Key Points
- Trump said he will not use force to obtain Greenland, but framed it as a debt Europe should repay
- He argued Greenland is Danish only because the U.S. returned it after WWII, and he wants title now
- He used NATO burden-sharing, tariffs, and security threats to justify acquisition talks and pressure Denmark
Donald Trump used Davos to take military escalation over Greenland off the table, then replaced it with a different lever: obligation.
He said he “won’t use force,” but he repeatedly implied Europe, via Denmark and NATO, owes the United States a strategic payoff after decades of U.S. security spending.
In his telling, Greenland is Danish largely because Washington chose to make it so. Trump recounted World War II, arguing Denmark could not defend itself or Greenland, and that the United States stepped in, held the territory, and built bases there.
After the war, he said, the U.S. “gave Greenland back to Denmark,” calling that decision foolish in hindsight.
Trump Rules Out Attacking Greenland, Then Frames It As Europe’s Security Payback
Trump Rules Out Attacking Greenland, Then Frames It As Europe’s Security Payback
The subtext was explicit: what was returned can be renegotiated, especially now that missile-era geography makes the island more valuable. He folded that history into a broader complaint that NATO has “treated” the U.S. unfairly.
He argued America spent vast sums to protect Europe and received little in return, and he portrayed Greenland as a modest request compared to “trillions and trillions” he said the U.S. poured into European defense. He paired the appeal to fairness with a warning: Denmark can say yes or no, but “we will remember.”
Trump also tried to elevate the Greenland case beyond sovereignty into alliance logic. He argued only the U.S. can secure the island’s position between North America, Russia, and China, and said acquiring it would strengthen NATO, not weaken it.
He dismissed minerals as a secondary rationale, stressing deterrence, basing, and future defense infrastructure.
Around that core message, he delivered an economic victory lap and a policy sales pitch. He touted low inflation, strong growth, record market highs, deep deregulation, sweeping tax cuts, higher tariffs, and an energy expansion that includes oil, gas, nuclear, and power-hungry AI.
The overall message was not subtle: he presented American protection as the price of admission to Western security, and he cast Greenland as the overdue receipt.
