A (2:53)

So I may do that.

B (2:58)

The Prime Minister, Jonas Stora, sent a text to Trump along with Finnish President Alexander Stubb. Sort of normal diplomacy between heads of state, saying, let's talk. Let's talk about these tariffs. Let's talk about the best way to settle the status of Greenland. Let's talk about Arctic security. And Trump responded with the shocking assertion that Norway should look to its own awarding of last year's Nobel Peace Prize for an explanation of the president's behavior. Trump said, since you decided, since your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize, having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace. So it's hard to shock people anymore. But that really did land with quite a reverberation across Europe, the sort of fairly explicit acknowledgment that personal peak was playing at least part of the role of Trump's continuing bellicosity about Greenland and, you know, America's relationship with really, several of its closest allies.

A (4:14)

Yeah, I want to get more into some of those wider reactions to this text, but more specifically, like, how did Prime Minister Stora respond to that? I mean, what does he say when he gets this message from Trump that says, I don't care about peace anymore because you didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize?

B (4:32)

Well, I feel like he sort of had to throw his hands up and say, we responded by explaining to the president, to the White House, to anyone we can who has his ear, that it is not the kind country of Norway that gives the Nobel Peace Prize. It is an independent committee of experts. But you can almost hear in his response the futility of that. I don't think he expects that to quell Trump's anger.

A (4:58)

Steve, let me just ask this. How much should we take this seriously, that this is President Trump's real reasoning behind his pursuit of Greenland? Or at least in part that there is really an aspect to this, that he is miffed about not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and therefore he feels like he's gonna lean in harder to trying to get Greenland by whatever means necessary.

B (5:22)

Well, there's always multiple theories about what this president does in any given situation, and it certainly isn't clear in this one. The explicit argument that the president and his national security aides make is this has to do with geopolitical strategic interest, US Interest. Greenland' critical position in the subarctic and Arctic as that region becomes more of a threat zone, given Russian submarines and Chinese missiles that may want to use that for transit areas, the melting of the ice cap in that area is opening it up in new ways to navigation for both positive and malevolent reasons. These are all things that security analysts around the world agree with. But Trump's relatively ferocious stated ambitions to take total control of Greenland raise a lot of questions about what's really going on here. And I don't think anyone outside, possibly of Trump himself, knows exactly. He's clearly expressed frustration about the Nobel Peace Prize. That's not new. He's expressed an interest, both in Greenland and other parts of the world, of acquiring the kind of strategic rare earth minerals that Greenland has to offer. I've talked to diplomats who think there might be some ideology behind it, an expression of American expansionism, the return of the Monroe Doctrine, or the Donroe Doctrine, as it's been called. He can exercise that by taking Greenland, because he probably can. Greenland is there for the taking in some ways. So the diplomats who are trying to reduce the temperature here, they really don't have a lot to work with, because what they say is they don't know for sure what's driving it.

A (7:17)

And we've talked on post reports recently about this idea of Trump seeing himself as an expansionist president, as a president who's going to make his mark by making America physically larger. But just to be clear, I mean, when you think about either the Greenlandic people or the Danish people, neither of them have any interest in playing ball on this, right? Like, they are not open to negotiations about turning over Greenland to the U.S.

B (7:45)

That'S what the polling suggests. Certainly Greenland's government has said that, and the polling says that something upwards of 70, 75% of Greenlanders would not choose to be part of the United States. It's not that they wouldn't choose a more independent status than as the part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but there seems to be almost no enthusiasm for becoming part of the United States or ceding sovereignty or total control to Washington.

A (8:16)

And tell me more about these reactions from other leaders and how they, too, are trying to kind of support Denmark here and lower the temperature, get Trump to back off of this.

B (8:27)

