Trump Arrives at Davos with Controversial Greenland Agenda Trump landed in the Swiss Alps leading a five‑cabinet entourage, marking the largest U.S. delegation at the World Economic Forum and immediately drawing attention to his demand to acquire Greenland, a move European officials say could destabilize regional security and trade ties [1][3]. His presence is set to dominate panel discussions and bilateral meetings, with attendees anticipating how his rhetoric will influence the summit’s tone [1][3].

European Leaders Warn NATO Cohesion Threatened European heads voiced alarm that Trump’s Greenland push could erode trust within NATO, prompting calls for a “Plan B” and greater strategic autonomy to hedge against potential U.S. policy reversals [1][2]. Canada’s leader warned of a rupture rather than a transition, while EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas pledged to defend EU positions without escalating conflict [1][3]. The dispute also led Denmark to forgo sending representatives to Davos, underscoring the diplomatic fallout [2].

Trump’s Davos Speech Focuses on Housing and Peace Initiative In his scheduled address, Trump plans to champion housing‑market reforms, including caps on institutional home purchases and a government‑backed mortgage‑bond program aimed at lowering borrowing costs for homeowners [2]. He will also unveil an expanded “Board of Peace” with presidential veto power, extending its remit beyond Gaza and inviting select nations to join [2][1]. The agenda is complemented by meetings with Ukrainian President Zelensky and discussions with the Russian envoy on Ukraine [2].

Market Volatility Mirrors Geopolitical Friction Financial markets reacted sharply to the Greenland dispute and broader U.S.–European tensions, with investors pricing in possible tariff threats and policy shifts [1]. Simultaneously, the signing of a Mercosur‑EU trade deal and China’s participation at the finance‑minister level highlighted a reconfiguration of global influence beyond the Atlantic [1][3]. These developments illustrate how diplomatic confrontations are now tightly linked to economic risk assessments [1][3].