Davos: US President Donald Trump has reversed his controversial decision to impose tariffs on several European NATO allies over their refusal to support his desire for a deal involving Greenland, announcing instead that he and NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte have agreed on what he described as a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland and the Arctic region.
According to various media reports, at the World Economic Forum, he said US had effectively saved Europe during World War II and even declared of NATO. “It’s a very small ask compared to what we have given them for many, many decades,” he said, as quoted by NDTV World.
“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, OK?” Trump said. The US President reportedly emphasised that he didn’t want to use force.
Later, in a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated that the understanding reached with Rutte would be beneficial for the United States and all NATO members and, on that basis, he would not impose the tariffs that were scheduled to take effect on 1 February against eight European nations.
Trump’s announcement marks a dramatic reversal from recent days, during which he had both threatened new tariffs and insisted the United States should gain “right, title and ownership” of Greenland — a Danish territory whose sovereignty Denmark and its European allies have repeatedly rejected.
According to Trump, the agreement with NATO represents the outline for future negotiations on matters related to Greenland and the broader Arctic region. He referenced additional talks on strategic matters, including U.S. missile defense initiatives such as what he calls the “Golden Dome,” though he provided few concrete details.
Trump described the arrangement as lasting “forever” and emphasized US national security interests, while asserting NATO’s collective security role.
What’s the Arctic sentry discussed in the framework?
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, in an interview to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and BBC Breakfast, mentioned the “Arctic sentry” discussed as part of the deal framework, would be a combined operation programme that draws NATO countries together to work on a “shared threat”.
‘Coordinated approach across allies…’
The work could involve “different Arctic countries coming together, supported by other Nato countries”, she added, as reported by the BBC.
On being asked why Trump climbed down on previous threats, Cooper said: “I think there’s been a very coordinated approach across allies”.
What’s Denmark’s proposal for the Arctic sentry?
The chairman of Denmark’s Foreign Affairs Committee offered some detail on what has been proposed in security talks on Greenland, according to a BBC report.
In an interview to BBC’s Today programme, Christian Friis Bach had said his committee proposed the idea of an “Arctic sentry” – made up of vessels and aircraft patrolling the region. He, as mentioned in the report, claimed that the proposal was made in talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
“Denmark has scaled up our military presence already together with Nato allies. I hope the Americans will join; this would be a welcome development,” he said, as reported by BBC.
Did UK play a role in Trump’s U-turn?
But why did Trump take a U-turn? On this, Cooper said—in the BBC interview—Keir Starmer had been “strong and robust”, and that the UK did three key things.
According to the interview report, UK has been “unwavering” in supporting Greenland and Denmark’s sovereignty, has “coordinated closely with allies”, and has put forward “constructive approaches” about strengthening Arctic security, including through an Arctic sentry as part of NATO.
What did the NATO chief say?
NATO’s official statements on the meeting highlighted discussions about the strategic importance of Arctic security for all members, though they did not explicitly confirm a finalized deal on Greenland. However, the Secretary General had made some key observations.
In the session on ‘Deutsche Welle’s Conflict Zone’ at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, moderator Sarah Kelly had asked Rutte that will a shift towards a world without rules will fundamentally damage the foundations of NATO, he replied: “Of course, I see that there are these tensions at the moment. There’s no doubt. Again, I’m not going to comment on that, but I can assure you, the only way to deal with that is, in the end, thoughtful diplomacy. So statements from me will not add anything here.”
“And when it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right, other leaders in NATO are right: we need to defend the Arctic. We know that the sea lanes are opening up. We know that China and Russia are increasingly active in the Arctic. There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic. Seven are a member of NATO, that’s Finland and Sweden and Norway and Denmark, Iceland, Canada and the US. And there’s only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, that’s Russia,” he added.
“have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence…”
“And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So, President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence. And that is exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September. We are working on that, making sure that, collectively, will we defend the Arctic region,” he said.
NATO chief praises Trump, says US & Europe completely integrated on NATO working
“There was one big irritant on the on the American side with NATO, and the big irritant, since Eisenhower, was that they were spending, the US was spending, so much more than Europe was spending. Even today, the US is spending 3.5% of GDP on core defence; we are spending in Europe average 2% on defence. And here’s my question to the audience. I mean, many of you, I know, criticize Donald Trump, but do you really think that without Donald Trump, eight big economies in Europe, including Spain and Italy and Belgium, Canada, by the way, also outside Europe, would have come to 2% in 2025 when they were only on 1.5% at the beginning of the year? No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2% now,” he said, on being asked if European NATO Allies need to think more about having capabilities that overlap with the United States?
“NATO is constructed like this: that the US, Canada and the European NATO Allies work completely integrated. It doesn’t mean that there is the US coming to the rescue of Europe, or Europe coming to the rescue of the United States – we are working completely integrated,” he said.
The backdrop
European governments, including Denmark, have consistently maintained that Greenland is not for sale and that any discussions must respect Danish sovereignty. Following Trump’s tariff withdrawal, Danish officials welcomed the development as a more constructive turn in the dispute.
However, some European leaders have previously criticized Trump’s earlier tariff threats as harmful to transatlantic cooperation and inappropriate pressure on allies.
Trump’s aggressive approach earlier in the week, including threats of tariffs and rhetorical pressure over territorial ambitions, had sparked diplomatic unease and market volatility. The announcement of the framework and the tariff withdrawal helped ease tensions and saw positive reactions in some financial markets.
Analysts note that while the “framework” announcement defuses an immediate crisis, the path to any substantive agreement involving Greenland, Denmark and other stakeholders remains unclear and will likely require extensive negotiation.
Trump has stated that further high-level negotiations — involving figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoys — will continue, and that more information will be released as these discussions progress.
The evolving situation will remain a focal point of international diplomatic attention, particularly concerning Arctic security, NATO cohesion, and U.S.–European relations.
