations.
Denmark, which has administrative responsibility for Greenland as a semi-autonomous territory, issued a cautious response. The Danish foreign minister welcomed the exclusion of military action but stressed that the underlying dispute remained unresolved. The statement reflected concern that the president’s ambitions for the Arctic territory had not diminished.
Reactions across Europe were mixed. Norway’s finance minister, who previously served as Nato secretary general, described the clarification on military force as an important reassurance, noting that many had feared the possibility of coercion.
The White House announced a reversal of plans to impose new tariffs on eight European countries, including Denmark, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The change followed discussions with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, which the president described as progress toward a broader framework covering Greenland and Arctic security. No detailed terms were released, and Rutte declined to comment publicly.
According to the US president, negotiations were also underway regarding a missile defence system that could involve installations in Greenland. He suggested that the proposed arrangement would deliver long-term security benefits and remain in effect indefinitely, though specifics were deferred.
Officials in Copenhagen indicated uncertainty about the process, noting that it was unclear whether Greenlandic leaders had been consulted. Denmark’s foreign minister expressed hope that future discussions would respect the wishes and rights of the people living on the island.
During the Davos address, the president repeatedly criticized European leadership and revisited historical grievances, arguing that Greenland had been wrongly placed under Danish control after the Second World War. He claimed that only the United States was capable of defending the strategically located territory, which sits between North America, Russia and China.
Greenland’s location was presented as vital to US missile defence plans, with the argument that ownership, rather than basing agreements or leases, was necessary to guarantee security. At several points, factual inaccuracies crept into the speech, including apparent confusion between Greenland and Iceland in references to recent market movements.
While asserting that US control of Greenland would not undermine Nato, the president returned frequently to complaints that Washington bore a disproportionate share of the alliance’s financial and military burden. He questioned whether European allies would offer the same level of support to the United States in return, despite Nato’s collective defence commitments.
Some European figures responded sharply. The co-chair of the European Green Party urged unity against what was described as coercive behaviour. Canada’s prime minister, who had spoken earlier in Davos, had warned smaller and mid-sized countries against yielding to pressure from larger powers.
Criticism also emerged from within the United States. A Republican senator from Alaska welcomed the rejection of military force but said it was troubling that such assurances were necessary. She also highlighted the absence of attention to Greenland’s indigenous communities. A Democratic governor described the speech as lengthy but empty of substance.
Beyond Greenland, the president used the 80-minute address to promote his domestic record, claiming strong economic performance during the first year of his second term and dismissing climate-focused energy policies. He argued that Europe was wasting its natural energy resources and derided wind power as ineffective.
The speech featured nationalist themes, including references to the president’s European ancestry and criticism of immigration policies in the West. He contrasted the current administration with his predecessor, portraying the United States as having regained global prominence.
He also alluded to classified military technologies allegedly used in a recent operation in Venezuela, claiming that foreign-made defence systems had failed to respond.
Following the address, the president was scheduled to meet several foreign leaders, including those of Poland, Switzerland and Egypt, as well as Nato’s secretary general. A meeting with Ukraine’s president was expected the following day.
Trade threats linked to Greenland had dominated discussions in Davos throughout the week. In response to warnings from Canadian leadership about US coercion, the president used his speech to criticize Canada, along with a number of other international and domestic figures. In contrast, he spoke favourably of his relationships with the leaders of Russia and China.
The speech underscored an approach that blended confrontation with tactical restraint, leaving European leaders weighing the implications of renewed US pressure over Greenland and broader transatlantic relations.
