WSJ What’s News - Davos Braces for Greenland Showdown After Trump Posts

Episode Date: January 20, 2026

A.M. Edition for Jan. 20. President Trump has agreed to hold a meeting about Greenland at the World Economic Forum - while also reiterating his desire to buy the island. Trump has also fired off a series of Truth Social posts threatening tariffs on French wine and lashing out at the leader of the U.K. WSJ editor Marcus Walker says for Europe, the U.S. has crossed a red line - yet leaders are still trying to stave off a costly decoupling. Plus, we look at what this all means for markets. And, why 5am wakeups aren’t good for everyone. Caitlin McCabe hosts. Sign up for the WSJ’s free What’s News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you're early in your career and looking for insight, inspiration, and honest advice, listen to the Capital Ideas podcast. Hear from Capital Group professionals about leaning into the differences that make you unique, making decisions that last, and what it means to lead with purpose. The Capital Ideas Podcast, from Capital Group, available wherever you listen. Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. President Trump doubles down on his plans to acquire Greenland, ahead of expected meetings at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Even if a compromise is found on the Greenland issue, things will never be the same. A line has been crossed here because of Trump's willingness, really,

to consider all options, including force, against the U.S.'s own allies. Plus, we take a look at why Trump's Greenland-inspired tariff-salvo isn't fully rattling markets. And what time should you be waking up in the morning? It's not quite as straightforward, as you know. you think? It's Tuesday, January 20th. I'm Caitlin McKay for the Wall Street Journal, and here's the AM edition of What's News. The top headlines and business stories moving your world today. President Trump has fired off a series of truth social posts reiterating his plans for Greenland and telling reporters that the U.S. is the only country that can ensure peace.

Well, I don't think they're going to push back too much. Look, we have to have it. They have to have this done. They can't protect it. The Post followed days of escalating tensions over the territory and with a subject set to take center stage as world leaders gather in Davos, Switzerland. There, the president has agreed to meet with Margueruta, the Secretary General of NATO, and other parties to discuss Greenland. Trump also shared a screenshot of what appeared to be a text message with French President Emmanuel Macron, which read, quote, We are totally in line on Syria, we can do great things on Iran. I do not understand what you are doing on. Greenland. It comes after a French government spokesperson yesterday said the U.S. was crossing

a new threshold of coercion. That punctuated a day of hectic diplomacy, with Danish and Greenlandic officials meeting with Ruta and the UK government. Here's Danish foreign minister Lars Luka Rasmussen. It's so important that all our allies in the NATO alliance and the European Union stand up for these principles to show the American president, you have a dismal. You have a desire, you have a vision, you have a request, but you will never be able to achieve that by putting pressure on us. That signal is of crucial importance in order to, I would say, to push the Americans back into the meeting room as we agreed last week. For more, we're joined by journal editor Marcus Walker. Marcus, you've been on the Greenland Beat

for a few days now. This is a fast developing story. Bring us up to speed on where we are this morning. Well, there has been a flurry of diplomacy both in public and in private between Trump and other White House officials and the European side. The Europeans are planning an emergency summit of European Union leaders on Thursday in Brussels. Before that, it's likely that Trump will meet some European leaders in Davos. Trump has said he will meet various parties without specifying whom at the World Economic Forum, after which it remains completely unclear whether Trump will go ahead with his threat to impose tariffs on some European countries from the 1st of February and whether it will escalate or whether some solution will be found in the meantime. It's clear from the

communications in the last few hours or overnight that Trump is not backing down from his demand that the US should own Greenland and should take it over completely. Even though Trump said that he had a good conversation with NATO Secretary General Mark Ritter, he emphasized that he needs to own Greenland in his view. And at the same time, Trump has said further, the critical things about other European allies. He criticized the UK for giving away Chegos, even though Trump had previously approved that move. And he threatened France with 200 percent tariffs on French wine and champagne unless Macron agrees to join Trump's Board of Peace for Gaza. So the tensions and the mixed messages are continuing. On the one hand, conversations are

happening. On the other hand, he continues to take a very dim view of European allies and maintain his demand about Greenland. Marcus, you've got a great story out along with the journals David Luno about the collapse of trust between European leaders and the U.S. and how that's now forcing Europe to reassess its reliance on Washington. Yes, indeed. So the Atlantic alliance, NATO as the military core of that alliance, has always relied as much on trust and on the belief in common commitment as on its military infrastructure.

