Monday, January 26, 2026, episode of the podcast The Excerpt: President Trump said he had secured victory on Greenland, even though key questions remain unanswered. USA TODAY White House correspondent Francesca Chambers analyzes the stakes and gaps.
Press play in the player below to listen to the podcast and follow the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated and edited in its current format for clarity. There may be some differences between audio and text.
Podcast: For true crime stories, in-depth interviews, and more USA TODAY podcasts, click here
Dana Taylor:
After weeks of threats and uproar over Greenland, President Donald Trump appears to have finally reached a mutual agreement with Denmark. What is it? Why is it important?
Hello. Welcome to this excerpt from USA TODAY. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Monday, January 26, 2026. USA TODAY White House Correspondent Francesca Chambers joins me to discuss the heart of the new deal. I’m glad to be here, Francesca.
Francesca Chambers:
thanks so much.
Dana Taylor:
I would like to start with a little review here. Why has Greenland become such a dominant topic for Trump and his administration? What is its strategic value?
Francesca Chambers:
Well, remember that during his first term, President Donald Trump also spoke about the desire for the United States to acquire Greenland. I mean, this is something he’s been talking about for quite some time. And last year, upon returning to office in early 2025, he raised the issue again.
As far as strategic value is concerned, Greenland is located in the Arctic between the United States, Denmark and Russia. So the situation is that, as the president has argued, there would be a lot of strategic value in having a military base in Greenland if there was some kind of conflict between the United States and its NATO allies and Russia or China. By the way, the US already has a military base in Greenland, and NATO is already working with Denmark.
However, President Trump has said that Denmark currently does not have a sufficient military presence on the island, as he is thinking about other conflicts in the future. And he argues that going back to World War II, when the original agreement between the United States and Denmark and its NATO allies went into full effect, Denmark never had a substantial military presence in the country, and in fact, that is why the United States had to assist Greenland at the time. As such, he sees this as a decades-old debate now being brought to the forefront at a time of heightened global tensions.
Dana Taylor:
Francesca, I believe negotiations are still ongoing at the time of this recording, but what is the general framework that President Trump has shared?
Francesca Chambers:
We don’t know all the details and we haven’t reached an agreement yet, so we think it’s very important to refer to it as a framework at this point. Indeed, President Trump told reporters on his way home from speaking at the annual International Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he expected this to be resolved within the next two weeks. So I know there have been conversations about this. We know that President Trump has said that he has full access and that the United States will have full access to Greenland as part of this framework. It could somehow involve even more US military bases on the island. But we don’t know all this detail.
Also, one thing we do know that is not currently being discussed is that the United States actually acquired or owns Greenland. Greenland is something that President Trump has always said he wanted to be here. He said the United States would need it for psychological purposes. And when he was in Davos, he actually talked in his speech about the fact that he didn’t think Reese was a good option. You can’t build on or protect what you lease. Therefore, looking at this framework, we do not expect that U.S. involvement in Greenland’s security will expand in any way.
Dana Taylor:
Of course, the United States and Denmark already have a treaty, the Greenland Defense Treaty, which has been in effect since 1951. Francesca, what does it say there?
Francesca Chambers:
Therefore, the treaty already allows the United States to cooperate and coordinate with Denmark and establish military bases on the island. So the US already has one, but there could be more. And throughout this saga, Denmark has cited that treaty to say that the United States can have more bases and that it is interested in having those conversations with the president. And in fact, at that time he said, “No, the United States needs to own Greenland.” It is not entirely clear how what is being negotiated differs from the 1951 treaty, but the treaty specifically mentions defense areas and allows the United States to conduct military operations from Greenland.
Dana Taylor:
Regarding the defense of Greenland, President Trump brought up Golden Dome. Can you remind me what the Golden Dome is?
Francesca Chambers:
So the Golden Dome is a missile defense structure very similar to what Israel has, basically an anti-missile defense structure that shoots down missiles over the skies of the United States and, as President Trump has said, Canada. And one of the things he said is that this golden dome structure will also extend to Greenland. He also mentioned it in his speech, although it is not entirely clear when he plans to do so or what other areas it will cover. But the White House hopes to have the Golden Dome completed before President Donald Trump’s term ends.
