Garret Martin,
American University School of International Service
In the days since a fractious World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzeland, ended, some of Europe’s main players have pushed a narrative of continental togetherness. “Trump makes us feel not only German, but also European,” said one influential figure – German soccer star Leon Goretzka.
If even on hypercompetitive fields of European soccer the talk is of unity, then Goretzka – and the plethora of political leaders who have echoed such sentiments – has a point.
But nonetheless, the Davos meeting was yet another dizzying moment for Europe in the age of Trump. It was, to use soccer parlance, a real “game of two halves.”
In the first, the U.S. president used his speech on Jan. 21, 2026, to belittle allies and launch a full-frontal verbal assault on the transatlantic alliance. Trump also stuck to his warning that Greenland – a territory of Denmark – would eventually join the U.S., even if he took the military option off the table that his rhetoric had previously suggested. Within hours, however, Trump had suddenly backed down from threats that included new tariffs on a selection of European partners.
In the second half, Trump vowed to scrap any new U.S. trade barriers and announced the framework of an Arctic security deal, negotiated with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
On the surface, the Greenland crisis may seem defused, much to the relief of Europe. But the episode undoubtedly shook the American-European alliance to its foundations.
As a scholar of transatlantic relations, I believe Trump’s direct threats over Greenland have perhaps more than any other issue revealed Europe’s significant security dilemma. Indeed, navigating foreign relations with the U.S. will remain challenging because of Trump’s unpredictability and apparent ambivalence about maintaining decades of transatlantic security cooperation, the lack of a consistent European approach, and Washington’s willingness to exploit any vulnerabilities among its allies.
If Davos can be said to have ended in a 1-1 draw, then Europe should be aware that many soccer ties result in a rematch.
Despite the high tension on display at Davos, the picture was not entirely negative for Europe. In the face of pressure from Trump, Europe did maintain a united stand in defense of sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also showed mettle by threatening various economic countermeasures, such as suspending a pending U.S.-European Union trade deal and promising counter-tariffs. And it showed that Europe had learned lessons from past tussles with Trump. Indeed, EU leaders had bickered publicly during the summer 2025 negotiations over a U.S.-EU trade agreement, leading to a less-than-favorable deal.
Yet Europe should not take too much comfort from this Greenland dispute, either. Europe cannot be entirely sure that its resolve was decisive in convincing Trump to back down. His motivations remain somewhat unclear, and other factors, such as sliding bond markets, could have been a bigger mitigating influence on the U.S. president. Moreover, the framework of the accord that Trump discussed with NATO’s Rutte is short on details, which keeps the possibility open that Trump might soon restart the fight.
Lastly, even if Trump were to renounce to his Greenland ambitions, likely for lack of good options in acquiring it, Europe could hardly rest on its laurels. Trump’s unpredictability remains a major challenge, considering the next crisis might just be a social media post away.
[Abridged]
No Comments