They've spent the last year, the first year of Trump's second term, really trying to appease his remarkable upheavals in the transatlantic relationship. Certainly on trade, what he has described of NATO, his support for Ukraine, all these very critical issues to European leaders, he has shown himself willing to sort of throw overboard, radically change. And certainly in Britain, where I am, the whole approach of the government has been to not engage in a lot of anger over these proposals. But to try and both behind the scenes and in public, make the best of it. In the sense that this is a president that seems to respond very strongly to flattery, to agreement, to cajoling. That is not a posture that's particularly comfortable for Prime Minister Keir Starmer or other European leaders. It often doesn't seem particularly dignified. It creates a lot of blowback in their own countries from. From people who would really like to see a more aggressive response to the president. But it has been effective in many ways. Certainly in the United Kingdom, they think they would be much worse off in terms of tariffs. They negotiated a relatively positive deal with the president. They point to a record that suggests that sort of appeasement approach has worked so far. When it came to Greenland, I think the countries finally reached a bit of a red line. And certainly following the recent US Military actions in Venezuela, his threats to take Greenland reverberated much more strongly. So in the last week, we've seen the most significant rhetorical pushback on this that we've seen from European leaders. Starmer said tariffs should not be used against allies in this way. So I think they are now trying to decide between savvy diplomacy, which may include more what their critics would say is seek offense. See, you know, treating the president as a king and refusing to criticize him too openly and really a strong retaliation that could include retaliatory tariffs. The European Union has a whole a raft of them that they've prepared in the course of the trade negotiations this year that they may be willing to impose on about $100 billion in US imports to the EU. So we're at a moment when this could go either way and we could be looking at continued trade antagonism. A real break in NATO. It's a delicate moment.

A (11:18)

After the break how the Nobel Peace Prize became the center of two geopolitical conflicts. We'll be right back.

C (11:33)

You know what's something I really used to dread? Weeknight dinner. It's the thing that never goes away. Every single day around 5pm there it is again, just staring you down. How are you going to solve dinner tonight? Well, luckily, there's hellofresh. Hellofresh doesn't just make you a better cook. It gives you your nights and sanity back. The thing is, I think I'm actually a decent cook and I do enjoy it. But weeknight dinner isn't about any of that. It's about the mental load of figuring it out every single night when you're already exhausted. Hellofresh removes that completely pre portioned ingredients step by step. Cards done in 30 minutes. I've now tried a bunch of Hellofresh recipes. Turkey lettuce wraps, beef chili, Mediterranean salmon. All so good though 100% the chili remains my favorite. Also easy to prepare too. Go to hellofresh.com posttenfm to get 10 free meals plus a free Zwilling knife. A $144.99 value on your third box offer valid while supplies last Free meals applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only varies by plan 1 in 5Americans have learn a new language on their bucket list. I know because I'm one of them. So if you're like me, let's make 2026 the year we finally check it off the list with Babbel, the language app that makes grammar fun and is actually worth your time. Learning a language with Babbel is all about small steps, big wins and progress. You can actually track and feel. Their bite sized lessons fit easily into your daily routine and are also easy to remember. Just 10 minutes a day is enough to start seeing real results. Babbel lets you practice real life conversations step by step without the stress. That's why I'm excited to use Babbel to learn French before I travel to Paris later this year. I can't imagine a better way to immerse myself in the culture. However, you learn best by listening, speaking, reading or writing. Babbel adapts to your style and keeps you motivated with personalized learning plans, real time feedback and progress tracking. Here's a special limited time deal for our listeners right now. Get up to 55% off your Babel subscription at babbel.com reports get up to 55% off at babbel.com reports spelled B-A-B-B-E-L.com reports rules and restrictions may apply.

A (13:49)

I think one thing that I found really fascinating about all this is, as you say, the stakes here are very high in terms of ours and other countries, national security tariffs, the state of, you know, world trade and just like geopolitics in general, but also getting this kind of inside look at how world leaders communicate to each other. The fact that a lot of this is happening over text message. I mean the communication between President Trump and Prime Minister Stora. Also Trump not even, I don't know if it's right to say leaked, but just like shared on X today, his text message with French President Emmanuel Macro Macron, which is just sort of interesting. I mean Macron basically texts Trump and says, my friends, we are Totally in line on Syria. We can do great things on Iran. I do not understand what you're doing on Greenland. Let us try to build great things. One, I can set up a G7 meeting after Davos in Paris on Thursday afternoon. I can invite the Ukrainians, the Danish, the Syrians and the Russians in the margins to let us have a dinner together in Paris on Thursday. Before you go back to the U.S. emmanuel, like, it's just, it seems like someone texting their friend about brunch plans, but also like telling them, look, I don't think you're treating our mutual friend super awesome right now. And it's like such a strange window into how high level international negotiations are happening in this moment.

B (15:15)

Yeah, I completely agree. I remember covering the Obama administration and he wasn't even allowed to have a phone. There was just such tight controls on all aspects of communications. I think what you're describing is in some ways another example of everything sort of changing in this president's second term. We had a Secretary of defense who was communicating over signal what seemed to be quite sensitive, classified military information during an operation. And having mistakenly allowed a journalist to be sitting in the group chat. Also, I think it's a function of social media's takeover. The entire world, all of our communications have gone that way. I guess it's not terribly surprising that these leaders take advantage of it. And some people think that's a good thing, that these kind of personal communiques are a way in which things get done. It's the digital version of the face to face chats they're able to have in rooms without their aides. But as we're seeing, they can become public. And even though these seemingly leaked messages from Macron weren't salacious or some of the other dangerous texts that get out into the public, I'm not sure he wanted these words to be known by everybody.

