To the collective relief of the West, Donald Trump’s almost manic obsession with Greenland took a more reasonable turn Wednesday during the president’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Usually a global afterthought, the 836,000-square-mile island has been the nexus of the world’s attention for weeks, thanks to the White House’s intense — some would say unhinged — desire to acquire the icy land mass. But now, after threatening everything from a military invasion to economic retribution to get America’s hands on the property, Trump finally said the words that never should have been on the table in the first place: “I won’t use force.” 

The fact that this barest of courtesies is a victory — a NATO member nation agreeing not to invade another NATO member nation — speaks to just how crazed Trump’s rhetoric had become. Even Americans who are used to his bombastic and unpredictable style started to sincerely worry that the president was on the verge of becoming the Left’s caricature of himself — a tyrant. “He’s wild,” NRO’s Charlie Cooke insisted. “I don’t know if it warrants the 25th Amendment, but we ought not to downplay how capricious and [hysterical] he seems.”

The idea of taking Greenland by force was astonishing because it was at least somewhat believable. People on both sides of the aisle couldn’t believe that our country, “our respect for sovereignty, our respect for democracy, the liberty of freedom-loving people to exist in their own social compact and enjoy self-determination,” as Noah Rothman put it, were dangerously close to being snuffed out in pursuit of a territory the U.S. already has tremendous access to for its national security goals. 

Declaring that he has “tremendous respect for both the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark” — a feeling that’s almost certainly not mutual at this point — he argued that “no nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States.” Trump talked about America’s history with the “big piece of ice,” as he called it, mentioning how we fought for Denmark in World War II and set up bases in Greenland. “We saved Greenland and successfully prevented our enemies from gaining a foothold in our hemisphere. So we did it for ourselves also.”

But then, after the war, the president said, “We gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that? But we did it. But we gave it back. But how ungrateful are they now?” he sniped, before piling on that the only reason the land matters is because of its strategic location. “This enormous, unsecured island is actually part of North America on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere. That’s our territory. It is, therefore, a core national security interest of the United States of America. And in fact, it’s been our policy for hundreds of years to prevent outside threats from entering our hemisphere.”

Trump pointed out that American presidents have tried to buy Greenland for 200 years. But it’s “much more necessary now than it was at that time,” the president insisted. In 2019, the last time Trump raised the issue, “Denmark said that they would spend over $200 million to strengthen Greenland’s defenses. But as you know, they spent less than 1% of that amount. One percent is no sign of Denmark there. And I say that with great respect for Denmark,” he added, “whose people I love, whose leaders are very good. It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it, and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us.”

Then, in a welcome pivot from his rants of recent days, Trump said with a sanity that was lacking in other soundbites that he was “seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States. … But this would not be a threat to NATO,” he assured the audience. “This would greatly enhance the security of the entire alliance…”

Later, the president acknowledged the uproar his comments created, saying simply, “People thought I ‌would use force, but I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” he promised. Still, Trump said in a pointed message, “They have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember.”

Trump’s abrupt return to reason had an immediate impact on the financial markets in the U.S., where things had taken a drastic turn for the worse on Tuesday after the president’s Greenland-related tariff threats. They rebounded just as quickly Wednesday morning when the president opted not to escalate matters.

While he’s never cared too much about public opinion, the American people will take some comfort in the fact that our troops are at least not headed for an Arctic war. Only 9% of the country agreed with Trump’s absurd suggestion of a military invasion of Greenland, according to the latest YouGov/Economist poll. And while almost triple that percentage support buying the island (29%), even those numbers aren’t exactly a rousing endorsement.

But then, as David Bahnsen, one of the top financial advisors in the country, was quick to note, those aren’t the metrics Trump is watching. The founder and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group tried to calm anxious listeners of “Washington Watch” on Tuesday by underscoring, “I don’t think he’s willing to go into a trade war. He’s willing to threaten it and try to leverage it,” Bahnsen noted, pointing to the pattern of his first and second terms. 

By mid-Wednesday, Trump had abandoned even that pressure point, writing on Truth Social that he’d had a “very productive meeting” with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and they discussed the framework of a “future deal” on Greenland and the “entire Arctic Region.” “Based upon this understanding,” the president announced, “I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st.”

That’s a wise course of action, Bahnsen noted, “[since the alternative] would result in ripping up all the deals that have already been cut with different European bloc countries. … But,” he acknowledged, “this is a pretty familiar play for the president to at least try to use it in his negotiating.”

If you’re trying to predict Trump’s sincerity on any of his tough talk, Bahnsen has an interesting theory. “One of the things I know is that the president cares a great deal about something called market discipline — that he will push things until the market disciplines him away from it, whether it be bond markets … or even the stock market itself. And there’s a certain threshold of pain [he’s willing to endure].” He didn’t point to the hysteria over last year’s tariffs, but that was another instance that proved his hypothesis. Like this week, the second that Trump’s heavy-handedness started to affect Wall Street, he backed off. 

“The people that I’m extremely close with in the Trump 1.0 administration have all indicated to me how significant of a factor a report card on his presidency he believes [the] financial markets to be,” Bahnsen continued. “And I don’t think that’s a big secret. He talks about it publicly all the time. So the question is: what [are the] markets going to do?” In this instance, they took a nosedive. That, more than anything, Bahnsen prophesied the day before Trump’s Davos speech, should force him to back off.

“I do not think Europe is going to give in on this one,” he rightly observed. “… I also believe that the president has less leverage than he’s had in the past. This is a midterm election year. We’re dealing with a major affordability issue here. The president already indicated that he recognizes the impact tariffs have on prices by having to reverse course on tariffs on coffee, sugar, fruit, a lot of grocery items,” Bahnsen emphasized. “So I think the last thing the president wants is to see this escalate.”

Look, Bahnsen said, “All of us know his personality enough to know he’s not going to come in and wave a white flag. But is he going to talk in a way that suggests a little more sober-minded judiciousness?” Wednesday’s shift in tone certainly signaled that. Whether it’s too late to thaw the tensions with Europe and Canada, we’ll see.