Well, President Donald J. Trump finally has his Nobel Peace Prize. Yesterday, in a visit to the White House, Venezuela opposition leader María Corina Machado presented Trump with the Nobel Peace Prize medal the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded to her in October 2025. Although the medal commemorating the prize can change hands, the committee and the Norwegian Nobel Institute have made it clear that “[o]nce a Nobel Prize is announced, it cannot be revoked, shared, or transferred to others.”
Asked today why he would want someone else’s Nobel Prize, he answered: “Well, she offered it to me. I thought it was very nice. She said, ‘You know, you’ve ended eight wars and nobody deserves this prize more than—in history—than you do.’ I thought it was a very nice gesture. And by the way, I think she’s a very fine woman, and we’ll be talking again.”
With all its members dressed in dark blue suits and red ties—Trump’s usual garb—the Florida Panthers hockey team presented Trump yesterday with a jersey bearing his name and the number 47, two championship rings, and a golden hockey stick. At the ceremony, Trump looked over at the gifts laid out beside the podium at which he was speaking, and told the audience: “I heard they have a little surprise. Ooh, that looks nice. I hope it’s the stick and not just the shirt. That stick looks beautiful. That looks beautiful. Maybe I get both, who the hell knows. I’m president, I’ll just take ‘em.”
And then, of course, Trump says he wants Greenland, a resource-rich autonomous island that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. In a January 8, 2026, piece in the New Yorker, Susan Glasser noted that Trump dumbfounded his advisors in 2018 by suggesting a trade of Puerto Rico for Greenland and, in the fall of 2021, told Glasser and her husband, journalist Peter Baker, that he wanted Greenland as a piece of real estate.
“I’m in real estate,” he told them. “I look at a corner, I say, ‘I gotta get that store for the building that I’m building,’ et cetera. You know, it’s not that different. I love maps. And I always said, ‘Look at the size of this, it’s massive, and that should be part of the United States.’ ” He added, “It’s not different from a real-estate deal. It’s just a little bit larger, to put it mildly.” (Observers note that map projections often either minimize or exaggerate the true size of Greenland: it’s about three times the size of Texas.)
Trump announced his designs on Greenland as soon as he took office the second time, but talk about it quieted down until the administration attacked Venezuela and successfully extracted Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Then Trump turned back to his earlier demands.
Those threats against Greenland and therefore Denmark, a founding member of the defensive North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), directly attack the organization that has underpinned the rules-based international order that has helped to stabilize the world since World War II. As NATO allies, Greenland and the United States have always cooperated on defense matters—indeed, the U.S. Pituffik Space Base is operating in Greenland currently.
In an interview with New York Times reporters on January 7, Trump explained that he wants not simply to work with Greenland, as the U.S. has done successfully for decades, but to own it. “Ownership is very important,” he told David E. Sanger.
“Why is ownership important here?” Sanger asked.
“Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success,” Trump answered. “I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.”
Katie Rogers asked: “Psychologically important to you or to the United States?”
Trump answered: “Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.”
In a different part of the interview, Rogers asked Trump: “Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?” Trump answered: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s very good.”
“Not international law?” asked Zolan Kanno-Youngs. “I don’t need international law,” Trump answered. “I’m not looking to hurt people. I’m not looking to kill people. I’ve ended—remember this, I’ve ended eight wars. Nobody else has ever done that. I’ve ended eight wars and didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize. Pretty amazing.” After more discussion of his fantasy that he has ended eight wars,” Kanno-Youngs followed up: “But do you feel your administration needs to abide by international law on the global stage?”
“Yeah, I do,” Trump said. “You know, I do, but it depends what your definition of international law is.”
In The Atlantic, national security scholar Tom Nichols noted that Trump’s determination to seize Greenland from Denmark, a country with which the U.S. has been allied for more than two centuries, is “extraordinarily dangerous.” Nichols suggests that Trump might simply declare the U.S. owns Greenland and then dare anyone to disagree (much as he declared he won the 2020 presidential election). That could create a disastrous series of events that would “incinerate the NATO alliance.”
With that collapse, Russian president Vladimir Putin might well begin attacking other NATO members, particularly Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (which together, Nichols notes, are about the size of Wisconsin.) If other NATO allies come to their aid, Europe would be at war, and “U.S. forces, like it or not, would find themselves in the middle of this bedlam.” Many of the countries are nuclear powers, and the chances of a “cataclysmic mistake or miscalculation” would grow greater every day. Meanwhile, China might reach for Taiwan, and South Korea and Japan would need to plan for the end of U.S. strategic power, likely with nuclear arms.
Trump is courting peril, Nichols writes. His obsessions “could lead not only to the collapse of [Americans’] standard of living but present a real danger to their lives, no matter where they live.”
Nichols’s concerns are not isolated. They echo those of Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen, who warned that the U.S. seizure of Greenland would mean “the end of NATO.” Defense commissioner for the European Union Andrius Kubilius agreed.
And yet, on social media on Wednesday, Trump denied that his actions could hurt NATO. “Militarily, without the vast power of the United States,” his social media account posted, “NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent—Not even close! They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.”
Later in the day, Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenlandic foreign minister Vivian Motzfeldt met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance, but the meeting left “fundamental disagreements” among the parties after Trump reiterated his conviction that the U.S. “really need[s]” Greenland.
Also on Wednesday, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden launched “Operation Arctic Endurance,” increasing their military presence in Greenland in order, as Germany’s defense ministry said, “to support Denmark in ensuring security in the region.”
An attack on Greenland is wildly unpopular in the United States. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from earlier this week found that just 17% of Americans approve of the U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland. Only 4% think it’s a good idea to take Greenland using military force. When asked about that poll on Wednesday, Trump called it “fake.” Bipartisan groups in Congress have tried to prevent any attack on Greenland by introducing measures that require congressional approval of such an attack, that prevent military action against NATO members, and that prohibit the use of federal funds for any invasion of a NATO member state or NATO-protected territory.
Democrats are outraged about Trump’s threats to undermine the entire post–World War II rules-based international order, and they note that Americans want lower health care costs and cheaper groceries, not Greenland.
Today eleven U.S. lawmakers, led by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), are in Denmark, where they met with Danish prime minister Frederiksen and Greenland’s prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen. Nine Democrats and two Republicans sought to “lower the temperature” by assuring Denmark that the U.S. would not try to seize Greenland. Coons thanked the delegation’s hosts for “225 years of being a good and trusted ally and partner.”
Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told reporters that “support in Congress to acquire Greenland in any way is not there.” Her suggestion reflects the comment of Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) after he met with the Danish envoys in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Wicker later said: “I think it has been made clear from our Danish friends and our friends in Greenland that that future does not include a negotiation” for the acquisition.
Representative Don Bacon (R-NE) went further, telling Wolf Blitzer of CNN that an attack on Greenland will lead to impeachment regardless of who is in control of Congress after the midterm elections.
“You don’t threaten a NATO ally. They’ve been a great ally. We’ve had bases on there since World War II. Denmark has fought with us—by our side—in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I feel it’s incumbent on folks like me to speak up and say these threats and bullying of an ally are wrong. And just on the weird chance he’s serious about invading Greenland, I want to let him know it will probably be the end of his presidency. Most Republicans know this is immoral and wrong, and we’re going to stand up against it…. I think it would lead to impeachment. Invading an ally…is a high crime and a misdemeanor.”
—
