is walking back its threat of new tariffs on European nations will pose United States control of Greenland.

The president posted on truth Social that he and NATO secretary-general marker.

reached a deal for a new security framework involving Greenland and the greater Arctic region.

The announcement comes on the heels of Trump's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos during which he said that the only country that can properly defend Greenland is the United States.

>> I have tremendous respect for both the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark.

Tremendous respect.

But every NATO ally has an obligation to be able to defend their own territory.

And the fact is no nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to us.

Secure green and other than the United States.

We're great power, much greater than people even understand.

I think they found that out 2 weeks ago in Venezuela.

>> Joining us now with more our Tom Kite, us of DePaul University.

He's a specialist in military history and violent extremism and over zoom, Richard Porter attorney, longtime member of the Republican National Committee and former White House adviser to President George HW Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

Paul Post, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and a senior nonresident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

And Ian Kelly, ambassador in residence at Northwestern University and former U.S.

ambassador to the Republic of Georgia.

Thank you all for joining us.

There's a lot to get to in this.

You know, Tom McKay to So as we just mentioned earlier today, the president backing off his warnings of retaliatory tariffs saying he reached framework in that conversation with the NATO secretary-general.

What kinds of details have we heard about this possible deal?

details and you probably won't hear them.

This is typical of him when he is realizes that what he threatens to do is not doable.

He will prayed something like this and say, oh, well, I reached a framework deal so we no longer need to do these things and he will declare when he will say it's because he was so tough and then in reality, things will just sort of truck along as they are until the next crisis to sort of saw the idea threat of military action is a bit of bluster, perhaps.

Yeah, I did.

But on the other hand, I've learned that, you know, nothing is outside the realm of possibility as we saw Venezuela.

So nothing really surprises me, but I'm pleased to work out the way I hoped it would.

>> Paul Post, you know, administration officials have repeatedly said that Greenland is vital to U.S.

National security, of course, also a wealth of Nash natural resources there.

What is Greenland strategic importance on the global stage?

>> Greenland strategic importance is really going to continue to grow over the next several decades.

And the reason why is because of global warming, then as the Arctic ice melts, those sea lanes are going to be come open.

That's going to create new sea routes from Asia to North America from Europe to North America.

And that is exactly what Trump is focusing on.

And I think it's very sensible.

This is not an outlandish claim to say that the U.S.

has valid national security interests in wanting to make sure that Greenland Shores agreement seize off of Greenland are controlled in not dominated by either Russian subs or even China, which is starting to see to have larger influence in the Arctic region as well.

Yeah, I want to come back to the idea.

But, you know, first, Richard Porter, what's your reaction to the president's push to either control or increase control?

Increased presence of Greenland?

>> Well, Donald Trump has the ability to really bring focus to issues that people are thinking about.

I mean, the truth is nobody was really thinking much about Freeland except defense experts.

>> But what he's done and I think that he's watching Putin's conflict in Ukraine is willingness to go after territory and thinking about how to counter that.

And also no driving China out of Venezuela Russia as well.

I think that is really on offense in terms of trying define a territory and his stance that would be defensible.

And so it's on the south is try to drive the knot in the northeast, try to get a blocking position we love.

But he emphasized speech today was he wants Greenland to build the Golden Dome.

This is his anti missile defense system that he's pushing through Congress in development now.

And so, you know, I think that this was part of a broader picture of countering China and Russia and their aggression and their moves in the Arctic.

Frankly, investor.

Kelly, how about that?

You know, one reason the president's given for his desire to control Greenland is >> that it couldn't defend itself from a Chinese threat or a Russian, you know, takeover is.

Is that a realistic worry to your mind?

>> absolutely.

And I think my 2 colleagues and pointed out the strategic importance of Greenland, I don't think anybody looks our strategic posture would dispute that.

is The only is the idea that the U.S.

has to the territory in order provide the proper defense against incursions by by Russia or China.

is already a mechanism to defend Greenland.

And that's the NATO alliance.

So I think what really concerned a lot of Europeans was.

the people are doubting his commitment to NATO and then he actually threaten to force to Coors Denmark to give up sovereign territory.

That is some precedent for a NATO member.

>> time a kite is in addition to the NATO alliance itself, there's also that 1951 agreement place that allows the U.S.

military brought access to Greenland are are there strategic gas that a new agreement might defense might address something like that missile defenses?

Do I mean, they could easily be addressed with agreements.

All of the things that the of the gentleman pointed out in terms of security needs which are perfectly valid can be achieved within the current framework or by expanding it.

The Danes and the and the green leaders understand that they're more than willing to allow the U.S.

to expand its military presence.

There to, you know, to do whatever it needs to do.

as he said in his letter to the Norwegian prime minister, this is in many respects posturing that has to do with his ego.

I mean, I'm not surprised because at the Golden Dome, I mean, he's got the golden everything.

The golden battleships.

You know, the golden toilet, the Golden Ball room.

This is bluff and bluster.