Dana Taylor:
As you mentioned, the president gave a 90-minute speech at Davos. Francesca, in a somewhat meandering speech last Wednesday, appeared to confuse Greenland and Iceland several times. He also said he would not “use force” to take Greenland. Meanwhile, the president has been threatening to use force for weeks. He also backed off a threat to impose tariffs on European countries that get in his way. What do you think changed his mind? Any insight into that?
Francesca Chambers:
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, that was a big factor. The president met with Rutte, known as the “Trump Whisperer,” in Davos, and then, as Trump said in a post on Truth Social, he spoke with him and said they had a framework, and an agreement was reached here. This was quite remarkable. Because the sources I talked to beforehand really thought that Rutte was the only one who could get him off what appeared to be this ledge that he was walking toward.
I wrote last week about how NATO is being pushed to the brink as the president threatens to potentially use military force against Denmark, putting the United States in direct conflict with a NATO ally. It also called into question Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which states that an attack on one ally is essentially an attack on all. Now, if the United States were to use or attempt to use military force there, it would be up to Denmark to invoke Article 5 in the first place. But that puts you in a very tricky and sticky situation because one of the top commanders of NATO is a US general and has always been a US general in that position. So there were a lot of things there that made this very difficult for the United States and its NATO allies.
You also brought up the tariffs that President Trump was threatening. These tariffs will hurt countries that oppose them, he said. But since the EU is a trading bloc, the impact will be felt across the Union, not just the countries he mentioned, including Denmark, France and others. So I think we really saw this strong backlash, unity among European countries, against what he proposed here. It was definitely a motivating factor, if not not there before.
And then the third thing that comes to mind is the stock market. You probably saw the stock market drop significantly after President Donald Trump made a surprise appearance at the White House press conference and took to the White House podium last Tuesday. Tuesday was the S&P’s worst day in months. Then, after the president stood up in his speech at Davos the next day and said he wouldn’t use military force, and then, of course, sent out the Truth Social post that we were talking about and said he had spoken to Mark Rutte about this, there was a backlash. Incidentally, the president himself mentioned the stock market during an interview with FOX Business host Maria Bartiromo at the end of his stay in Davos, saying that he seemed to like the news he was putting out, so the president clearly pays attention to what’s going on in the stock market and takes that into consideration.
Dana Taylor:
Francesca, as you mentioned, Trump also took aim at NATO in his speech, of which Denmark and the United States are both founding members. We know from his first term that Trump was never satisfied with how much NATO members were spending on defense. Greenland’s proximity to the United States as well as the Nordic countries makes its defense key to NATO’s security. What did he say there and how did Denmark react?
Francesca Chambers:
Now, it is worth noting that Denmark has already responded by saying that it intends to strengthen the defense and security of Greenland, and that it is also working with other NATO allies to bring some additional troops to the island. So during this spat with President Trump, NATO tried to show that it has listened to his concerns and is strengthening its defenses around the island of Greenland. But what is interesting is that in response to President Trump’s concerns about these things, the Danes have already said that they have not seen any Chinese warships recently. I think the president and the White House basically said, “Yes, but what if? What if it happens in the future?”
When it comes to defense spending and NATO, it hits a very important point in President Trump’s first year in office. Even back in his first term, Trump urged NATO countries to increase their defense spending. And we secured this victory at the last NATO meeting. So the allies basically agreed to collectively raise spending to 5% of GDP, including on infrastructure and other things. This was considered a major event, given that the previous lower limit was 2%. The latest step they took was that it should be at least 2%. Therefore, this is more than double the amount spent. So Denmark and other countries are already increasing spending or saying they’re going to increase spending, but President Trump really wants to accelerate spending.
Dana Taylor:
Francesca Chambers as USA TODAY White House correspondent. Francesca, thank you very much for your valuable opinion.
Francesca Chambers:
thanks so much.
Dana Taylor:
We would like to thank Senior Producer Kaely Monahan for her production assistance. executive producer Laura Beatty; Let us know what you thought about this episode by sending a note to podcast@usatoday.com. Thank you for your attention. I’m Dana Taylor. Tomorrow morning, we’ll be back with another episode of USA TODAY Excerpts.
