Trump’s Davos claims fact-checked: Greenland, NATO, China and $18 trillion – fact or fiction?

A look at the claims made by the US president on Greenland, NATO, China and global investments during his Davos address.

New Delhi: At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, US President Donald Trump addressed global leaders. His speech included several claims that have raised questions and drawn scrutiny from fact-checkers.

He spoke about his desire to acquire Greenland, which he described as a “small demand”, emphasising its importance for US national security. He also addressed America’s contributions to NATO and criticised wind energy developments in China.

Here is a fact-check of the major claims he made in the over-one-hour speech.

Greenland

Trump stated that after World War II, the United States had returned Greenland to Denmark and questioned the wisdom of that decision. However, the Arctic island was never under US sovereignty, so it could not have been “returned”.

In 1933, an international court, predating today’s International Court of Justice, had confirmed Greenland as part of Denmark. In 1941, following Denmark’s surrender to Germany, the United States and Denmark signed an agreement allowing Washington to defend Greenland to prevent Nazi Germany from occupying it.

This agreement permitted American military presence and bases on the island but did not transfer sovereignty.

NATO spending

Trump also claimed that the United States covers nearly the entire NATO budget. He asserted that other member countries contribute only 2% and were now moving toward 5%.

Data shows that the United States historically covered around 70% of NATO defense spending in recent years, which declined to 65% in 2024 and an estimated 62% in 2025, as NATO members agreed to gradually reach 2% of their GDP on defense.

The 5% figure cited by Trump represents a long-term goal for 2035, not the present reality. Poland, the NATO country with the highest defense spending in 2025, allocated just under 4.5% of its GDP.

Returns from the organisation

Trump argued that the United States had received nothing from NATO and had never asked for anything. NATO’s collective defense principle obligates members to consider an attack on one as an attack on all. The United States invoked this clause after the 9/11 attacks and benefited from allied troops and equipment during the Afghanistan campaign.

Denmark, in particular, suffered significant casualties while contributing to operations along with British forces.

Wind energy in China

Trump criticised wind energy as a “green scam” and claimed that despite China manufacturing many turbines, he could not find a single wind farm there.

In reality, China hosts some of the largest wind farms globally, including one in Gansu province visible from space. Data shows that China produced 997 terawatt-hours of wind energy in 2024, more than double the output of the second-ranking country, the United States.

North sea oil

Trump also targeted the United Kingdom’s energy policies, claiming that it collects 92% of North Sea oil revenues and makes it difficult for oil companies to operate.

In fact, North Sea companies pay 30% corporate tax plus a 10% supplementary rate on profits. The government increased the windfall tax from 35% to 38% in 2024, resulting in a total of 78% tax on profits, not revenue. The windfall tax, introduced in 2022, is scheduled to end in 2030.

US investments

Trump claimed that his administration had secured record investments of $18 trillion for the United States, repeating the figure multiple times.

Publicly available data suggests that the total investment under his administration is closer to $9.6 trillion. The largest single commitment cited is $1.4 trillion from the United Arab Emirates, intended for manufacturing and industrial projects.

Analysts say that some of these pledges are conditional, and the full impact may take several years to materialise. The European Parliament recently suspended ratification of a US trade deal until Washington shows a preference for cooperation over confrontation.