A (16:42)

Yeah, Steve, I would love to talk a little bit more about the Nobel Prize part of this because as you say, it's been clear for a long time that President Trump is very interested in winning a Nobel Peace Prize, that he would see it as a feather in his cap of his presidency. And as he said in his message to the Norwegian Prime Minister, he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize last year. That award was given to Maria Corina Machado, who people might know she's the opposition leader of Venezuela who's been pushing for democracy in her country. This becomes relevant because fast forward to earlier this month when the US Enters, Venezuela, captures the president and his wife takes them back to the U.S. there's this question of why Trump isn't supporting the opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, as the new leader of Venezuela. And according to reporting that our colleagues have done, we talked to John Hudson on the podcast. One factor for Trump's reluctance to support her is the fact that she won the Nobel Peace Prize and he didn't. And then he's, like, jealous that she got this award and he didn't. So it's just remarkable that this is a moment when you're seeing the Nobel Peace Prize really at the center of multiple geopolitical conflicts.

B (17:57)

Yeah. The role of the Nobel Prize in this second Trump turn is, again, I don't know how much capacity people have to be shocked is left, but that's one that's just really hard to get your head around. I mean, it's clearly extremely important to him personally. He does not seem to have any compunction about laying claim to deserving it or even having it handed to him. As you know, Maria Carina Machado gave him the medal.

A (18:31)

And this was on her trip to D.C. last week. She met with President Trump, and after that meeting, she comes out of the White House, she's surrounded by reporters and cameras, and she's seemingly very happy about this, the fact that she had given Trump this medal in this very official way, and she kind of talked about her reasoning for that.

B (18:51)

I presented the President of the United.

C (18:54)

States the medal, the Nobel Peace prize.

A (19:00)

And then 200 years ago, the Marquis de Lafayette, who fought with the Americans in the Revolutionary War, gave the Venezuelan leader Simon Bolivar a medal with George Washington's face on it. And 200 years in history, the people of Bolivar are giving back to the heir of Washington a medal.

C (19:26)

In this case, a medal of the.

A (19:28)

Nobel Peace Prize as a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom.

B (19:36)

Exactly. It's a version of this idea that you sort of do whatever it takes when it comes to gestures and public statements and bending the knee because they seem to be effective with this president. And, of course, that really does not go down well with people who worry about the erosion of institutional integrity and norms and just dignity. But when you are an office holder or someone like Machado, who wants to be the head of her country and has, you know, reasons to make claim on some political authority there, symbolic things like a Peace Prize are much less important than the ultimate goal of gaining his very important support. So I really have sympathy with her and with others who, you know, look for any way to navigate these waters. But I don't think anyone would have thought that the Nobel Peace Prize would play a role at the center of, as you say, two geopolitical conflicts.

A (20:42)

I mean, this question a little bit as a joke, but actually not really. Is there any argument for, look, let's just give the Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump and then he can stop talking about Greenland and then he can take that out of his equation with who he's going to support in Venezuela going forward, that if he's so obsessed with it, just give it to him and then we can stop kind of derailing the global order in his pursuit of this prize.

B (21:13)

You know, I've heard that argument and there are people who say just that and that the Nobel Peace Prize is already, you know, over the decade, sort of lost some of its, I guess the word might be legitimacy. Like, not everyone loves every choice. That that committee, they've been accused of sort of trying to play politics themselves. It's something other than just a straight recognition of a peace oriented achievement. We all remember that President Obama won it in his first year and even he said, I really haven't done anything yet. It was sort of clearly an aspirational award on behalf of the committee. I don't know what they bring to bear when they're making that decision or how Trump's behavior around this would affect them. But I think I've talked to diplomats both in the UK and other parts of Europe, people who are quite familiar with this administration and the previous Trump administration, and they really caution that the Peace Prize, it would be a mistake in their view, to really attribute that as his motive and therefore resolving that as the solution to Greenland, which clearly has origins in his first administration as an idea, has taken on a lot more importance with him seemingly personally, in the course of this much more aggressive second administration. These diplomats think the real answer is what they're doing, which is continuing backchannel talks, trying to assure the administration that pretty much anything they want to do in terms of U.S. military presence or activities around Greenland will be fine like that. Those, those operations are in NATO's interest, they're in Denmark's interest. Everyone can agree on a way for the US to play a key role in using Greenland to secure the Arctic region.

A (23:11)

So it sounds like the message they're trying to send to Trump is like, you can, you can do a lot in Greenland. You can bring people, you can bring more military here, you can partner with us that there's a lot of opportun here, but you just can't own it. And you can't take it. And that's our red line. Let me ask this, especially considering what happened in Venezuela earlier this month, is there a chance that Trump would decide to invade Greenland or send military troops there against the will of Danish leaders?

B (23:45)

Boy, I mean, I would hesitate to make a prediction. I have to say that I have not talked to anyone who's very close to this at either official or analytical level who thinks that is, I won't say possible because I think our definitions of possibility are changing all the time. But in any way likely, they seem to be saying that that is one of the most unlikely scenarios, that a straight out military operation giving the United States control of Greenland. There are so many other scenarios that can unfold. Actually, there are other ways for the US to effectively take control. I mean, Stephen Miller, one of the president's top advisors, said on CNN after Caracas that there is no real possibility that Europe or Denmark will contest Greenland militarily against a United States military operation. The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States. There's no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you're asking of a military operation. Nobody's going to fight the United States.

A (25:00)

Militarily over the future of Greenland. One last question, Steven, one last question.

B (25:05)

The president was very, I think he's right about that. I think a lot of people here have agreed with that. They're just legislative.

A (25:11)

Wait, wait, that Miller is saying that the, if the US Went in that Europe wouldn't try to stop them Effectively?

B (25:20)

Yes. He couldn't imagine, and he's not alone, any scenario in which Europe would go to war against the United States over the ultimate control of Greenland. And I think that's probably correct based on conversations we've all had with political and military leaders here. That's not the way that they want this to end, obviously. And there are just other ways in which it could go on and be resolved.

A (25:53)

But it's interesting to hear Steve Miller say that because to me that sounds like a reason to do it. Right. If, yes, the Europeans are upset about what's happening with Greenland, but that they wouldn't go to war over Greenland, then I mean, if that's the understanding, it seems like that leaves an open door to say, okay, if we were to send a bunch of American troops to Greenland, then the Europeans would be mad about it, but they wouldn't. It's not worth it to them to try to stop us.

B (26:22)

Yeah, that is a very shocking thing to say. And I don't think you would have heard that from any other administration. I mean, that is an example of how radically things have shifted, certainly in the rhetoric. But I think that there is an operating theory among diplomats here that the answer to all this is ultimately going to be some kind of agreement, if Trump can be clear about what would really satisfy his ambitions about Greenland, that there is almost nothing that the countries won't agree to and that under this theory there are other countries countervailing forces at work in Washington. There are senior members of Congress who have made trips to Europe to say we don't agree. We don't think the American people agree. There are national security voices even inside Trump's administration or MAGA world saying Greenland would be great. But the end of NATO, which is not a terribly unrealistic possibility, the end of NATO as it's currently constructed, the effect of end of NATO is not worth it. So, you know, I think there are people who see all the rhetoric and all the storming language as the public face of what will probably end up being a negotiated settlement of what I don't think anyone has a good idea yet. But this theory suggests that he can complain about the Nobel Peace Prize, he can say he'll take it by whatever means necessary, but that ultimately it's going to be some new status, some new relationship that will be settled and not militarily.

A (28:13)

Steve, thank you so much for explaining all this.

B (28:15)

Thank you, Martine.

A (28:20)

Steve Hendricks is the Post's London bureau chief. Today's episode was produced by Rennie Srinavsky. It was edited by Dennis Funk and mixed by Sean Carter. Thanks also to David Herzenhorn. If you're looking for the latest updates on this story and other big news every day, check out our morning news briefing. The Seven we bring you through the seven stories you need to know about every Weekday morning by 7am you can listen to it wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Martine Powers. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

C (28:59)

Good journalism is even better when it's shared. With a premium subscription to the Washington Post, you get three extra accounts to share with friends and family so they can stay informed, too. Right now, you can get a premium subscription to the post for $6 every four weeks. Just $6 unlocks trusted reporting to share with other people in your life. After your first six months, it'll cost $19 every four weeks. You can cancel anytime. Head over to washingtonpost.com subscribe and get premium access to the Washington post today. That's washingtonpost.com subscribe.