President Donald Trump on Wednesday used his appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to sharpen his case for bringing Greenland into the U.S. strategic orbit—while also explicitly rejecting the idea of using military force to do it.

“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that,” Trump said. “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” he added.

Greenland—the world’s largest island—sits in the Arctic and handles most of its domestic affairs while remaining part of the Kingdom of Denmark. In recent years, its strategic importance has grown rapidly as Russia and China expand their Arctic interests and the region becomes more militarized.

Trump argued the United States is the only nation with the power and reach to defend Greenland effectively, framing the island as essential to protecting America and its allies from modern threats.

“I have tremendous respect for both the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark, tremendous respect. But every NATO ally has an obligation to be able to defend their own territory, and the fact is, no nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States. We’re a great power,” Trump said.

Watch:

The president called for “immediate negotiations” to revisit Greenland’s status and said the goal is a formal acquisition rather than a temporary arrangement. As Trump framed it, ownership matters both legally and strategically—especially in an era when missile defense, radar coverage, and Arctic power projection could determine the outcome of any future global conflict.

Outlining his demand that the U.S. acquire Greenland in “right, title and ownership,” Trump argued, “you need the ownership to defend it.”

“You can’t defend it on a lease. No. 1, legally, it’s not defensible that way. Totally. And No. 2, psychologically, who the hell wants to defend a license agreement or a lease?” he asked.

While critics have mocked Greenland as remote, ice-covered, and sparsely populated, national security leaders across multiple administrations—Republican and Democrat alike—have recognized the Arctic as one of the most important front lines in the 21st century. Long-range missiles and hypersonic weapons, for example, don’t follow the routes Americans picture on a classroom map. The shortest path between rival powers often runs straight across the polar region, making Greenland a critical location for early-warning systems and missile tracking.

Trump emphasized that point bluntly, describing Greenland as “a large piece of ice in the middle of the ocean,” but warning of its strategic value “if there is a war” with Russia or China.

“Much of the action will take place on that piece of the ice. Think of it, those missiles would be flying right over the center of that piece of ice. That’s all we want from Denmark. For national and international security, and to keep our very energetic and dangerous potential enemies at bay, is this land on which we’re going to build the greatest golden dome ever built,” Trump said.

Trump also criticized Denmark for what he described as a lack of meaningful presence and investment in Greenland’s defense—remarks that align with longstanding Republican calls for NATO burden-sharing and for European allies to meet their commitments rather than relying on American taxpayers.

Moments earlier, Trump said the U.S. is uniquely capable of defending and developing the territory.

“It’s the US alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it,” he said, adding there was “no sign” of Denmark on the island and accusing Copenhagen of underspending on defense.

The White House has reiterated that Trump views Greenland as a national security priority. Officials have also not ruled out the potential use of the U.S. military as the administration evaluates options—though Trump’s remarks in Davos were aimed at drawing a clear distinction between military conquest and diplomatic negotiation.

Trump was asked Tuesday—on the one-year anniversary of his inauguration—how far he would go to secure Greenland and gave a brief response: “you’ll find out.”

Trump first publicly raised the idea of acquiring Greenland in 2019, a move that at the time was dismissed by many media outlets as unserious. But Republican supporters argue the strategic rationale has only strengthened since then, especially as Russia increases its Arctic military infrastructure and China seeks influence through investments and shipping routes enabled by receding ice.

From the administration’s perspective, Greenland is not simply a territorial issue—it’s a matter of U.S. homeland defense, energy and mineral security, and protecting key routes through the North Atlantic and Arctic regions. Conservatives have also pointed to the need to counter China’s global resource strategy, especially as Greenland is believed to hold major deposits of rare earth minerals critical for defense systems, aerospace manufacturing, and advanced technology.

Trump also warned European allies that U.S. patience is running out and tied Greenland negotiations to economic consequences. He said European countries must reach a deal by Feb. 1—or face tariff penalties. Under his plan, goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom would face a 10% tariff if no agreement is reached, rising to 25% by June 1.

European leaders at Davos largely portrayed the tariff push as economic coercion, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling Greenland “non-negotiable.”

She also said the EU would show “full solidarity” with Greenland.

“In politics as in business: a deal is a deal. And when friends shake hands, it must mean something,” von der Leyen said, referencing a trade deal the U.S. finalized with the European Union last summer.

Trump’s supporters argue the broader message is consistent with the “America First” framework that helped power him into office: secure U.S. borders, confront China’s long-term ambitions, push allies to contribute more fairly, and treat national security as non-negotiable.

To Republicans who favor a stronger defense posture and tougher diplomacy, Trump’s Greenland push is seen less as a provocation and more as an attempt to address a changing geopolitical reality—one where the Arctic is becoming a central theater in global competition. At the same time, Trump’s comments made clear he wants the issue resolved through leverage and negotiation, not conflict.

“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said.