Donald Trump Warns World 'Not Secure' Without US Control Of Greenland After Nobel Peace Prize Snub

A text message sent on Sunday evening has fundamentally altered the nature of Donald Trump's demand for American control of Greenland. In what can only be described as an astonishing admission, the US President has explicitly linked his pursuit of the Danish Arctic territory to his failure to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

What began as a geopolitical power play has now been revealed as something far more troubling: a grievance-driven foreign policy divorced entirely from traditional diplomatic rationale.

In a message to Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, verified by American media and confirmed by the Norwegian government itself, Trump stated: 'Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.'

He concluded with his increasingly familiar refrain: 'The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.'

The message represents a startling escalation in Trump's rhetoric. By publicly conceding that his willingness to exercise restraint—and presumably, his entire diplomatic posture—depends upon international recognition via a prestigious award, Trump has inadvertently revealed the personal grievance fuelling what he presents as strategic necessity.

The Norwegian Prime Minister, responding to reporters on Monday, gently reminded Trump that an independent committee, not the Norwegian government, awards the Nobel Peace Prize. The distinction appeared to have escaped the President's notice entirely.

Trump's Greenland Demands: How a Medal Became Leverage in Foreign Policy

The context for Trump's message illuminates the current impasse. Støre and Finland's President Alexander Stubb had texted Trump over the weekend, urging de-escalation and proposing a three-way phone call. They opposed Trump's announced plan to impose 10 per cent tariffs on eight NATO allies—the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden—beginning 1 February, escalating to 25 per cent by June.

Trump's response was, in essence, that he had been denied a peace prize and therefore Europe should not expect him to behave diplomatically.

This is not merely crude; it is destabilising. The post-war transatlantic alliance rested upon shared commitments to collective security and international law. Trump's message—that American restraint is transactional, contingent upon international recognition—upends that arrangement.

When the US President suggests that not receiving a peace prize justifies threatening economic warfare against allies, the architecture of NATO itself becomes questionable.

The ironies abound. Trump blamed Norway for not awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the Norwegian government exercising no control over the award.

Meanwhile, he claimed to have 'stopped 8 Wars,' a assertion disputed by analysts, some of whom note that conflicts Trump identifies as concluded—Gaza, the Democratic Republic of the Congo—remain actively violent. Furthermore, Trump has already received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize in December 2025, which he accepted despite its dubious legitimacy.

Trump's Greenland Tariff Strategy: Europe Draws a Line

Europe's response has been appropriately severe. A coalition of eight NATO members issued a joint statement warning that 'tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral'. Germany's Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil declared bluntly: 'We have reached our limit.'

France is requesting activation of the European Union's 'anti-coercion instrument'—colloquially known as the 'trade bazooka'—which could severely restrict American access to European markets.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was unambiguous: any decision regarding Greenland's future 'belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone', and the use of tariffs against allies is 'completely wrong'. An emergency European Council meeting has been scheduled for Thursday in Brussels to coordinate response.

Trump's justification for acquiring Greenland rests ostensibly on national security: the island's Arctic location provides strategic advantage against Russian and Chinese military activity.

A 1951 defence agreement already grants American forces access to Greenland; Denmark has demonstrated willingness to expand that presence. These facts render Trump's acquisition demand redundant from a security perspective.

What has emerged instead is something simpler and far more destabilising: a President who views the world as responding to coercion, and who expects allies to accommodate territorial acquisition demands because he feels insufficiently honoured. When foreign policy becomes an expression of personal grievance, NATO's cohesion—already tested—approaches breaking point.