Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo used a high-profile World Economic Forum stage in Davos on Tuesday to press Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on President Donald Trumps controversial push to bring Greenland under U.
S. control.
During the on-stage interview, Bartiromo opened by tying the administrations Greenland ambitions directly to trade tensions with Europe, framing the issue as both diplomatic and strategic. According to Mediaite, she asked pointedly, Secretary, let me begin on trade and tariffs, because President Trump seemed to set the tone of the conversation even before he has arrived by threatening tariffs on our European allies until they support his plans to acquire Greenland. How do you justify taking over a country when, in fact, Denmark and Greenland have said they are not interested?
Bessent, defending the presidents posture, immediately grounded his answer in national security and the longstanding conservative view that the United States must not rely on others for its defense. Well, Maria, I think the president has a very strong view on Western Hemisphere security and believes that the U.S. should not outsource our national security. He believes that Greenland is essential for the Golden Dome missile shield, he replied, before expanding on Trumps strategic calculus.
And he alsothe president, as usualits the move after the move that As part of NATO, I think the president is worried that if there were an incursion into Greenland, the U.S. would be called upon to defend Greenland, Bessent continued, underscoring the risk that America could be dragged into a conflict without having full control over the territory at the center of the dispute. Greenlands becoming more and more attractive for foreign conquest, and he very strongly believes that it must be part of the United States to prevent a conflict rather than getting the U.S. engaged in, exposed to, a hot conflict.
Bartiromo then drilled down on the core security argument, translating the administrations position into stark terms for viewers. So Greenland is not expected to be able to have the capacity to stop any potential missiles that could hit the United States. In other words, Greenland without U.S. ownership makes the United States vulnerable. Is that the presidents main complaint? she asked, highlighting the broader concern that American defenses could be compromised if a rival power gained a foothold there.
Bessent affirmed that vulnerability was central to Trumps thinking, while also stressing the danger of a great-power showdown in the Arctic if Washington failed to act. Well, I think its that, and that the U.S.theres the opportunity for the U.S. to become embroiled, exposed to, a kinetic war if another country moved in on Greenland. And no country is going to assert control of Greenland if the U.S. controls Greenland, he said, making the case that American sovereignty over the island would serve as a deterrent rather than an act of aggression.
Turning to the backlash from Europe, Bartiromo noted that Brussels was already signaling economic retaliation over the Greenland dispute, a familiar pattern whenever Trump uses tariffs as leverage. Secretary, what do you want to say about the response here? I mean, the European Union is pushing back, saying we are not going to complete our trade deal with the United States because of this. They have already called an emergency summit for later on in the week about this Greenland situation, she said, pointing to the EUs threat to stall trade talks.
Bessent responded by urging restraint from Americas trading partners and reminding them of how previous tariff standoffs had played out under Trumps hardline but transactional approach. Well, I would say exactly what I said after Liberation Day last April, when the president imposed tariff levels on the whole world. I tell everyone: sit back, take a deep breath, do not retaliate. Do NOT retaliate, he insisted, arguing that escalation would be counterproductive for all sides.
He emphasized that Trumps direct engagement with world leaders often defused tensions once they heard his rationale firsthand, suggesting Davos would be no different. The president will be here tomorrow, and he will get his message across. I believe he is going to have meetings, and again, also have an open mind. You know, why this rapid response in terms of, you know, This is a no? And by the way, Maria, this has been in the minds of American presidents for more than 150 yearsfor more than 150 years, Bessent added, noting that interest in Greenland is not some sudden whim but a recurring theme in U.S. strategic thinking.
Bartiromo, picking up on that historical thread, asked whether earlier leaders had recognized the same exposure that Trump now seeks to address. So the vulnerability was seen even back then? she pressed, inviting Bessent to connect past and present concerns over the islands role in defending the West.
Well, or the strategic value of Greenland. And I think as there are more trade routes that move near Greenland, Greenland becomes more and more valuable, Bessent concluded, as the conversation shifted back to tariffs and the broader economic agenda, underscoring a central conservative argument: that securing American sovereignty and deterrence in key strategic locations is not an act of imperialism, but a necessary step to avoid larger wars and protect U.S. interests in an increasingly contested world.
Login