“I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” declared U.S. President Donald Trump while referring to Greenland at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21.
But he immediately warned that Denmark and other European countries opposing negotiations could face tariffs starting at 10 per cent and rising to 25 per cent.
The contradiction was explicit: military force was disavowed, but economic punishment embraced. “There are other ways to do things,” Trump said, adding that trade pressure would be “very effective” if allies refused to engage.
Throughout his speech, Trump confused Greenland with Iceland, not once, but several times. While not substantive on their own, the fact that this occurred while he was asserting territorial claims and threatening economic retaliation underlined his lack of knowledge about the subject of those threats.
Trump’s central claim was strategic necessity. Greenland is vital to U.S. security, and only the United States is capable of protecting it, he argued. “No other country is in a position to secure Greenland instead of the US,” he said, calling the territory “absolutely critical” for American defence.
This assertion ignored the existing reality that Greenland is already covered by NATO’s collective defence arrangements and hosts U.S. military facilities by agreement. According to Trump, these were insufficient without ownership.
He also advanced a historical justification. “The US should have kept Greenland after World War II. It was stupid to give it back,” Trump said, claiming Denmark’s sovereignty over the territory was contingent on American wartime intervention.
Denmark, he added, would have been “under the Nazis” without the United States. “Without us, right now you’d all be speaking German,” he said.
German is the main language of Switzerland.
Framing Denmark’s refusal as unreasonable and ungrateful, Trump characterised resistance to U.S. demands as a failure to recognise American sacrifice.
“They owe us,” he said, warning that allies who declined to cooperate should not expect the issue to disappear. “You can say no, and we will remember,” he added.
The warning was not limited to Greenland. It applied broadly to NATO members resisting U.S. positions. Trump also attacked the alliance’s financial structure, claiming NATO is “100 per cent funded by the United States” and asserting that Washington carries the burden while others benefit.
He offered no caveat or correction, despite the fact that NATO’s budgets are shared and European members collectively contribute substantial defence spending.
Echoing his earlier public position—restated at Davos—that control of Greenland was essential for U.S. security and credibility, Trump rejected alternatives to acquisition. Leasing arrangements, expanded basing rights, or existing defence agreements were dismissed as inadequate.
“We need it,” he said flatly, framing ownership as necessity rather than choice.
Trump also broadened the address to include his familiar grievance, repeated ad nauseam: He had “stopped eight wars,” but had been denied the Nobel Peace Prize. The claim was asserted as fact, the omission as injustice, with no supporting detail offered.
And here’s another gem from his speech: “China is smart. They make windmills, sell ’em for a fortune, and sell ’em to the STUPID PEOPLE that buy them!…Windmills all over Europe, all over the place, and they are LOSERS. One thing I’ve learned: the more windmills a country has, the more money that country LOSES. CHINA makes almost all the windmills, and yet I haven’t been able to find any wind farms in China!”
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump is CALLING OUT the “stupid people” who support wind energy in Davos
“China is smart. They make windmills, sell ’em for a fortune, and sell ’em to the STUPID PEOPLE that buy them!” 🤣
“Windmills all over Europe, all over the place, and they are… pic.twitter.com/6LZEHcPkKW
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 21, 2026
Taken on its own terms, Trump’s Davos appearance amounted to a clear position: territorial acquisition is legitimate if the United States deems it strategically useful, and refusal invites punishment.
Sovereignty was treated as an obstacle, alliance disagreement as disloyalty, and economic pressure as an acceptable substitute for force.
Trump did not threaten military action. He threatened consequences. The distinction, as he presented it, was meant to reassure.
It did just the opposite.