That is not helpful weakening.

As you said, the very lions.

That is our best safeguard against the Russians in a place to oppose.

Putin is not in Greenland.

It's in Ukraine and where dropping the ball on that?

Well, in this instance, the president does seem to have backed off at least for now taking military action.

But should the U.S.

do something more extreme?

Can you envision a version of the NATO alliance simply going on without the United States?

Is they may have to if we continue to behave the way we do Europe, if you look at your collectively, their biggest challenge is working together in terms of strength in terms of resources in terms of assets, you end up their militaries, their capability, their formidable power.

But difficulty they have isn't functioning as a unity and as a unified entity.

And there's I think this is going to be an incentive to increase that.

I think it will.

I don't see NATO coming to an and I think this we will get through this, but it's disturbing that it was rattled badly as a wise because, you know, the Kremlin has been sharing what's been going on.

You know, Paul Post, how about that?

The idea of, you know, leaving NATO even having a weekend alliance, what could that mean for the United States's own national security?

>> One thing that I have been saying going back to the first Trump administration is that if there's one element of Trump's foreign policy that is consistent with all other elements of U.S., foreign policy is complaining about free writing NATO That is something that Trump tends to do it a harsher as I like to say, Trump gets angry, whereas if you compared his rhetoric to say Barack Obama, it was more.

I'm and I'm disappointed.

But OK says it was very much about the idea that the up the nation's the European members of NATO, we're not spending enough not doing enough to provide for their defense.

And that is something that he has been keen on pushing.

And I think.

I think there's a lot of elements to Greenland, but I think one part of that is in this context that he feels like the Europeans are not doing enough to be able to provide for that defense.

This is very important to the United States.

It's within our now spirit influences.

He's very much emphasizing through the Monroe Doctrine.

For example.

Now, the Trump corollary done road doctor and she likes to call it.

And so I think it's within that context that he makes these her statements towards European allies.

Richard Porter, Howdy, how do you see that issue?

>> I see it much the same way.

I you know, as he emphasized today, we want strong allies, not week allies and they've been weak.

They've been obsessed with the Net 0 energy kind of de escalate.

They have less energy capability now than they did.

10 years ago.

sorted through that.

It would have sizes they've been focusing on the wrong things.

Their session with the climate.

It's a scam has led them to a position where they're weak.

They're paper tigers near radically on paper.

They could be strong.

It isn't just ability to get along with each other.

It's their socialist economies.

They're hamstrung by sort of the wrong focus.

And so I think is rattling the cage.

This could lead to a stronger alliance.

You don't necessarily make something stronger by up to him.

You have to challenge them with regard to things that are real concerns.

Denmark, for example, apparently made a 200 million dollar pledge starting 200 billion dollar pledge to strengthen the defenses of Denmark 6 years ago.

And they spent 2 million dollars on it.

So I mean, his approach to this thing has been look, you're all full of it.

Let's just take it over.

We're going ask the resources necessary to make this piece of ice.

A wonderful place and will build this building told me all be protected.

So chill That was essentially what he said.

He says things in such a way and bombastic in all this is tone, but he's got a point.

I mean, the problem is Europe has been lagging their economies to state.

They've been they they buy energy from Russia.

For heaven's sakes.

So you have these people that say one thing and they do another, they're weak.

is focused and he has a way by rattling the cages to hopefully wake them up and make them better allies.

sure.

But to that point, you know, Greenland, for example, has a wide array of of free social services.

They have a majority of their power coming from.

>> You deserve clean energy sources as they would put it.

You know, so so why would that still be an attractive, you know, territory for the president to go after?

If it does have these elements that you see him being in opposition to.

We've got opposition is not an opposition to clean energy.

To the extent it works, right?

I mean.

>> And there's a lot of places where clean energy is great, for example, Austria with there.

But they have a lot of nuclear power.

They have, you know, when those that work.

So it's not like he's against these things per se.

But the idea if you're like taking away your your ability to generate real power and a reliable basis on carbon days.

No sources for what for this sort of shimmer of this, this kind of made up threat that's going to be a complete catastrophe.

There is global warming.

It's gonna have a lot positive effects where these Paul mentioned earlier is that is as we warm.

There's already a few weeks a year, a couple of months, a year where the Northwest Passage is open has been open since the 1400's.

So I mean there there are going to be, facts are and have some positive effects to it.

They've just is allocating resources.

And I think this is what Trump's emphasis.

They got to be strong could be a partner of ours.

Got to be strong.

a message delivered, I think pretty effective with this week.

>> Yeah.

Time you'd like to respond.

Yeah.

I'd like to respond.

On the one hand, you're saying grandma this important because global warming and yet global warming is a sham and the Europeans are taking it too The his life.

just scares be afraid of.

It's nothing to be afraid we could have been a different show, but Poland is not a paper tiger.

It is a formidable fighting force.

Germany is rearming Francis and the nuclear club.

I'm a British military starting by training.

They're not keeping up and they've got a lot to do.

