President Trump said Wednesday that he was calling off tariff threats that he had issued in an effort to secure American ownership of Greenland, saying he had reached a framework agreement with Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, over the future of the icy Danish territory.
The announcement on Mr. Trump’s social media network came hours after he told European leaders in Davos, Switzerland, that he would not settle for anything less than the United States taking ownership of Greenland — while rescinding a threat to invade it. Mr. Trump had promised dire economic and security consequences for Europe if he did not get his way.
Writing on Truth Social, Mr. Trump said Wednesday evening that he and Mr. Rutte had “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations.”
The president did not immediately give any details of that framework, and notably did not say that the United States would own Greenland, even when asked directly about ownership by a reporter in Davos soon after posting the announcement. Mr. Rutte and the leaders of Denmark did not release details either. NATO did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Earlier in the day, addressing a room full of heads of state, billionaires and other world leaders, Mr. Trump said repeatedly that the United States needed Greenland for national security purposes. He said that only the United States was strong enough to defend Greenland from external threats, and that defending it made sense only if the United States owned it.
He called for “immediate negotiations” to discuss transferring ownership of the semiautonomous island to the United States from Denmark and derided European countries as unrecognizable from their previous beauty, and dependent on the United States. “Without us, most of the countries don’t even work,” Mr. Trump said.
The day encapsulated Mr. Trump’s second-term approach to global power and policymaking: alternating between coercing and humiliating once-close allies in the pursuit of a goal that Mr. Trump appears to see as a critical piece of his legacy.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable,” Mr. Trump said. “But I won’t do that. That’s probably the biggest statement, because people thought I would use force. 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.”
A few breaths later, though, Mr. Trump issued explicit and implicit threats to European leaders if they did not grant his wishes. He reminded the audience that he had unilaterally taxed imports to the United States from countries across Europe and beyond, having already threatened to increase tariffs on Denmark and several European countries that have defended Danish ownership of the island.
As is often the case in their delicate dealings with Mr. Trump, some European leaders reacted to what they saw as the most positive note in the remarks — his pledge not to deploy troops — and expressed hope that they might reach a compromise over Greenland’s future.
Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of the defense committee in Denmark’s Parliament, said in an interview that “we’ve heard a lot worse” from Mr. Trump.
“I’m glad he’s ruling out military force,” Mr. Jarlov said. “I didn’t see in his remarks today an escalation. He insists he wants Greenland, but that’s not new. Of course, we still insist that we are not handing over Greenland.”
Mr. Trump left little room for compromise in his speech, however. Many European leaders have maintained that they cannot countenance ceding ownership of Greenland to the United States, but they also say they would be open to almost any other arrangement that expands America’s presence there. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said, again, that would not suffice.
“You need the ownership to defend it,” Mr. Trump said. A moment later, he added: “Who the hell wants to defend a license agreement or a lease?”
- Credit: The New York Times
- Authors: Jim Tankersley and Zolan Kanno
