Trump Says He ‘Won’t Use Force’ to Acquire Greenland
In his speech in Davos, Trump asked for the territory and said only the United States could defend it.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday spoke for more than an hour at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. While his meandering remarks touched on multiple familiar topics, including windmills—a longtime personal pet peeve—the state of the U.S. economy, and his long-running 2020 U.S. presidential election denialism, Trump spoke at length about his desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark. He also strongly criticized NATO and said other members of the Western military alliance have taken advantage of U.S. generosity over the years.
The following is an excerpt from his remarks focusing on Greenland, Denmark, NATO, and U.S. military power.
Ultimately, these are matters of national security, and perhaps no current issue makes the situation more clear than what’s currently going on with Greenland. Would you like me to say a few words [on] Greenland?
I was going to leave it out of the speech, but I thought, I think I would have been reviewed very negatively.
I have tremendous respect for both the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark, tremendous respect. But every NATO ally has an obligation to be able to defend their own territory. And the fact is, no nation or a group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States. We’re a great power, much greater than people even understand. I think they found that out two weeks ago in Venezuela.
We saw this in World War II, when Denmark fell to Germany after just six hours of fighting and was totally unable to defend either itself or Greenland. So the United States was then compelled. We did it. We felt an obligation to do it, to send our own forces to hold the Greenland territory—and hold it we did, at great cost and expense. They didn’t have a chance of getting on it, and they tried. Denmark knows that. We literally set up bases on Greenland for Denmark. We fought for Denmark. We weren’t fighting for anyone else. We were fighting to save it for Denmark. Big, beautiful piece of ice. It’s hard to call it land. It’s a big piece of ice. But we saved Greenland and successfully prevented our enemies from gaining a foothold in our hemisphere. So we did it for ourselves also.
And then after the war, which we won, we won it big—without us, right now, you’d all be speaking German and little Japanese, perhaps.
After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that? But we did it, but we gave it back. But how ungrateful are they now?
So now, our country and the world face much greater risks than they did ever before, because of missiles, because of nuclear, because of weapons of warfare that I can’t even talk about. Two weeks ago, they saw weapons that nobody ever heard of. They weren’t able to fire one shot at us. They said, “What happened?” Everything was discombobulated. They said, “We got them in our sights, press the trigger,” and nothing happened. No anti-aircraft missiles went up. There was one that went up about 30 feet and crashed down right next to the people that sent it. They said, “What the hell is going on?” Those defensive systems were made by Russia and by China. So they’re going to go back to the drawing boards, I guess.
Greenland is a vast, almost entirely uninhabited and undeveloped territory, sitting undefended in a key strategic location between the United States, Russia, and China. That’s exactly where it is, right smack in the middle.
Wasn’t important, nearly, when we gave it back, you know. When we gave it back, it wasn’t the same as it is now. It’s not important for any other reason, you know. Everyone talks about the minerals. There’s so many [places], there’s no rare earth, no such thing as rare earth. There’s rare processing, but there’s so much rare earth. And this, to get to this rare earth, you got to go through hundreds of feet of ice. That’s not the reason we need it.
We need it for strategic national security and international security. This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America, on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere. That’s our territory. It is therefore a core national security interest of the United States of America, and in fact, it’s been our policy for hundreds of years to prevent outside threats from entering our hemisphere, and we’ve done it very successfully. We’ve never been stronger than we are now. That’s why American presidents have sought to purchase Greenland for nearly two centuries. You know, for two centuries they’ve been trying to do it.
They should have kept it after World War II, but they had a different president. That’s alright—people think differently. Much more necessary now than it was at that time, however.
In 2019, Denmark said that they would spend over $200 million to strengthen Greenland’s defenses. But as you know, they spent less than 1 percent of that amount, 1 percent. There’s no sign of Denmark there. And I say that with great respect for Denmark, whose people I love, whose leaders are very good.
It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it, and improve it, and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us. And that’s the reason I’m seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States, just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history, as many of the European nations have, they’ve acquired, there’s nothing wrong with it. Many of them, some went in reverse, actually, if you look, some had great, vast wealth, great, vast lands all over the world. They went in reverse. They’re stuck back when they started. That happens too, but some grow.
But this would not be a threat to NATO. This would greatly enhance the security of the entire alliance, the NATO alliance. The United States is treated very unfairly by NATO. I want to tell you that, when you think about it, nobody can dispute it. We give so much, and we get so little in return. And I’ve been a critic of NATO for many years, and yet I’ve done more to help NATO than any other president, by far, than any other person. You wouldn’t have NATO if I didn’t get involved in my first term.
The war with Ukraine is an example. We are thousands of miles away, separated by a giant ocean. It’s a war that should have never started, and it wouldn’t have started if the 2020 U.S. presidential election weren’t rigged. It was a rigged election. Everybody now knows that. They found out. People will still be prosecuted for what they did. It’s probably breaking news, but it should be. It was a rigged election. Can’t have rigged elections.
