Business Leaders React to Trump's Davos Greenland Remarks

President Donald Trump delivered a 70-minute speech at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, drawing intense scrutiny from global business leaders. The address, which took place in Congress Hall alongside heads of state and billionaire CEOs, focused heavily on the acquisition of Greenland and Europe's economic standing.

Within hours of the speech, executives from major financial and technology firms began sharing their analyses on social media and television interviews. The reactions reveal a divided perspective on Trump's diplomatic approach and economic policies, with particular attention on how his Greenland strategy might affect international trade and security dynamics.

The World Economic Forum in Davos served as the backdrop for President Trump's highly anticipated address, where he outlined his administration's position on several critical issues. All eyes were on the American leader as he spoke for nearly an hour and a half, with Apple's Tim Cook and Salesforce's Marc Benioff among the prominent CEOs filling the audience.

Trump's remarks centered on his desire to acquire Greenland, a topic that has dominated this year's Davos agenda following his ongoing threats against Europe. He explicitly stated that he would not use military force to obtain the territory, instead emphasizing his commitment to seeking immediate negotiations to discuss the acquisition by the United States.

Trump said on Wednesday that he will not use force to get Greenland, but is "seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition" by the US.

The speech marked a significant diplomatic moment, as European leaders and business executives gathered to hear the American president's vision for transatlantic relations and global economic policy.

Ken Griffin, founder and CEO of Citadel, offered a measured response to Trump's address during an appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box. Griffin characterized the speech as delivering an important message to a European audience that he believes needs to improve its economic performance and defense commitment.

Griffin highlighted what he sees as a stark contrast between American and European resolve, pointing to survey data that suggests European populations lack the same level of commitment to defending their countries as Americans show to defending theirs. He viewed Trump's justification for seeking Greenland as rooted in questions about European reliability in future conflicts.

The commitment of the American people to defend our country runs deep. The commitment of the Europeans to defend their countries — if you look at surveys of the population — is not nearly as strong.

While supportive of the message, Griffin cautioned that any pursuit of Greenland should be approached with care. He emphasized that global investors are already concerned about trade tensions and that discussions should be thoughtfully laid out to avoid escalating stress in international markets.

Peter Schiff, chief economist at Euro Pacific Asset Management, offered a different perspective, focusing on what he interpreted as Trump's admission of a housing bubble. Schiff, whose firm managed $1.4 billion last year, wrote on X that Trump's policy goal of preventing the bubble from popping represents a fundamental misunderstanding of economic dynamics.

Schiff argued that once a bubble is recognized, the worst possible response is to try to sustain it. He believes the sooner the bubble bursts, the less damage it will ultimately cause to the economy. His warning came in response to what he saw as Trump's acknowledgment of an inflated housing market.

Trump basically admitted there is a housing bubble in the US. He also admitted his main policy goal is to prevent it from popping. But once you recognize a bubble, the worst thing you can do is try to sustain it. The sooner it bursts, the less damage it will ultimately cause.

Regarding Greenland, Schiff suggested that cooler heads prevailed at the White House by choosing negotiation over military action. However, he warned that if the US succeeds in purchasing Greenland, it would likely massively overpay for the territory.

Matthew Prince, CEO and cofounder of Cloudflare, offered a more stylistic observation about Trump's delivery. Prince noted a distinct difference in the president's approach compared to previous appearances at Davos, suggesting a departure from his typically scripted style.

According to Prince, Trump's previous speeches at the forum had been characterized by strict adherence to the teleprompter, but this time the president appeared to deviate from that pattern. The comment highlights the informal nature of social media reactions that have become a hallmark of real-time analysis at major global events.

Last two times Trump spoke at Davos he stuck extremely close to the teleprompter. Not this time.

While Prince's observation was brief, it reflects the broader trend of business leaders using platforms like X to share immediate, unfiltered reactions to high-profile speeches, creating a digital echo chamber that extends the conversation far beyond the conference halls of Davos.

The reactions from business leaders reveal a complex landscape of opinions regarding President Trump's Davos address. While Ken Griffin supported the geopolitical message to Europe, he tempered his support with cautions about trade stability. Peter Schiff focused on economic vulnerabilities, particularly in the housing market, while Matthew Prince provided a more observational take on the president's delivery style.

What remains clear is that Trump's Greenland strategy continues to dominate discussions at the World Economic Forum, with business leaders closely monitoring how diplomatic negotiations might unfold. The 70-minute speech has set the stage for ongoing debate about transatlantic relations, defense commitments, and the future of US-European economic cooperation.

As the forum continues, the business community will be watching for further developments on Greenland negotiations and potential policy shifts that could affect global markets and international trade relationships.