Updated Jan. 21, 2026, 7:28 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump pulled back on a threat to annex Greenland after pushing NATO almost to its breaking point over the issue. Current and former officials from member nations warned that taking the Danish territory would severely undermine, if not end, the trans-Atlantic alliance.
During a dramatic speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in which he lobbed grievances at NATO members from Canada to Denmark, Trump said he’s not considering military action to acquire Greenland.
“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland,” Trump said during the speech, in which he several times referred to Greenland as “Iceland,” which is a different country.
The president had previously declined to rule out taking Greenland through military force.
After a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Davos on Jan. 21, Trump said on social media that he’d secured a framework for a deal involving Greenland and Arctic security, but he did not say what the agreement entailed, only that “Further information will be made available as discussions progress.”
“Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations,” he added.
In the lead-up to Davos, officials remained hopeful for a peaceful resolution. But the president’s push to gain control of Greenland sparked widespread anxiety about the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization − a 32-member alliance that acts as a counter to Russia and has served as the bedrock of Western security for more than 75 years.
“By starting this conversation, you empower enemies of America in Europe. China and Russia will take advantage,” the deputy chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee in the Lithuanian parliament, Žygimantas Pavilionis, told reporters during a Jan. 20 roundtable in Washington. “Any division of free countries, it allows (the) Axis of Evil to grow.”
Trump on Jan. 17 threatened a 10% tariff on U.S. imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, citing each countries’ opposition to U.S. acquisition of Greenland. He said the tariff would go into effect on Feb. 1 and increase to 25% on June 1.
European officials have said their nations will not be “blackmailed” by Trump and threatened to retaliate over the threats. They were considering leveling an anti-coercion instrument nicknamed the “trade bazooka.”
The stock market reacted poorly to the news, with the S&P posting its worst day in three months on Jan. 20.
Trump renewed his threat of a United States takeover of Greenland hours before he departed Washington, telling reporters “you’ll find out” how far he’s willing to go. When asked on Jan. 19 by NBC News if if he would use force to claim Greenland, the president responded “No comment.”
But in his Jan. 21 social media post Trump said that “the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” eliminated the need for tariffs, leading to a market rally.
In Switzerland, the president said his bid to acquire the sparsely populated, ice-covered land mass was a “very small ask” compared to what the United States has done to support NATO’s European members since World War II.
But Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs is Lars Løkke Rasmussen seemed palpably relieved in a statement sent to USA TODAY late on Jan. 21.
“The day is ending on a better note than it began,” Rasmussen wrote. “We welcome that President Trump has ruled out to take Greenland by force and paused the trade war with Europe. Now, let’s sit down and find out how we can address the American security concerns in the Arctic while respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
NATO on the brink
Article 5 of the NATO charter states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. It has been used only once, by the United States, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on American soil, leading troops from NATO allies including Denmark to fight alongside the United States in Afghanistan. Denmark also sent troops to Iraq.
In a text to Norway’s prime minister sent Jan. 18, Trump said he “no longer” feels “an obligation to think purely of Peace” because he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” he wrote.
The Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, always a U.S. military general, is currently U.S. Air Force General Alexus G. Grynkewich, who was nominated by Trump.
A military invasion by Trump “would turn Article 5 of NATO on its very head and, in essence, press a war with NATO itself,” former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, warned on ABC News’ “This Week” program on Jan. 18. “It would end up abolishing NATO as we know it.”
Denmark could choose to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland to avoid a confrontation but the U.S. bond with Europe is still severely strained.
“You can imagine scenarios where it’s really bad, and even though the alliance wouldn’t go away, it would be much, much weaker,” said Mark Cancian, a retired colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ defense and security department.
The United States has a military base in Greenland already and an invitation from the Danish government to add more. Trump has said the United States needs to own the island, however, for “national security” and “psychological” reasons.
Sophie Arts, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund who researches Nordic and Arctic security, called the dispute over Greenland “existential for the NATO alliance.”
Arts said it would be beneficial for Trump and European leaders to “take this conversation offline” and air out the dispute face-to-face at Davos.
Trump may be following that playbook.
“The Secretary General had a very productive meeting with President Trump during which they discussed the critical significance of security in the Arctic region to all Allies, including the United States,” NATO spokesperson Allison Hart told reporters in a Jan. 21 statement. “Discussions among NATO Allies on the framework the President referenced will focus on ensuring Arctic security through the collective efforts of Allies, especially the seven Arctic Allies. Negotiations between Denmark, Greenland, and the United States will go forward aimed at ensuring that Russia and China never gain a foothold – economically or militarily – in Greenland.”
Trump has previously strained NATO
The spat over Greenland is only the latest in Trump’s relationship with NATO. He has complained repeatedly since his first term that other member nations do not spend enough money on their militaries. NATO committed last June to members spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035.
And even as he drew back from the brink of destroying the alliance, Trump attacked Canada, a member that he has also expressed a desire to acquire, during his speech in Davos. “Canada gets a lot of freebies from us,” Trump said. “They should be grateful also, but they’re not.”
NATO member nations “are coming to realize more and more that they can’t really depend on the U.S. longer term,” said Arts of the German Marshall Fund. “You cannot have a NATO ally threaten to invade another NATO ally,” she added.
In a Jan. 9 statement, 14 former high-level U.S. officials, including former NATO ambassadors and National Security Council directors, branded Trump’s threats against Greenland as “strategically foolish.”
“It will fracture one of our longest and strongest bilateral relationships in the world, turn one of the most pro-American countries in Europe against the United States, and potentially destroy our more than 76-year-old NATO alliance with Europe and Canada,” the statement read.
“There is still a way out of a disaster,” Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland who signed on to the statement, told USA TODAY. “And Trump does have a knack for figuring out when it’s time to cut his losses,” Fried, who served on the National Security Council and as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs under President George W. Bush, said.
Trump said before he left Washington that he believed “something” would be worked out with NATO.
“Whether you like it or not, it’s only as good as we are. If NATO doesn’t have us, NATO is not very strong,” Trump told reporters.
Greenland dispute could have consequences for Ukraine
Top Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov said at a Jan. 20 news conference that Trump’s threats represent a “deep crisis” NATO whose expansion in Eastern Europe his country has long fought to curtail.
“It’s a major upheaval for Europe, and we are watching it. The Euro-Atlantic concept of ensuring security and cooperation has discredited itself,” Lavrov said.
Rutte told assembled business and political leaders in Davos on Jan. 21 that he was concerned that the White House’s relentless focus on Greenland meant Russia’s war in Ukraine was being overlooked.
Speaking on a panel before Trump’s speech, Rutte said he was “a little bit worried that we might drop the ball focusing so much on these other issues.”
“They need our support now, tomorrow, and the day after,” Rutte said, referring Ukraine. “I need European allies to keep focus on this issue.”
Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a Ukrainian politician who chairs the EU integration committee in her country’s parliament, told reporters at a Jan. 20 roundtable in Washington that how the Greenland dispute is resolved matters, because it will determine the future strength of the NATO alliance.
“If NATO survives, and I hope it does, and is becoming stronger, I do not see any other other real security guarantee beside the NATO membership of Ukraine,” Klympush-Tsintsadze said.
Russia has tried to take NATO membership off the table for Ukraine as a condition to end the war. The proposals were part of a draft plan the U.S. presented to Ukraine late last year.
Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard, Joey Garrison
Source link
