Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a pointed critique of Donald Trump while speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as tension between Trump and America’s allies intensifies amid the president’s push to take control of Greenland.
“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” Carney said on Tuesday. “Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.”
Carney’s speech comes days after Trump announced a new round of tariffs against several of America’s European allies in an effort to force them to support his bid to annex Greenland, a territory of Denmark. Trump has meanwhile bashed NATO, even sharing a social media post on Tuesday alleging that the alliance of nations is a greater threat to the United States than Russia or China. The president has also recently shared memes depicting him planting the American flag on Greenland and of him and world leaders in the Oval Office next to a map with the American flag plastered over both Canada and Greenland. Trump on Sunday sent Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre a letter in which he suggested he could take Greenland by force in response to not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
“We stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future,” Carney said to applause, adding that Canada “strongly opposes” tariffs over Greenland. Canada, like other nations, is moving to diversify its economic ties amid Trump’s erratic tariff agenda, signing a deal with China for low-cost electric vehicles last week. The European Union on Thursday stopped the approval of a trade deal it struck with the United States last summer.
Trump’s allies in government have repeatedly touted the need for the United States to dominate the Western Hemisphere, particularly in the wake of the U.S. military capturing Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro earlier this month, effectively putting the U.S. in charge of the South American nation. (Trump even shared a social media post identifying him as the “Acting President of Venezuela.”) The administration’s attention quickly shifted to Greenland, and Canada is right to be worried — about what it could mean for NATO as well as the nation’s own sovereignty. Trump has frequently suggested that Canada become the “51st state,” and given the imperialistic moves Trump has already made this year it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that he could have real designs on America’s neighbor to the north.
The Globe and Mail reported on Tuesday that the “Canadian Armed Forces have modeled a hypothetical U.S. military invasion of Canada and the country’s potential response,” citing two senior government officials. The officials said it was unlikely that Trump would order such an invasion, but that if it were to happen, “the military envisions unconventional warfare in which small groups of irregular military or armed civilians would resort to ambushes, sabotage, drone warfare, or hit-and-run tactics.”
The Globe and Mail reported earlier this week that Canada is considering sending troops to Greenland as a show of solidarity with Denmark, and Carney said in Davos that Canada is working with NATO allies to help secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through “boots on the ground, boots on the ice.”
Carney wasn’t the only world leader to level a barely veiled criticism of Trump at the World Economic Forum. French President Emmanuel Macron spoke on Tuesday of a “world without rules, where international law is trampled underfoot, and where the only laws that seem to matter are of the strongest, and where imperial ambitions are resurfacing.” Macron referenced Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East and Africa, as well as America’s trade wars, noting that Trump’s tariffs are “fundamentally unacceptable, especially when they are used as leverage against territorial sovereignty.”
“We prefer science to conspiracy theories, rule of law to rule of force, dialogue to threats,” Macron added later on X, echoing comments from his speech.
Trump spoke at White House on Tuesday to commemorate the anniversary of his return to the White House last January, and again he took a jab at NATO. “NATO has to treat us fairly,” he said. “The big fear I have with NATO is that we spend tremendous amounts of money with NATO. I know we’ll come to their rescue, but I really do question whether they’ll come to ours. I’m just saying.”
Trump added later that he “lost a lot of respect for Norway” because he didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize after he “settled eight wars,” which he says was “easy.” When asked how far he is willing to go to acquire Greenland, Trump responded, “You’ll find out.”
Trump spoke today at Davos, reiterating his belief that America needs to control Greenland while claiming he won’t use force to take the Danish territory, which he referred to as “Iceland” multiple times during the speech. “So we want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” the president lamented, threatening to “remember” if Denmark doesn’t let the U.S. take control of Greenland.
Trump also took a jab at Carney. “Canada gets a lot of freebies from us. They should be grateful also but they’re not,” he said of Canada. “I watched your prime minister yesterday, he wasn’t so grateful. But they should be grateful to us. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”
This story was originally published by Rolling Stone US on Jan. 21, 2026.













President Donald Trump discussing Venezuela at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago.
Why Venezuela Could Be a Turning Point in Gen Z’s Support for Trump
When Donald Trump called himself “the peace president” during his 2024 campaign, it was not just a slogan that my fellow Gen Z men and I took seriously, but also a promise we took personally. For a generation raised in the shadow of endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it felt reassuring. It told us there was a new Republican Party that had learned from its failures and wouldn’t ask our generation to fight another war for regime change. That belief stood strong until the U.S. overthrew Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Growing up in the long wake of the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan shaped how my generation learned to see Republicans. For us, “traditional” Republican foreign policy became synonymous with unnecessary conflicts that caused young people to bear the consequences. We heard how Iraq was sold to the public as a necessary war to destroy weapons of mass destruction, only to become a long conflict that defined the early adulthood of many millennials. Many of us grew up watching older siblings come home from deployments changed, and hearing teachers and coaches talk about friends who never fully came back. By the time we were old enough to pay attention, distrust of Bush-era Republicans wasn’t ideological, it was inherited from what we had heard.
As the 2024 election was rolling around, that dynamic had flipped. After watching wars in Ukraine and Gaza dominate headlines while Joe Biden was president, the Democrats were now the warmongers. My friends constantly told me how a vote for Kamala Harris was a vote to go to war. On the other hand, Donald Trump and the Republicans were the ones my friends thought could keep us safe. “I’m not voting for Trump because I love him,” one friend told me. “I’m voting for him because he cares about us and I don’t want to go fight in a stupid war.” For many of my friends, much of their vote came down to one question: Who was less likely to send us to fight? The answer to them was pretty clear.
Fast forward to now, and Venezuela has begun to complicate that belief. Even without talk of a draft or a formal declaration of war, the renewed focus on U.S. involvement and troops on the ground has brought back the same language of escalation my generation was taught to distrust. Young men online have been voicing the same worries, concerned that the ousting of Maduro mirrors the early stages of wars they were raised to fear. When I asked a friend what he thought about Venezuela, he shared that same sentiment. “This is how all these wars always start,” he told me. “They might try to make it sound like it’s not actually a war, but people our age always end up being the ones that pay the price for it.” For young men who supported Trump because they believed he represented a break from interventionist politics, Venezuela blurs the line between the “new” Republican Party they thought they were backing and the old one they were raised to reject.
For many young men, Venezuela has become a major part of a broader shift of how they view Trump. A recent poll from Speaking with American Men (SAM) found that Trump’s approval rating has fallen 10 percent among young men, with only 27 percent agreeing with the statement that Trump is “delivering for you”.
Gen Z men’s support of Trump was never about ideology or party loyalty, it was about the idea that he had their back and would fight for them. But that’s no longer the case. Recently, Trump proposed adding $500 billion to the military budget. Ideas like that will only hurt the president with young men. My friends don’t want more military spending that could get us entangled in foreign wars; they want a president who keeps them home and fights for their economic and social needs. As Trump pushes for a bigger military and more intervention abroad, the promise that once made him feel like a protector of young men now feels out of reach.
For my generation, Venezuela isn’t just another foreign policy dispute, it’s a conflict many young men worry they could be the ones sent to fight. Gen Z men didn’t support Trump because he was a Republican, but because they believed he was different from the old Republicans. He would be a president who would have their back, fight for their interests and keep them from fighting unnecessary wars. Now, that promise feels fragile, and the fear of being the ones asked to face the consequences has returned. For a generation raised on the effects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of another war isn’t abstract, it’s personal.