You need strong borders, strong elections, and ideally a good press. I always say, “Strong borders, strong elections—free, fair elections—and a fair media.” The media is terrible. It’s very crooked, it’s very biased, terrible, but someday it’ll straighten out because it’s losing all credibility. Think of it, when I won in a landslide, a giant landslide, won all seven swing states, won the popular vote, won everything, and I only get negative press. That means that it has no credibility. And if they’re going to get credibility, they’re going to have to be fair. So you need a fair press, but you also need those other elements.
And I inherited a terrible, terrible situation. If you look at the border was open, the inflation was raging. Everything was bad with the United States when I came into office, but I also inherited a mess with Ukraine and Russia, something that would have never happened, and I know [Russian President Vladimir] Putin very well. He and I would discuss Ukraine. It was the apple of his eye, but he wasn’t going to do anything. I said, “Vladimir, you’re not doing it.” He would never have done it. It was terrible, what happened. I could see it happening, too. After I left, I could see it happening.
[Former U.S. President Joe] Biden had given Ukraine and NATO $350 billion, a staggering sum. $350 billion. I came in, and just like the southern border, just like inflation, just like our economy, I said, “Wow, this place is in trouble,” meaning our country, all of these things were out of control, but the border was out of control. We fixed it with the strongest border anywhere in the world.
And I’ve now been working on this war for one year, during which time I settled eight other wars. India-Pakistan. I mean, I settled other wars that were. Vladimir Putin called me. Armenia-Aberbaijan [Azerbaijan]. He said, “I can’t believe you settled that war.” They were going on for 35 years. I settled it one day, and President Putin called me. He said, “You know, I can’t believe I worked on that one for 10 years, trying to settle, and I couldn’t do it.” I said, “Do me a favor. Focus on settling your war, don’t worry about that one.”
What does the United States get out of all this work, all of this money, other than death, destruction, and massive amounts of cash going to people who don’t appreciate what we do? They don’t appreciate what we do. I’m talking about NATO. I’m talking about Europe. They have to work on Ukraine; we don’t. The United States is very far away. We have a big, beautiful ocean separating us. We have nothing to do with it.
Until I came along, NATO was only supposed to pay 2 percent of GDP, but they weren’t paying. Most of the countries weren’t paying anything. The United States was paying for virtually 100 percent of NATO. And I got that stopped. I said, “That’s not fair.” But then, more importantly, I got NATO to pay 5 percent, and now they were paying, and now they are paying. So something nobody said was possible. They said, “We will never go up higher than 2 percent.” But they went to 5 percent, and now they’re paying the 5. They didn’t pay the 2, and now they’re paying the 5, and they’re stronger for it. And they have an excellent, by the way, secretary-general, who’s possibly in the room. Mark [Rutte], are you here?
Yes, he’s here. Hello, Mark.
We never asked for anything, and we never got anything. We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that.
OK? Now everyone is saying, “Oh, good.” That’s probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force. But 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, where we already had it as a trustee but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians, and others in World War II. We gave it back to them. We were a powerful force then, but we are much more powerful force now, after I rebuilt the military in my first term and continue to do so today. We have a budget of $1.5 trillion.
We’re bringing back battleships. The battleship is 100 times more powerful than the great battleships you saw in World War II, those great, big, gorgeous ships, the Missouri, the Iowa, the Alabama. Because I thought maybe we could take them out of mothballs. They said, “No, sir, these ships are 100”—think of that, 100 times more powerful than those big, big, magnificent pieces of art that you saw so many times ago, that you still see on television and you say, “Wow, what a force.” 100 times—each ship—100 times more powerful than the big battleships of the past. So that was the end of the mothball story.
So what we have gotten out of NATO is nothing, except to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and now Russia. I mean, we’ve helped them for so many years. We’ve never gotten anything, except we pay for NATO, and we paid for many years, until I came along. We paid for, in my opinion, 100 percent of NATO because they weren’t paying their bills.
And all we’re asking for is to get Greenland, including right, title, and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it. You can’t defend it on a lease. No. 1, legally, it’s not defensible that way, totally. And No. 2, psychologically. Who the hell wants to defend a license agreement or a lease, which is a large piece of ice in the middle of the ocean, where, if there is a war, much of the action will take place on that piece of ice? Think of it. Those missiles will be flying right over the center of that piece of ice.
All we want from Denmark for national and international security and to keep our very energetic and dangerous potential enemies at bay is this land on which we’re going to build the greatest Golden Dome ever built. We’re building a Golden Dome that’s going to, just by its very nature, going to be defending Canada. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way—they should be grateful also, but they’re not. I watched your prime minister yesterday; he wasn’t so grateful. But they should be grateful to us, Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark [Carney], the next time you make your statements.
Transcript
‘A Rupture in the World Order’
Read Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s forceful speech at Davos rebuking Trump’s world order.
By Jennifer Williams
What we did for Israel was amazing, but that’s nothing compared to what we have planned for the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world. We are gonna build a dome like no other. We did it. We did it for Israel. And by the way, I told Bibi [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], “Bibi, stop taking credit for the dome. That’s our technology. That’s our stuff.” But they had a lot of courage, and they were good fighters, and they did a good job, and we wiped out the Iran nuclear threat like nobody can believe. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. That, Venezuela, taking down [Iranian Gen.] Qassem Suleimani, wiping out [Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi when he tried to reinstitute ISIS. We did a lot. I did a lot, a lot of big things, all perfectly executed. Everyone was perfectly executed. Somebody told me that. A military expert told me, “Sir, everything you’ve done has been perfectly executed.” I said, “I know.”
