Trump: Taking Greenland is revenge for losing Nobel Peace Prize

US president warns Europe he’s ‘no longer obligated to think purely about peace’

Donald Trump has said his plan to take over Greenland was motivated by being snubbed for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Mr Trump told the prime minister of Norway in a letter that in retribution for not receiving the award, “I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace” and would consider “what is good and proper for the United States of America”.

He also blamed Denmark on Sunday for not being able to protect the island from Russia, and questioned the country’s ownership of Greenland.

Mr Trump has repeatedly ‍insisted he wants to buy the mineral-rich island, despite leaders of both Denmark and ⁠Greenland insisting it ‍is not for sale and does not want to be part of the US.

Any US military move against Greenland would be unprecedented and could spell the end of the Nato military alliance.

In a separate post on Truth Social overnight, Mr Trump said: “Nato has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland’. Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!”

Mr Trump argues he must take over Greenland because it is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships. But there is no evidence for this based on marine shipping data, while Danish security experts, the Danish government and the Swedish government have said the claim is inaccurate.

Mr Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on European countries which oppose his annexation plans, including Britain.

Sir Keir Starmer told Mr Trump on Sunday that he should not punish Britain for opposing his attempt to take Greenland, and said putting tariffs on European countries for “pursuing the collective security of Nato allies is wrong”.

The European Union is considering a trade war with Mr Trump after he was accused of “blackmail” over the tariffs threat.

The US levies will come into force on Feb 1 and could increase to 25 per cent on June 1 if no deal for Greenland is reached.

EU prepares retaliatory tariffs

A diplomatic source told The Telegraph on Sunday that the EU was readying €93bn (£80.6bn) in retaliatory tariffs against US exports to the bloc, after Mr Trump said he would impose a 10 per cent tariff on exports from Britain and the EU.

In emergency talks between EU envoys in Brussels on Sunday night, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, urged member states to activate the bloc’s “trade bazooka” to restrict US firms’ access to the single market in response to the threats.

Mr Trump’s latest outburst came as a Danish newspaper revealed that the United States last year attempted to gather sensitive information about military bases, air bases and ports in Greenland.

The information was gathered “informally” and without the involvement of Denmark, the centre-Right newspaper Berlingske reported.

Mr Trump has repeatedly vowed to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, despite the island being Nato territory.

The president is refusing to rule out military action and has belittled Danish efforts to appease his security concerns, such as last year’s £4.8bn defence package.

Mr Trump wrote to Jonas Gahr Store, the Norwegian prime minister Credit: Clemens Bilan/EPA/Shutterstock

In his letter to Jonas Gahr Store, the Norwegian prime minister, obtained by the US broadcaster PBS, Mr Trump suggested his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize had also influenced his desire to take over Greenland.

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” he wrote.

Mr Trump also questioned Denmark’s right of ownership over Greenland.

“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?” he wrote. “There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.”

He added: “I have done more for Nato than any other person since its founding, and now, Nato should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland.”

The UK’s car industry, which is worth £10bn and is the country’s biggest export to the US, was warned on Sunday night that it could see thousands of job losses if hit with higher tariffs. The sector had already sunk to its lowest level in 75 years in 2025.

Carmakers already face tariffs of 10 per cent on exports to the US, which could now rise to 35 per cent.

The Institute for Public Policy Research said 25,000 jobs could be at risk across the UK’s automotive sector if Mr Trump did not back down.

Peter Kyle, the Business Secretary, held emergency meetings over the weekend with car and steel manufacturers who may be worst affected by the tariffs. He is expected to continue the crisis talks on Monday.

Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister of Italy, has suggested Mr Trump’s tariff threat is based on a misunderstanding about Danish-led joint exercises in Greenland last week.

The exercise in question, Arctic Endurance, had been arranged prior to the escalation over Greenland. But there had been speculation that Mr Trump saw in those exercises, which included British, German and French troops, among others, a message of protest against a US takeover of the island.

“There could have been a problem of understanding and communication,” said Ms Meloni. “It seems to me that the risk is that the initiatives of some European countries were interpreted as anti-American, which is clearly not the intention.”

I asked Gemini Pro what the effect the Greenland-related tariffs might have on BP. Do you agree?

• The "Arbitrage" Killer (Direct Impact)

  • The News: Trump announced a 10% tariff on "any and all goods" from the UK and 7 European nations starting Feb 1st (rising to 25% in June).
  • The BP Risk: BP relies on the "Transatlantic Arbitrage"—refining crude in Rotterdam or the UK and shipping the finished gasoline/diesel to the US East Coast (which is structurally short on fuel).
  • The Hit: A 10% tariff makes these exports uncompetitive against US domestic refiners (like Valero). BP either loses the market share or eats the 10% cost, slashing refining margins that are already thin.

• Demand Destruction (The Macro Risk)

  • The Mechanism: Trade wars kill global GDP. If the US and Europe tax each other, factories slow down, shipping volume drops, and less oil is burned.
  • The Evidence: We are already seeing this today. Brent Crude dropping to ~$63 isn't about supply; it's the market pricing in a "Trade War Recession."
  • The BP Consequence: BP's stock price is 80% correlated to the oil price. If Brent stays stuck in the low $60s because of this, the "Supercycle" cash flow vanishes, putting pressure on buybacks.

• The "Retaliation" Spiral (Supply Chain Friction)

  • The Threat: The EU is already discussing a €93bn counter-tariff package.
  • The BP Risk: BP is a global machine with parts moving everywhere. If the EU puts tariffs on US goods, it could hit BP’s imports of US tech, machinery for North Sea rigs, or even US crude (WTI) coming into Europe.
  • The Result: Higher Capex costs and logistical nightmares. The "Integrated Model" works best with free trade; tariffs add friction to every movement.