And that part of it is what is really coming under fire and into increasing doubt because Trump has long been a skeptic about NATO and has made me no secret about that. During the past year has not only stepped up the rhetoric against European allies in various ways, but in the clash over Greenland, he seems to be communicating that for the US, it's more important to control the Western Hemisphere, including owning Greenland and that if NATO was a casualty of that, then so be it. So the fear on the European side is that the commitment that's needed as the glue is simply no longer there. Even if a compromise is found on the Greenland issue, things will never be the same.

A line has been crossed here because of Trump's willingness really to consider all options, including force, against the U.S.'s own allies. That red line that you mentioned, Marcus, has serious consequences, right? We're talking about a dispute with NATO powers over trade, military force, and the norms that underpin transatlantic cooperation. Indeed, this Greenland issue has brought together both of the areas where the Trump administration and the Europeans have been in conflict, security on the one hand, and trade and tariffs on the other, with Trump threatening tariffs from the 1st of February and later escalating from June unless he is allowed to buy and own Greenland. So we see these two fields of dispute coming together and calling the entire relationship into question. Now, for Europe, this poses a very

awkward question of whether there really is a partnership with the US anymore. And if there isn't, whether Europe can actually afford to decouple from the US in both the economic sphere, because the US is an extremely important export market for Europe, and in the sphere of military security because Europe would have to invest and rearm much, much more than it's currently planning to do if there is no military alliance with the US. So at the moment, Europe is at a point where The relationship is really teetering on the brink, but the prospect of a divorce looks horrendously expensive and costly to the Europeans. Of course, there would be costs for the United States, too, on both the economic front and because the economic ties are deep in both directions and on the

military front, because Europe also offers the U.S. bases that allow it to project power worldwide, and also, of course, NATO has been the foundation of U.S. influence in Europe and the wider region. Yeah, those economic ties run quite deep, Marcus. Can you just lay out for us what a potential trade war between the U.S. and Europe would look like? Well, if it comes to this, and the Europeans at least hope that it won't and that Trump will back down from his tariff threat, then this would be an economic break on both sides at the Atlantic. If Trump effectively tears up the trade agreement that he reached with the European Union last year by imposing further tariffs, that will take away the promised tariff reductions that Europe was about to ratify and is now suspended,

thereby harming American businesses in Europe too for European exporters to the US. But research does indeed show that tariffs are overwhelmingly paid by Americans. That is what the evidence shows. That is, tariffs are effectively a tax on American import businesses and consumers. Mostly, they're not money paid by foreign exporters to the United States, rather they are attacks on Americans. However, they also harm exporters from other countries because as the price of imported goods go up, so sales go down and the evidence does show that tariffs while being paid by Americans also depress other countries' exports to the United States. But beyond that, the European Union also has this so-called bazooka known as the anti-coercion mechanism or instrument, which would be a whole load of further tariffs and restrictions on American businesses in Europe. But that, however, would need active support from a majority of European countries, which currently is not there because most European governments still want to de-escalate this dispute with the U.S.

They don't want to raise the stakes even further. Certainly lots to watch in the coming days, Marcus. Thanks for the update. Thank you. Coming up, what does all this mean for financial markets? We dive into that. Plus, what time should you be waking up? We look at the latest sleep science after the break.