I agree with you.

The second tier of NATO will continue to be a problem.

The reality of the situation is that's not what any of this is about.

You notice the one thing we have left out is he said over and over and over again about the mineral wealth and all that just as he's talked about the oil with Venezuela.

I think all of these other things, our coverage for the 2 things he cares the most about one is his ego, the ability to project power in a pair of powerful.

The second is what he perceives as financial gain for his supporters, particularly companies.

And so on.

that's where Kelly like to get you in here.

You know, European leaders for the last decade have sometimes been unsure with how to respond to President Trump and his administration.

>> You know, in the in the first year of the president's second term, some critics say they've essentially adopted a policy of peas.

do you think they could have taken a harder line stance on Greenland earlier and potentially headed off some of this time old.

>> Well, I think it's it's correct floor, the full-on invasion of Ukraine, the the Europeans, particularly the central Europeans, did have a policy of appeasing and getting Hundreds of millions of dollars to help build his military, which of used to invade Ukraine.

I the president deserve credit for really Richard says, rattling their cage in getting them to spend more on vents.

But I think we're ignoring the real reason that they're spending more on defense.

Now.

that's that there is a predatory power.

That's very anti European, very anti NATO on their eastern flank.

this administration while it's focusing on Greenland and it should prioritized the invasion of Ukraine and its consequences for the peace and stability in year.

>> And you see that the emphasis as as a misstep here.

the session.

>> All right.

You know, Paul Post, there is a recent Reuters Ipsos poll that found just 17% of Americans support acquiring Greenland.

We've even seen some GOP members of Congress pushback on the idea of military action.

Do have any sense as to whether that contributed to the president sort of taking the military option off the table?

Are there other factors that may be where more pressing?

mean, this point, it's still difficult to know, but I'm sure that that did not help mean the fact that that is a policy.

As you pointed out, there were.

>> Members of the GOP literally using the word.

This is stupid.

Like why are we doing And then you look at the polling, you look at the reaction to markets and this is something he's also very much aware of the very sensitive to think there were enough signals coming at him to say, OK, maybe this isn't the thing that I should be continuing to push on, even though it is something that I think doesn't read.

Kim, I think that there is a little bit to it than just the geopolitical strategic side of it.

I think he actually likes the idea as the former real estate developer could I be the person to have the largest real estate acquisition in U.S.

history which require in Greenland would be.

So I do think there's spa heart of this and treats and that's when he brought it up during first term.

But overall, I think there were enough signals to say this isn't the thing to be pushing on right now.

You know, how any of that.

I think you lose in the purchase was a bit bigger.

But fair enough.

right.

At least in the living memory will well, you know, sticking with you for just a minute, you know, even with the immediate notion of military action or tariffs off the table.

>> You know, do you think this has has been damaging to the United States Station standing rather among our NATO allies or has that cage already been so rattled that things haven't changed much, you know, with the issue of Greenland.

>> My view is that this is a view I had going back to the previous Trump term.

Is that what Trump is leveraging is the fact that the NATO allies are highly dependent on the United States for security in that they're also in a position to not feel dramatically threatened by the United States for security.

And part of that has to do with their geographical presence, you know, 2 oceans way, which, of course, is something that Trump himself even brings up more on the opposite, that that's why we don't need to be involved.

But in contrast to say, Russia being run at the border were to clear threat.

And so the U.S.

is always in this position of being the optimal offshore balancer, if you will.

And that is something that the Europeans recognize our allies in Asia recognized and there.

The reality is Trump is not the first president to ever be transactional ever be coercive towards are allies.

That is something there's a long history of that.

I like to bring up quote that's often attributed to Churchill, which is that the United States will always do the right thing after exhausting all other options.

So this is definitely something that there's precedent for.

I think what makes Trump different.

He seems to recognize that 0 in on and really take if you will, maybe even a lot of enjoyment from engaging in this way of kind of making these kind of demands.

Well, and speaking of some of those, those demands or in some cases threats, you know, Richard Porter framework is a long way from a signed agreement.

Do you think we may see the president once again?

>> Put at least tariffs on the table here.

things don't go the way that he's seeking.

It's possible.

>> The truth is the president thinks about Teddy Roosevelt's big stick and he uses that uses leverage as much as he can.

The Supreme Court decision may affect his ability to make some of those threats make them real.

So and that's I it's due any time now.

So, you know, we'll see.

I think that he's probably my guess is he's broken enough class here that is going to be able to get something done relatively swiftly so people can put this behind them.

That's been the pattern with trade deals.

You know, in the first Bush administration.

But with the trade deals, they took a long time to get done.

And one thing Trump does is, you know, he works at a different time frame Trump time and things get done fast.

All sorts of deals get struck.

They're not always has begun.

Glorious is maybe one of them to be.

But I think he's is picking up some yardage every time he does something like the Saints will are certainly a long way to go.

I know you all would be watching this closely.

Lots to talk about.

Unfortunately, we are out of