At the World Economic Forum in Davos on 21 January, President Donald Trump launched a broadside at European allies, declaring that Europe was "not going in the right direction" and pressing a renewed demand that the United States begin "immediate" negotiations to acquire Greenland. He framed the island as a "core national security interest" for Washington, insisted he would not use force to take the Danish autonomous territory, and told Denmark and other European governments: "You can say yes — we'd be very thankful; or you can say no — we'll remember." Trump did not specify what kind of legal or political arrangement he envisioned with Denmark for the island's future.
In a roughly hour-long address, Trump also attacked European migration and green-energy policies and reiterated longstanding complaints about NATO burden-sharing, saying the alliance treated the United States unfairly and might not defend America in a crisis. He returned to a contested historical claim that the United States had returned Greenland to Denmark after World War II and accused Denmark of ingratitude. European and U.S. media outlets have repeatedly flagged that claim as without historical or legal basis: Greenland has been part of the Danish realm for centuries and international law does not recognise any U.S. title to the island.
Greenland matters far beyond symbolic politics. The island is a Danish autonomous territory with internal self-government since 1979 and expanded self-rule since 2009; Copenhagen retains responsibility for defence and foreign affairs. Its vast geography now has outsized strategic importance as climate change opens Arctic sea routes and exposes onshore resources, and because of the presence of the U.S. Thule Air Base and other logistics sites that support transatlantic surveillance and missile-warning systems.
Trump's public demand to buy Greenland compounds a persistent source of tension with NATO and European capitals. Even if framed as a bilateral real-estate transaction, the proposal collides with legal, political and diplomatic realities: sale would require agreement from both Denmark and Greenland's local institutions, run counter to Danish sovereignty, and risk a sharp diplomatic rupture with an important European ally. European leaders are also sensitive to rhetoric that appears to treat allied territory as negotiable and might see the episode as part of a broader pattern of transactional U.S. relations.
What to watch next is how Copenhagen and Nuuk respond, whether Washington attempts formal diplomatic approaches, and how the episode affects alliance cohesion. A firm Danish refusal would probably end any realistic prospect of negotiation but could deepen public strains with the United States. A flirtation with a serious diplomatic push would intensify scrutiny of U.S. Arctic policy, raise questions about Greenlandic self-determination, and invite other powers with Arctic ambitions to exploit rifts among Western allies.