Find your perfect home on realtor.com. The perfect home in the perfect neighborhood, in the perfect school district perfectly close to work, but perfectly far enough away to escape to. With over half a million new listings every month on realtor.com, you won't miss out on your perfectly perfect home. Trust the number one site Real Estate Professionals Trust. Search now on Realture.com. Based on average new for sale and rental listings July 24 through June 2025. Number one trusted based on August 2025 proprietary survey among real estate professionals. The restart of the trade war with Europe would present a renewed test of whether the global economy

and markets can handle more disruption. This morning, stocks in Europe and Asia have sold off, and the prices for gold and silver have reached new highs. And we'll get even more direction when U.S. markets reopen after the holiday weekend. So we saw a chunky but not outrageous fall in stock futures yesterday and we saw another chunky but not outrageous fall in stock futures overnight. But when you put those together, we're probably going to see a very large drop in U.S. stocks this morning because the market was closed yesterday. That's Journal Senior Markets columnist James McIntosh, who says so far there could be a few reasons why investors are not putting a high probability on an extreme outcome between the U.S.

and Europe. One is that, you know, last year we had this major trade war. Stocks did really well. Volatility didn't really go up. The economy was fine. Corporate investment actually went up. These are things that are not what you'd expect from a major trade war. Of course, it's also possible that investors just think there's a decent chance that Trump is bluffing or that even if he's not bluffing, he doesn't have the power to push through with this. Quite a lot of Congress is not supportive of the idea of taking Greenland. and his tariffs might end up being ruled illegal. And, of course, if they are, then all of this goes away, at least temporarily. And then, of course, one of the reasons that stocks did well last year is that Europe is planning to spend vast amounts of money on its military, which is very, very good for European defence stocks. I guess the worst case is that the US actually invades.

Now, at the moment, that's not on the cards. President Trump says he wants to buy it. But if the U.S. started sending troops there, that would be an absolute sort of end of NATO moment. And, you know, investors would suddenly have to wake up and say, this is what we need to address. This is what we need to be thinking about. As James mentioned, investors will also be watching the U.S. Supreme Court today, which is expected to hand down opinions around 10 a.m. Eastern, including possibly on whether Trump's sweeping tariffs are, in fact, legal. An hour later, Anthropic CEO Dario Amade speaks to journal editor-in-chief Emma Tucker at Davos.

And after the U.S. closing bell today, Netflix earnings, where the streamer may comment on reports that it plans to make its bid for Warner Brothers Discovery, all cash. And finally, what is the optimal wake-up time to get the most out of your day? If you listen to social media, that would be 5 a.m. to keep up with all the high-flying. CEOs and elite athletes. But if you want to boost productivity, waking up before sunrise might not be for you. A recent Gallup poll showed that more than half of Americans said they're sleep deprived, an increase from previous years. Journal Family and Tech columnist Julie Jargon says the ideal time to wake up really comes down to our genetic predisposition. In my research, I came across that people fit into typically three categories, lark, bear, or owl. And,

And so those who wake up naturally early in the morning between, you know, six and six 30 a.m. are considered the early birds or larks. That represents about 15 to 20 percent of the population. And then a small subset of those early birds are those who do naturally wake up at 5 a.m. The other 15 to 20 percent are night owls, people who, you know, like to sleep in. But the largest percentage comprise 55 to 65 percent of the population. Some sleep experts call them bears. We wake up sort of when the sun rises and go to bed earlier in the evening. And we feel that we're at our peak, productivity-wise, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Julie writes that morning sunlight, avoiding evening workouts, and limiting caffeine and alcohol before bed will also help you feel rested and ready to take on the day. But most importantly, stick to a regular wake-up time. So one of the key things is no matter what time you need to wake up in the morning, the goal is to be consistent about it. So, for example, if you do want to be on the 5 a.m. bandwagon, it's only going to work if you wake up at 5 a.m. on weekdays and weekends. Because if you sleep in on the weekends, you end up feeling jet lagged. Follow the link in our show notes to Julie's story, where you can find a quiz which will help you determine if you're a lark, bear, or owl. And that's it for What's News for this Tuesday morning. Today's show is produced by Daniel Bach and Haddy Moyer. Our supervising producer was Sandra Kilhoff. And I'm Caitlin McCabe for The Wall Street Journal.

We'll be back tonight with the new show. Until then, thanks for listening.