Trump softens Greenland tariff threat against European allies
After meeting NATO chief Mark Rutte in Davos, Trump said he would drop the planned February 1 tariffs, citing an understanding reached.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday abruptly walked back his threat to impose tariffs on European allies over U.S. control of Greenland, announcing a pause after reaching what he described as a “framework of a future deal” on Arctic security with NATO leadership.
The reversal came after Trump met NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. Writing later on his Truth Social platform, the president said he would not proceed with tariffs that were scheduled to take effect on February 1, though he offered few details about the understanding reached. The move marked a sharp change in tone just hours after Trump had doubled down on his long-standing claim that the United States should ultimately control Greenland.
Earlier in the day, Trump had insisted that he wanted to “get Greenland, including right, title and ownership,” while simultaneously saying he would not use force to achieve that goal. He mocked European allies, suggested NATO should not interfere with U.S. ambitions, and framed American territorial expansion as both justified and overdue.
Speaking in an extraordinary and often combative address at Davos, Trump described Greenland as territory that was “cold and poorly located,” but argued that its strategic value made it essential for U.S. and global security. He reminded his audience of America’s role in World War II, claiming the U.S. had effectively saved Europe, and dismissed NATO concerns as minor in comparison.
The comments sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, with analysts warning that such rhetoric could fracture one of the world’s most durable alliances. NATO, founded during the early Cold War by the United States, Canada and leading European nations to counter the Soviet Union, has long been regarded as among the most stable geopolitical pacts in history. Trump’s remarks, critics said, risk undermining that foundation.
Trump has repeatedly argued that U.S. control of Greenland is necessary to counter growing Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. The region has become increasingly important as melting ice opens new shipping lanes and access to untapped resources. While the U.S. already maintains a major military base in Greenland, Trump has maintained that this presence is insufficient given the scale of emerging threats.
Denmark, which governs Greenland as an autonomous territory within the Danish kingdom, has consistently rejected any suggestion of a sale or transfer of sovereignty. NATO members have echoed that position, stressing that Greenland is not for sale and cannot be taken from Denmark under any circumstances.
A Danish government official told The Associated Press after Trump’s speech that Copenhagen is prepared to discuss U.S. security concerns in the Arctic, but emphasized that there are firm limits to what can be negotiated. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the official said Denmark’s “red lines”—chief among them national sovereignty—must be respected.
The reaction in Greenland itself was swift and uneasy. The island’s government issued guidance urging residents to be prepared for potential crises, releasing a handbook in both English and Greenlandic that advises households to stock enough food, water,
In Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, some residents took the warnings seriously. “We just went to the grocery store and bought the supplies,” said Tony Jakobsen, holding bags filled with candles, snacks and toilet paper. Jakobsen said he believed Trump’s statements were “just threats,” but added that it was better to be cautious than caught off guard.
Despite Wednesday’s tariff reversal, Trump’s broader message remained confrontational. He urged Denmark and NATO to stand aside, issuing what many interpreted as an ominous warning.
Supporters of the president argue that his tactics are deliberate. Trump has long used pressure, public threats and sudden reversals as negotiating tools, believing they give him leverage and force counterparts to the table. His Davos performance appeared to follow that pattern—escalating rhetoric first, then stepping back just enough to claim progress.
Whether the “framework” mentioned by Trump represents a meaningful diplomatic breakthrough or merely a temporary cooling-off period remains unclear. For now, tariffs are off the table, but the underlying dispute over Greenland—and the future of Arctic security—shows no sign of disappearing. What is clear is that Trump’s words have once again tested the resilience of America’s alliances, raising questions about how far his confrontational approach can go before it triggers lasting damage.