The vague “framework of a future deal” between the United States and NATO regarding Greenland seemingly ends the latest President Donald Trump-inspired near-fracture of the NATO alliance for now.
Trump ruled out using military force to acquire the Arctic island during his speech at the Davos World Economic Forum on Wednesday. After a subsequent meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Trump said, “We have 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.”
Trump did not specify who would be part of these negotiations or any other details. He did say, however, that as a result of the preliminary deal, he would hold off on the 10% tariffs he threatened to impose on European countries over the Greenland dispute.
It’s unclear whether the U.S. will acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, even though most European leaders expressed outrage at the possibility of America pursuing the goal without securing Greenland’s and Denmark’s approval.
The ultimate deal, if and when it’s finalized, could include increasing defense spending for the island vital for Arctic security, possibly by Denmark, NATO, and perhaps the United States, which already has one base there.
Greenland and defense spending
Paradoxically, whatever comes of this agreement, which pulls all sides back from potentially permanent damage to the alliance, could ultimately help address at least one of Trump’s long-standing disputes with Europe, which revolves around defense spending.
While Trump said in his address that it is the U.S. “alone that can protect” Greenland, one of his enduring missions as president has been to push the continent to strengthen its defenses.
“The United States is treated very unfairly by NATO. I want to tell you that. And when you think about it, nobody can dispute it,” he said. “We give so much, and we get so little in return. And I’ve been a critic of NATO for many years. And yet I’ve done more to help NATO than any other president by far than any other person. You wouldn’t have NATO if I didn’t get involved in my first term.”
The Trump administration has argued that Denmark is unable to defend Greenland and that the island is of such importance that it cannot risk a situation in which Western adversaries are able to seize control of it.
Trump has long railed against NATO for members failing to meet the defense spending minimum, especially during his first term.
Amid speculation that Trump could pull out of the alliance, Rutte, then the prime minister of the Netherlands, convinced Trump that European members were increasing their defense spending. The debacle earned Rutte the nickname “the Trump whisperer.”
Trump’s point then, in 2018, remained a significant criticism when he was elected again in November 2024. There were signs he would demand that the alliance raise its minimum defense spending requirement before his inauguration, even though European countries had significantly increased their spending since his first term due to concerns arising from the Russia-Ukraine war.
About a month into his second inauguration, War Secretary Pete Hegseth informed his NATO counterparts that “we’re also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”
The previous spending minimum was 2% of gross domestic product; 23 of the 32 NATO countries met that threshold in 2024.
Trump told reporters in March, “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them,” while in June, the alliance agreed to raise it to 5% with the expectation that it could take several years for the country to hit the mark.
Rutte has praised Trump for encouraging the alliance to increase its spending, even as the president did so in part by threatening not to come to the aid of an ally in need. But it led to the president’s desired outcome, a Europe more willing to spend on its own defense.
Ukraine
Trump’s criticisms of NATO also include how the West supports Ukraine amid Russia’s war there. He has created a new system for aiding the war-torn country, forcing European countries to buy U.S. weapons to give to Ukraine instead of having the U.S. foot the bill.
“The war with Ukraine is an example. We are thousands of miles away, separated by a giant ocean,” he said.
The president began his second administration with a new strategy for ending the war in Ukraine, one that differed from his predecessor’s, who was aligned with nearly the entire NATO alliance. Instead of completely supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, the Trump administration has sought to negotiate with both Russia and Ukraine, including inviting Russian President Vladimir Putin to a summit in Alaska last summer and forcing a restructuring of U.S. military support for Ukraine to ensure Europe foots the bill.
Choosing to negotiate with the Kremlin, and, at times, publicly rebuking Ukraine, has earned him criticism from European leaders. In the days after the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, several European leaders raced to Washington, D.C., to meet with Trump.
“While progress has been made, the next step must be further talks involving President Zelensky. The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without him,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said at the time, even as he noted Trump’s actions had “brought us closer than ever before” to an end to the war in Ukraine.
The dichotomy of Starmer’s statement is representative of many of the comments made at the time about Trump’s efforts to end the war, praising the president’s efforts but wary of his engagements with the Russians, given the president’s own comments.
Migration
The president has also levied criticism against his European counterparts on migration, which he argues is fundamentally changing the continent.
“I love Europe, and I want to see Europe do good, but it’s not heading in the right direction,” he said in his address. “In recent decades, it became conventional wisdom in Washington and European capitals that the only way to grow a modern Western economy was through ever-increasing government spending, unchecked mass migration, and endless foreign imports.”
Trump and his administration have characterized the U.S. as “sentimentally attached to the European continent” but have expressed concerns about “loss of national identities and self-confidence.”
In the White House’s latest National Security Strategy, the administration stated bluntly that it fears the prospect of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and its belief that “should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.”
