Trump’s Greenland Campaign Continues With Economic Threats Despite Peace Pledge

The US president’s World Economic Forum speech demonstrated continued focus on acquiring Greenland through economic and diplomatic coercion despite pledging to avoid military force. Donald Trump’s remarks illustrated his administration’s reliance on leverage rather than armed conquest, combining explicit rejection of military action with implicit threats about remembering which countries cooperate with American territorial demands.
Trump’s security arguments emphasized Greenland’s strategic Arctic position and the inadequacy of current defensive arrangements. He portrayed the island as essential for protecting American interests from Russian and Chinese influence, insisting that his proposed Golden Dome missile defense system requires ownership rather than cooperative agreements. According to Trump, only sovereign control enables maintaining permanent military infrastructure necessary for proper defense.
European officials welcomed Trump’s commitment to peaceful methods while making clear that territorial disputes remain unresolved. Denmark’s foreign minister noted that Trump’s underlying ambitions are intact despite his pledge against invasion, while former NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg acknowledged addressing widespread fears about armed conflict. The measured reactions demonstrated European awareness that Trump’s Greenland campaign continues despite tactical rhetoric adjustments.
Trump’s tariff postponement announcement appeared designed to demonstrate diplomatic progress without requiring immediate concessions from Denmark or Greenland. He claimed talks with NATO Secretary General Rutte had established a framework for Arctic security arrangements, though the vagueness of this supposed agreement and Rutte’s refusal to comment raised questions about substantive achievements. The absence of confirmation from Greenland or Denmark suggested limited genuine progress.
Beyond Greenland, Trump used his platform to attack European policies while promoting American nationalism and economic achievements. He criticized renewable energy, defended fossil fuels, questioned whether NATO allies would defend the United States, attacked immigration as socially disruptive, and deployed rhetoric about Western civilization. The rambling speech drew criticism from attendees including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who dismissed it as insignificant, while some Republican senators expressed concern.