What exact wording did Trump use and what was the full context of the remark?
Executive summary
President Trump told an international audience that Greenland “is our territory” and warned that nations who refuse American requests should expect consequences, saying, “You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember” [1]. Those lines came inside a broader Davos address in which he framed U.S. power as leverage — a mix of boasting about domestic accomplishments and blunt pressure on allies over strategic assets like Greenland [1] [2].
1. The exact wording on Greenland and the follow‑through threat
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump asserted possession and leverage in explicit terms: he referred to Greenland as “our territory” and paired that assertion with a conditional appeal to cooperation that doubled as a warning — “You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember” — language reported and excerpted by TIME from his speech [1]. Reporting captured that pairing of a possessive claim with the admonition to remember refusals; contemporaneous coverage treated the phrasing as intentionally pointed rather than jocular [1].
2. Where those lines sat inside the speech’s overall argument
The Greenland lines were embedded in a combative Davos address designed to showcase what Trump described as a triumphant first year back in office — declaring economic turnarounds and border control successes before pivoting to foreign policy as a theater for American leverage [1]. TIME and other outlets summarized the speech as part persuasion and part performance: Trump used claims about domestic achievements to justify a take‑no‑prisoners approach in diplomacy, presenting leverage and public pressure as tools he intends to deploy on allies and rivals alike [1].
3. How journalists and fact‑checkers placed the remark in context
Fact‑checking outlets flagged the Greenland claim as misleading or historically muddled: The New York Times noted that Trump’s rhetoric misstates Greenland’s status and history and said he was likely alluding to a World War II–era defense arrangement between the United States and Denmark rather than any current legal claim to territory [2]. Reporters framed the “we will remember” line not just as tough talk but as consistent with a diplomatic style that substitutes public coercion for quiet negotiation, a characterization grounded in the rest of the Davos speech [1] [2].
4. The administration’s related messaging and private outreach
Beyond the Davos remarks, reporting indicated the White House and the president had been pressing the Greenland idea in other venues: NPR summarized private messages with world leaders explaining Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland, and noted foreign counterparts’ attempts to defuse or redirect those conversations at the World Economic Forum [3]. That wider pattern — public threats married to private outreach — helps explain why a brusque line about remembering refusals resonated in coverage as part of a coherent policy posture rather than an isolated gaffe [3] [1].
5. Alternative readings and implicit agendas
Supporters interpret the wording as straightforward bargaining talk — an attempt to extract concessions using America’s economic and military weight — and see the “we will remember” line as rhetorical leverage rather than a literal promise of retaliation [1]. Critics and many fact‑checkers view the same phrasing as destabilizing, historically inaccurate, and damaging to alliances because it frames diplomacy as transactional coercion and inflates claims over a territory that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark [2]. Reporting by TIME and The New York Times explicitly flagged that contrast, noting both the rhetorical intent and the factual problems underlying the territorial implication [1] [2].
6. Limits of the public record and what remains unclear
Coverage provides the verbatim “you can say yes… or you can say no, and we will remember” line and the “that’s our territory” sentiment as reported in the Davos address, and it places those lines amid the president’s larger Davos themes [1]. However, reporting does not produce a full official legal rationale or a contemporaneous transcript vetted by the White House that expands on the territorial claim beyond rhetorical framing; fact‑checkers instead reference probable historical precedents rather than any new legal claim [2]. Where reporting diverges is in interpreting motive — whether rhetorical theater or deliberate policy signaling — and the public record does not settle that intent definitively [1] [2].