So other presidents have spent, whether foolishly or not, trillions and trillions of dollars on NATO and gotten absolutely nothing in return. We’ve never asked for anything. It’s always a one-way street. Now they want us to help them with Ukraine, and let me say, we’re going to. I’m really helping, not even them. I want to see, last week, if you saw, it was 10,000 soldiers, but last month, it was 31,000 soldiers died. 31,000. That’s this room times—the number of people in this room times 30. Think of it. 30,000 soldiers died in one month. The month before was 27,000; the month before that was 28,000; the month before that was 25,000.
It’s a bloodbath over there, and that’s what I want to stop. It doesn’t help the United States. But these are souls. These are young, young people, look like you. Look like some of you, right in the front row. They go to war. Their parents are so proud. Oh, there he goes. Comes back two weeks later, they get a call that says, “Your son’s head’s been blown off.”
I want to stop, but it’s a horrible war. The worst since World War II. They keep going they’ll exceed World War II. The numbers are staggering, how many people they’ve lost. They don’t want to talk about it. Ukraine and Russia lost just tremendous amounts. And I’m dealing with President Putin, and he wants to make a deal, I believe. I’m dealing with [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelensky, and I think he wants to make a deal. I’m meeting him today. He might be in the audience right now. But they got to get that war stopped because too many people are dying, needlessly dying, too many souls are being lost. It’s the only reason I’m interested in doing it. But in doing it, I’m helping Europe. I’m helping NATO. And until the last few days, when I told them about Iceland [Greenland], they loved me.
They called me daddy, right? The last time. A very smart man said, “He’s our daddy, he’s running it.” I was, like, running it. I went from running it to being a terrible human being. But now what I’m asking for is a piece of ice, cold and poorly located, that can play a vital role in world peace and world protection. It’s a very small ask compared to what we have given them for many, many decades.
Analysis
In Davos, a Tale of Two Speeches
Trump follows Greenland threats by announcing a “future deal,” while Canada’s prime minister describes it all as a “rupture in the world order.”
By Ravi Agrawal
But the problem with NATO is that we’ll be there for them 100 percent, but I’m not sure that they’d be there for us if we gave them the call, “Gentlemen, we are being attacked. We’re under attack by such-and-such a nation.”
I know them all very well. I’m not sure that they’d be there. I know we’d be there for them. I don’t know that they’d be there for us. With all of the money we expend, with all of the blood, sweat, and tears, I don’t know that they’d be there for us. They’re not there for us on Iceland [Greenland], that I can tell you. I mean our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland [Greenland]. So Iceland’s [Greenland’s] already cost us a lot of money, but that dip is peanuts compared to what it’s gone up, and we have an unbelievable future in that stock—that stock market is going to be doubled. We’re going to hit 50,000, and that stock market is going to double in a relatively short period of time because of everything that’s happening.
But this is a good example, after giving NATO and European nations trillions and trillions of dollars in defense. They buy our weapons. We make the greatest weapons in the world, but now we’re going to make them faster, much faster. You saw that. I put a cap on the salaries. Then I put no buybacks, no stock buybacks, no various other things that they were doing. They were making $50 million, but it would take them three years to give you a Patriot missile. I said, “That’s not good.” My chauffeur can do a better job than that, and he makes slightly less than 50. They make big salaries. If they’re going to make those big salaries, they’re going to have to produce a lot faster.
The good news is we have the greatest equipment in the world. Now we’re going to start making it a lot faster. They’re going to build additional plants. And all of the money that goes into stock buybacks is going to go into building plants. We’re not allowing stock buybacks by defense companies any longer. They’re going to build new plants to make Tomahawks, Patriots. We have the best equipment. F-35s, F-47s, the new one just coming out. They say it’s the most devastating plane, fighter jet, ever. Who knows? They called it 47. If I don’t like it, I’m going to take the 47 off. And I wonder why they called it 47, we’ll have to think about it. But if I don’t like it, I’m going to take that 47 off. But it’s supposed to be the stage six. It’s supposed to be the first stage six plane. Undetectable, like our B-2 bombers were undetectable. They flew right over Iran. They were undetectable, and they did their job, and they got the hell out of there.
So we want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. We’ve never asked for anything else, and we could have kept that piece of land, and we didn’t. So they have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember.
Read More
Greenland’s Rare Earths Aren’t All That
The island may not be the treasure trove that some U.S. officials think.
Trump’s Greenland Threats Paper Over a Lack of Arctic Strategy
U.S. efforts to counter Russia and China need allies, not targets.
Annexing Greenland Would Be a Strategic Catastrophe
Any attempt by the United States to claim the island would quickly spiral out of control.
This post appeared in FP's The Reading List newsletter. Sign up here.
Rachel Oswald is a staff writer at Foreign Policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment