What has Jonas Gahr Støre publicly said about his conversation and correspondence with President Trump since the letter was delivered?

1. Støre frames the exchange as a response to a joint text, not a provocation

Støre told reporters and released statements saying Trump’s message arrived after a brief text he had sent earlier the same day on behalf of himself and Finland’s president Alexander Stubb proposing a call, and that Trump’s letter was a direct response to that outreach ^{[1] [5]}. Multiple outlets attribute to Støre the line that the message “came in response to a short text message to President Trump from me earlier in the day, on behalf of myself and the President of Finland, Alexander Stubb,” a point Støre repeated to correct the sequence of events and to indicate the Norwegian side had sought dialogue rather than confrontation ^{[1] [2]}.

2. He emphasizes the Nobel Committee’s independence, repeatedly

Støre has publicly stressed that Norway’s government does not award the Nobel Peace Prize and that he has “repeatedly clearly explained” this to Trump, a clarification he reiterated after the letter circulated in international media ^{[1] [3]}. That defense appears aimed at insulating Norway’s government from any perception of having denied Trump the prize, and Støre publicly reiterated the well-known institutional fact that an independent committee, not the Norwegian executive, makes the award ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Confirming the letter, describing its contents and context

In confirmations to journalists and state briefings, Støre acknowledged receiving the letter in which Trump wrote that he “no longer feel[s] an obligation to think purely of peace” and reiterated demands relating to Greenland, language that sparked alarm among European partners ^{[4] [2]}. Støre’s public comments—in Norwegian and international press briefings—have therefore mixed procedural clarifications about the Nobel process with factual confirmation that the U.S. president used the exchange to press strategic demands, a characterization also reflected in widespread media publication of the letter itself ^{[4] [6]}.

4. Diplomatic posture: offering a call while deflecting responsibility for Nobel decisions

Beyond the clarification about the Nobel Committee, Støre signaled he and Finland’s president had proposed a call “later today – with both of us or separately – give us a hint of what you prefer!” according to the message Støre said they had texted, a formulation reported and published by multiple outlets after the correspondence leaked ^[5]. That suggested an attempt at de-escalation via direct conversation even as Støre publicly pushed back on any implication Norway had agency over the Nobel outcome ^{[5] [1]}.

5. Implicit messaging and contested narratives: Støre’s limited but pointed public record

Støre’s public remarks have been narrow and procedural: acknowledgment of the letter, insistence that the Nobel committee is independent, and disclosure that the exchange followed a proposed phone call from him and Finland’s president ^{[1] [3] [5]}. Alternative readings exist in the press—some framing the letter as a deliberate American provocation, others emphasizing the White House’s decision to circulate the text widely via the NSC—but Støre’s statements stick to sequence, institutional fact, and an offer of dialogue rather than escalating rhetoric ^{[7] [1]}. Reporting shows Støre has not publicly recanted or expanded beyond these points in the cited sources; if he has offered further private clarifications, those are not documented in the material provided ^{[1] [2]}.