Three days after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, President Trump received a text from Norway’s prime minister asking him to de-escalate tariff threats against eight countries including Norway.
Trump’s response, sent 27 minutes later, revealed the wound was still fresh: “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.”
The text exchange – shared by the Norwegian Prime Minister’s office with USA TODAY – exposes how personal grievance shapes Trump’s foreign policy decisions. He explicitly connected refusing to “think purely of Peace” with Norway’s Nobel committee not awarding him the prize.
When presidential feelings about awards influence threats against allied democracies, foreign policy stops being strategy and becomes therapy.
Discussion
LOL traditional values? That’s rich! Trump knows how to play this game better than anyone with his 4D chess moves. You think the guy who brought peace deals and tackled the swamp cares about your outdated “law and order”? Wake up and smell the winning!
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
The Threat That Triggered the Text
Trump had announced the day before that he would impose 10% tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland unless “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
The threat targeted eight NATO allies and close democratic partners. The justification: forcing Denmark to sell Greenland to the United States.
Greenland is a semi-autonomous Danish territory with 57,000 residents. It’s not for sale. Denmark has said so repeatedly. Greenlanders have marched with signs saying “We are not for sale.” Thousands in Denmark rallied against Trump chanting “We don’t want to be Americans.”
None of that deterred Trump from threatening economic punishment against multiple allies unless Denmark surrenders territory it’s governed for centuries.
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb decided to reach out directly.
The Attempt to De-Escalate
Støre’s text arrived January 18 at 3:48 p.m.:
“Dear Mr President, dear Donald – on the contact across the Atlantic – on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine – and your tariff announcement yesterday. You know our position on these issues. But we believe we all should work to take this down and de-escalate – so much is happening around us where we need to stand together.”
The message was diplomatic, personal, and strategic. It acknowledged multiple issues—Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine—where U.S. and Nordic cooperation matters. It appealed to shared challenges requiring unity. It proposed a phone call to discuss.
“We are proposing a call with you later today – with both of us or separately – give us a hint of what you prefer! Best – Alex and Jonas”
The tone was careful—addressing Trump formally and personally, offering flexibility on call format, emphasizing alliance partnership. This was allied leaders trying to manage an unpredictable American president through personal relationship.
Twenty-seven minutes later, Trump responded. And the response revealed exactly what was driving his Greenland obsession.
The Response That Said Everything
Trump’s text opened with the grievance:
“Dear Jonas: 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, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is independent. It’s not controlled by Norway’s government. Prime Minister Støre doesn’t decide who wins the Peace Prize. The committee operates separately from Norwegian political leadership.
Trump either doesn’t know that or doesn’t care. He blamed Norway’s country – and by extension its prime minister – for the committee’s decision not to award him the prize.
The claim about “stopping 8 Wars PLUS” is factually dubious. Trump has repeatedly claimed he prevented or ended multiple wars without providing evidence or specifics. Independent foreign policy analysts dispute the count.
But the accuracy matters less than the emotion. Trump believes he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn’t get it. Three days after accepting it on Machado’s behalf, he’s still angry enough to cite the snub as justification for abandoning peace as a priority.
“I No Longer Feel an Obligation to Think Purely of Peace”
That sentence is the crisis in fourteen words.
The President of the United States told an allied democratic leader that because Norway didn’t give him an award, he no longer feels obligated to prioritize peace.
He qualified it: “although it will always be predominant.” Peace will still be important, just not the only consideration. Now he can “think about what is good and proper for the United States of America” – as if pursuing peace and pursuing American interests are mutually exclusive.
The framing reveals Trump’s view of international relations. Peace isn’t inherently good for America – it’s something he was doing for others, or for recognition. When recognition didn’t come, the obligation disappeared.
Allied leaders reading that text learn that Trump’s foreign policy decisions are conditional on personal validation. Deny him awards, face different treatment. The message is clear: presidential hurt feelings have policy consequences.
The Greenland Justification
Trump’s text pivoted to Greenland: “Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.”
The argument is historically absurd. Denmark has governed Greenland for over 300 years. There are extensive written documents establishing Danish sovereignty. International law recognizes Danish control. Greenland’s political status is formalized through Danish constitutional arrangements granting semi-autonomy.
The “boat landed there hundreds of years ago” framing reduces centuries of governance, legal frameworks, and political development to a single exploratory voyage. By that logic, no territorial claims anywhere have validity—including America’s.
The claim that American boats also landed there doesn’t create ownership claims under any recognized principle of international law. Exploration doesn’t equal sovereignty. Otherwise, every country that sent ships anywhere could claim those territories.
The NATO Demand
Trump continued: “I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States.”
The “do something for the United States” Trump wants is apparently forcing a NATO ally to surrender territory to America. That’s what NATO should do in exchange for Trump’s service—compel Denmark to sell Greenland.
The demand inverts NATO’s purpose. The alliance exists for collective defense against external threats. It’s not a mechanism for one member to acquire another member’s territory through economic coercion.
Trump’s framing suggests he views NATO as transactional—America provides security, NATO owes America territorial concessions. That’s not how defensive alliances work. That’s not how international law works. That’s not how allied democracies treat each other.
“The World Is Not Secure Unless We Have Complete and Total Control of Greenland”
Trump’s text concluded: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”
This is the justification for threatening tariffs against eight allied democracies: world security requires American control of Greenland.
The claim is grandiose and unsupported. Greenland is strategically located—it matters for Arctic access, military positioning, and resource control. But claiming world security depends on American sovereignty over it is absurd.
The world managed security for decades while Greenland remained Danish. NATO functions with Greenland under Danish control—Denmark is a NATO member, making Greenland part of NATO defensive perimeter already. Changing ownership from one NATO ally to another doesn’t enhance security.
What it does enhance is American territorial control, Arctic dominance, and Trump’s legacy as a president who expanded American territory. Those are different goals than world security.
What the Text Exchange Reveals
The Norwegian government shared this text exchange publicly—an extraordinary step. Governments rarely publish private communications between leaders. Doing so signals that the communication was so concerning it needed public documentation.
What the texts reveal:
Personal grievance drives policy: Trump explicitly connected Nobel snub to abandoning peace prioritization. Foreign policy becomes personal score-settling.
Transactional alliance view: Trump sees NATO as owing America favors, specifically territorial concessions from allies.
Historical ignorance or indifference: The claims about Greenland ownership lack basis in law, history, or international norms.
Willingness to threaten allies: Eight NATO members and democratic partners face tariffs unless one surrenders territory.
Emotional decision-making: The speed and content of Trump’s response—27 minutes, leading with Nobel grievance—suggests reactive rather than strategic thinking.nobel peace preis
The Constitutional Question Nobody’s Asking
Can a president threaten allied democracies with tariffs to force territorial acquisition?
Tariffs are trade policy tools Congress grants presidents authority to implement under specific circumstances. National security, unfair trade practices, and emergency conditions can justify tariffs under existing statutes.
Using tariffs to coerce territorial transfers from allies isn’t clearly authorized. It’s economic warfare against partners to achieve territorial expansion. The constitutional authority for that approach is questionable.
Congress controls commerce through the Commerce Clause. Presidents implement trade policy Congress authorizes. Whether that authorization includes threatening allies with economic punishment unless they surrender territory is doubtful.
The threats will likely face legal challenges if Trump implements them. Courts will examine whether tariff authority extends to territorial coercion against allies.
Trump's foreign policy strategy should prioritize constitutional and diplomatic considerations over personal grievances. The current climate feels like a reality show – what happened to traditional conservative values and law and order? We need a government more focused on unity and legal principles.