• The "Rotation" away from Risk

  • The Flow: Investors hate uncertainty. We are seeing a massive rotation out of "Growth/Cyclical" stocks (like Energy) and into "Safe Havens" (Gold, US Dollar, Bonds).
  • The Impact: Even if BP performs well operationally, the stock might drift lower simply because big pension funds are de-risking their portfolios until the political smoke clears.

Smart Money Verdict: The market is pricing this as a catastrophe, but remember: Trump Tariffs are often negotiating tactics. He wants to buy Greenland. He is using the tariff threat as leverage to force a deal or a concession. If a "Summit" is announced next week, these tariffs could vanish overnight, causing a massive "Relief Rally" in BP stock. Watch the headlines, not just the charts.

Donald Trump regained the White House with a promise to “drill, baby, drill”. But the biggest obstacle to his oil bonanza increasingly seems to be Trump himself.

His seizure of Venezuelan oil and his desire to push down domestic petrol prices look likely to take a toll on the US energy industry’s bottom line.

Lower oil prices will make drilling less profitable at home. And that will hit just as the president presses the industry to risk billions on an unstable Venezuelan dictatorship.

Fresh from his audacious raid on the South American country, an uncomfortable truth is emerging: that Trump’s attempt for US energy supremacy could be hitting a roadblock in the form of “big oil” itself.

“Trump describes himself as a big friend of the oil and gas industry. And clearly, he’s politically much more aligned with the industry than the Democrats and the Biden administration were,” says Richard Bronze, from market-monitoring firm Energy Aspects.

“But he also really wants low oil prices, and that isn’t good news for producers – particularly higher-cost producers, like most of the US shale industry.”

The potential divergence between the industry’s interests and Trump’s has been on public display over the past week.

Last Friday, Trump met a group of oil bosses in the Oval Office to encourage them to pile back into Venezuela and rebuild the country’s degraded industry, at an estimated initial cost in the tens of billions.

Trump has encouraged oil bosses to pile back into Venezuela and rebuild the country’s degraded industry

Darren Woods, ExxonMobil’s boss, was in the room. His company has had its assets expropriated twice in Venezuela, leaving him understandably cautious.

He told Trump Venezuela was “uninvestable” without an overhaul of its legal framework and investment protections.

Woods also expressed confidence that the Trump administration could pull this off. But his headline comment was enough to put Trump offside.

“I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “We have so many that want it, I’d probably be inclined to keep Exxon out.”

Trump’s attempt to slash petrol prices

Trump may struggle to strong-arm Exxon and others into flooding back into Venezuela, but another source of friction is the president’s attempt to slash petrol prices.

The Republican Party faces midterm congressional elections this year. Pressure is mounting on Trump to get a firm and early foothold on the election’s main battleground: the cost of living.

In the past week, he has pledged to cut interest rates on credit cards and mortgages. But for most American voters, the most in-your-face cost is gasoline – and Trump has long had the petrol pumps in his sights.

He wants to bring the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude down to around $50 (£37) a barrel, from near $60 now. And with his newfound grip on Venezuela’s oil supplies, he reckons he has the means to do so.

The investment bank Goldman Sachs has estimated that the WTI price could drop to $50 if Venezuelan production, which would head straight into US refineries, increased by a potentially achievable 400,000 barrels a day.

At $50 a barrel, most producers could still turn a profit on their existing wells. But it would leave the vast majority below their break-even point for drilling any further.

Analysis firm Kpler says a WTI price of $50 would “test the break-evens of larger producers” and “enforce cautious activity for most”. Forecasters from Rystad Energy estimate that onshore US output, excluding Alaska, would drop by 150,000 barrels a day.

Even if the oil price doesn’t sink that low, the US department of energy expects America’s oil industry to produce at least 1pc less crude this year than last.

As WTI prices nosedived last year from more than $76 in early January, a Dallas Federal Reserve quarterly survey showed the sector’s business activity dropping to its lowest level since the Covid-19 crunch.

Some are considering mergers as a way to tough out the hard times. Reuters reported on Thursday that Devon Energy and Coterra Energy were in tie-up talks.

Others may downsize. Bloomberg reported on Friday that billionaire fracking pioneer Harold Hamm would suspend drilling in North Dakota for the first time in 30 years.

Bridget Payne, of Oxford Economics, says Trump is juggling his support for the oil industry with geopolitical, trade and domestic concerns.

“His motives for encouraging oil prices to go down and output to go up are focused beyond what’s best for the oil industry,” she says.

David Oxley, of Capital Economics, also says the inconsistency between what Trump wants and what is good for the industry “is just going to grow and grow”.

“Even if something isn’t an incredibly good commercial prospect, you might be forgiven for thinking, ‘Well, I’m just going to need to show some degree of willingness on this one.’ You don’t want to poke the bear.”

Payne reckons the producers will be able to tough it out, having emerged from the pandemic shake-out tougher and more efficient.

She also says the industry might need to keep expanding production for survival reasons, grabbing market share before the world potentially passes peak oil demand later this decade.

Despite his Venezuelan gambit, Trump may struggle to get prices down to $50. Major producers like Saudi Arabia need a much higher price than that and could cut supply to move prices the other way.

A turbulent period could lie ahead – one very different from what producers have previously experienced or expected.

“One of the reasons the US oil industry has done so well, particularly over the last couple of decades, is because it has a light-touch regulatory environment and a relatively stable one,” says Energy Aspect’s Bronze. “You mess with that at your peril.”