“I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” stated President Donald Trump. On Jan. 18, 2026, President Donald Trump exchanged a text message to Norway’s Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr Store, on the issue of Greenland and decried Norway for not granting him the Nobel Peace Prize.
As outlined in the full exchange first reported by PBS News, President Trump derails the conversation by stating, “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize … I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace …” This marks a drastic shift of the world order previously held by former President Joseph Biden, from one of strengthening existing alliances to brute force rhetoric aimed at abolishing the established European commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
“Biden was a mainstream practitioner of Liberalism,” stated Jason Frederick Lambacher, a lecturer at UW Bothell and with a Ph.D. in political science. Dr. Lambacher describes this difference using terms from the International Relations theory between Biden and Trump as one of rules-based international order to a zero-sum game of anarchy, “This means a belief that a rule-based international order is possible, and both shapes and constrains how a country understands self-interest.” Dr. Lambacher explains, “Previous liberals, like Biden, talked about threats to the world order from regimes that don’t hold democratic values like Russia and China, but sought answers in multilateral institutions and the possibility of cooperation.” While Biden went out in cooperation, aimed at reinforcing international institutions, Trump shifted gears, centering diplomatic relations in the framework of the ‘America First’ policy, one which pursued only America’s interest.
Dr. Lambacher states: “In International Relations theory, America First represents a particular variant of Realism. This is the belief that international politics is a space of anarchy and that any attempt to build international institutions will end in failure.” Dr. Lambacher continues, “The currency of the Realist worldview based on the political theory of Thomas Hobbes, is that power and interest rule international affairs, not cooperation and morality … But these tend to be zero sum games — one side wins, the other side loses.” The whiplash from this sudden switch, especially to Europe, highlights questions about Trump’s ambitions and the motives from the ideology of the Make America Great Again movement.
With this change of U.S. foreign policy, one might wonder what brought forth Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland. Many conservative circles argue ownership of Greenland is necessary for national security. City Journal, a magazine by the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute, has an article written last year, “Trump is Right About Greenland,” arguing ownership of Greenland allows access to economically significant minerals and prevents threats from Russian and Chinese ambitions. This would initiate refocusing American presence in the Western hemisphere and create a way for the island of Greenland to deter an invasion from Russia and China. Additionally, Randy Fine, a Republican congressman and a staunch Trump supporter, proposed a bill called, The Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act, that authorizes the President to take any necessary steps to annex or acquire Greenland as a territory of the United States. Congressman Fine asserts that after the U.S. took out the Venezuelan Dictator, Nicholas Maduro, a key ally of Russia and China, U.S. adversaries are eager to strike back in the Arctic, thus requiring decisive action as a necessary step to restore American strength. Those in the dissenting camp for opposing Trump’s foreign policy refute through explaining this divisive rhetoric risks fissures within our western alliances and spurs a rupture of the multilateral post-World War II architecture that the United States has greatly benefited from.
The United States has seen its coalition with its European allies as a key tool to power American exceptionalism in pursuit of our military might and economy. Russia’s fourth year invasion of Ukraine showed stabilization of NATO provides a way to combat the Russian President, Vladimir Putin’s, disastrous objective on the continent. This galvanizes U.S. strength against its adversaries, painting the United States as a reliable ally for Europe.
Comparative advantage is the theory that advocates for the specialization of tasks to generate a suitable outcome for both parties involved. As the United States specializes in its defense spending, it eases Europe’s expenditures on their own defense spending, carving a way for Europe to fulfill programs to help their citizens. While Trump touts the notion of low levels of defense spending by other NATO members, he fails to acknowledge U.S. reliability to Europe has mutually strengthened the economy in America’s favor. Wilson Center, a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to research on global issues, has an article detailing reports and academic papers on how NATO has economically boosted U.S. bilateral trade with Europe.
Another benefit for engaging in diplomacy demonstrates to the geopolitical world that the United States can achieve its goals without the use of military combat, using force portrays the U.S. as a weak entity incapable of negotiating on the table. The Arctic Council, for instance, is a multilateral institution with the sole purpose of promoting cooperation with the stakeholders in the Arctic. Through this institution, the United States would gain tremendous respect for resolving its dispute in a professional manner. Considering Trump’s harsh way of diplomacy, many criticize his politics as childish.
Thomas L. Friedman, a New York Times Opinion Columnist, wrote “Trump’s Politics Are Not America First. They’re Me First.” Friedman elaborates on the root cause of Trump’s forceful way of diplomacy as, “… a pathological narcissist who insists on having his name on everything — from someone else’s Kennedy Center to someone else’s Nobel Peace Prize — would risk all of the above to seize Greenland,” Friedman wrote.
Dr. Lambacher expresses his own opinion on the arguments advocating for ownership of Greenland. “The security argument is puzzling. There is a 1951 treaty that allows for U.S. bases on the territory. We’ve had them there since this time as first defense against thermonuclear war during the tense years of the Cold War … I have a hard time seeing how aggression is worthy of an esteemed peace prize. FIFA just gave Trump a made-up peace prize. Is that enough?” Reaction from European leaders has seen distrust of the American government with many in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, Davos 2026, casting their opinion.
Due to Trump’s new foreign policy decisions, many European leaders sense a real possibility that the United States would invade Greenland. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a news conference, “The possibility of military conflict is not ruled out … We should be prepared for anything if possible,” per CNBC. This highlights the stark reality under Trump’s geopolitical world, one where even a NATO ally cannot trust the foundation of its organization. In his speech at Davos, the German Chancellor Fredrich Merz characterizes this brutal emergence from the United States as a warning sign for Europe to face the harsh reality. “This new world of great powers is being built on power, on strength and when it comes to it, on force.” Merz said, “To succeed, we must face harsh realities and chart our course with clear-eyed realism.” For many Greenlanders, this adds another issue for its inhabitants, with the island grappling the wrought of climate change politics.
Greenland faces significant melting from the increasing effects of climate change, one exacerbated by the refusal of the Trump administration to bring awareness toward the issue. An AP News article reveals that the Sermeq Kujalleq glacier has lost huge chunks from the onslaught of the warming climate. This bombardment of melting ice erases the culture of dog sledding for Greenlanders, creating difficulty for hunters. The rising temperatures has seen test runs of cargo ships in the Arctic by a Chinese company according to Politico. Given the Trump Administration’s spouts about climate denialism and its decision to roll back the 2009 Endangerment finding providing scientific basis for greenhouse gas regulation per Brookings, it calls attention to the ironic nature of how Greenland became a geopolitical hotspot. This is one where, worries of Russian and Chinese presence, are brought forth by the Trump’s reluctance to curb climate change.
Ultimately, Trump signaled in his speech at Davos, stating he won’t use force to acquire Greenland, but moving forward could see a future of Europe slowly decoupling from the U.S. As the United States pulls its attention toward a more aggressive form of diplomacy, one vested in taunting NATO allies, it tarnishes the trust formed with Europe and reveals a world ruled solely through force. Even with the assurance from Trump that no military force will be used, it leaves this nearly 80-year-old alliance in dismay about its future. While Donald Trump relishes in his militaristic geopolitical strategy, it leaves international cooperation behind.
Noah from BIS 284 A
Wow I read this for a class assignment, and just thought it was some professional source, but later was surprised to find out it was a student article. Nice writing!