Trump’s Nobel Grievance Sparks Fresh Rift With Europe as Greenland Dispute Escalates
WASHINGTON: Tensions between the and its European allies have intensified sharply this week after sent an extraordinary and deeply personal message to , linking his renewed push to acquire to his failure to win the .
The message, sent over the weekend and confirmed by Oslo, marks a significant escalation in a dispute that has been simmering for months but has now taken on an openly confrontational tone. In it, Trump argued that the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision not to award him the 2025 Peace Prize had fundamentally altered his approach to diplomacy.
“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,” Trump wrote, in remarks widely described by diplomats as unprecedented. While he insisted that peace would remain “predominant,” he added that he would now prioritise “what is good and proper for the United States.”
Greenland Back at the Centre of Trump’s Strategy
Trump used the message to reiterate his long-standing claim that Greenland is a strategic “security necessity” for the US. The island, an autonomous territory within the , sits at the centre of a rapidly militarising Arctic region, where both and have expanded their presence.
According to Trump, Denmark lacks the capacity to adequately protect Greenland from growing geopolitical competition. He also questioned Denmark’s historical claim to the territory, suggesting that early American exploration gave the US a competing interest.
“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?” Trump wrote. “There are no written documents. It’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago. We had boats landing there also.”
The argument opened a historical can of worms. Critics quickly pointed out that the logic undermines America’s own origins, which rest on European settlement, and even earlier migration across the Bering Strait from Asia that gave rise to Native American populations.
Mockery and Backlash Across Europe
Trump’s reasoning did not go unanswered. In France, commentators and social media users mocked the “first-settler” logic, reminding Washington that without decisive French intervention at Yorktown during the American War of Independence, the US might never have emerged as a sovereign nation.
One viral post sarcastically suggested that, “in the interest of competence, culture and cuisine,” the United States itself could be placed under French stewardship if historical debts were truly being revisited.
Norway, meanwhile, sought to distance itself from the controversy. Prime Minister Støre reiterated that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by an independent committee appointed by Norway’s parliament, not by the government.
“I have several times clearly explained this to President Trump,” Støre said, responding diplomatically to what has become Trump’s fixation with the prize. That obsession has been evident since Trump symbolically accepted a second-hand Nobel from the 2025 laureate, , an act that raised eyebrows across diplomatic circles.
Tariffs, Threats and Nato Anxiety
Trump’s message, leaked in Washington by European embassies that reportedly received it from the , coincides with concrete economic threats. The US has warned of a 10% tariff on imports from eight European countries — including Denmark, , , the , and Norway — effective February 1. That rate could rise to 25% by June unless negotiations over Greenland move forward.
The developments have rattled European capitals. officials have called an emergency summit to consider retaliatory measures, warning of a “dangerous downward spiral” that could seriously damage the alliance.
Some EU members are pushing for the activation of the bloc’s “anti-coercion instrument,” often dubbed the “trade bazooka,” which would allow Brussels to impose countermeasures such as export controls or market restrictions on US firms.
Danish Prime Minister struck a defiant tone, stating that Europe “will not be blackmailed.” Her stance was echoed by , who has urged a unified European response.
Alarm Bells in Washington
The episode has also triggered alarm within the US policy establishment. , president of the , described Trump’s move as “an unprecedented mix of personal grievance and power politics.”
Linking national security objectives to international awards, Bremmer warned, risks severely undermining US credibility.
Former US State Department policy planning director was even blunter, calling the episode “bonkers” on social media and suggesting it illustrated the kind of behaviour “the 25th Amendment is for,” a reference to the constitutional mechanism for removing an unfit president.
Republican Disquiet and Damage Control
Even within Trump’s own party, the reaction has been one of disbelief. Republican Senator , currently in Denmark with a congressional delegation, criticised unnamed advisers for encouraging what he called a reckless push over Greenland.
“The fact that a small handful of advisers are actively pushing for coercive action to seize the territory of an ally is beyond stupid,” Tillis said. “It hurts the legacy of President Trump and undercuts all the work he has done to strengthen Nato.”
The 11-member delegation, led by Democratic Senator , has been attempting damage control, reassuring Danish and Greenlandic leaders of bipartisan US support.
“Greenland is a part of Denmark. Denmark is our Nato ally. That should be the end of this discussion,” Coons said, conceding that relations have “dimmed a bit,” but urging Europeans not to lose faith in the American people.
Our Thoughts
What began as a personal grievance over a Nobel Peace Prize has morphed into a geopolitical confrontation with potentially lasting consequences. By tying national security ambitions to wounded pride, Donald Trump has injected volatility into some of America’s most important alliances. For Europe, the episode reinforces fears about US unpredictability; for Washington, it raises urgent questions about leadership, credibility and the future of Nato cohesion. Whether this crisis escalates further may depend less on strategy than on whether cooler heads can reassert themselves before diplomacy gives way to lasting damage.