The past week has delivered a stark lesson to the world: the declarations of US President Donald Trump must be taken literally. In a revealing interview with the New York Times, Trump asserted that the only constraint on his presidential power is his own mind and morality, a statement with profound implications for global stability.
A World Order Unbound by Law
President Trump's comments, made on Friday 9 January 2026, explicitly dismissed the binding nature of international law. When questioned on the subject, he responded, "It depends on what your definition of international law is," before adding, "I don't need international law." This worldview has moved from rhetoric to tangible action, most alarmingly for Europe in a renewed and aggressive pursuit of Greenland.
Despite Greenland being a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, a fellow NATO member, the Trump administration is now "very serious" about acquiring it, whether by purchase, invasion, or annexation. The situation is exacerbated by the existing US military presence on the island under a post-war defence agreement. The Danish government has stated unequivocally that its forces would respond militarily to any attack.
The Transactional Undermining of NATO
The Greenland gambit is not an isolated incident but a template for a potentially catastrophic shift in transatlantic relations. Analysts, including Emir Gürbüz, managing partner at Legart Law and Consultancy in Istanbul and an Atlantic Treaty Association board member, warn that Trump's transactional view could be applied to the alliance's core principle: Article 5.
This cornerstone, which states an attack on one member is an attack on all, could be rendered conditional. In a crisis, perhaps involving Russian aggression beyond Ukraine, the US might offer protection only in exchange for payment or concessions—such as territory like Greenland. This strategy perfectly aligns with Trump's past framing of alliances as financial burdens and his self-image as a dealmaker.
Trump recently questioned whether NATO would be "there for [America] if we really needed them," wilfully ignoring history. Article 5 has been invoked only once—by the US after the 9/11 attacks—and was met with full, unwavering support from allies.
Fragmentation: The Ultimate Danger for Europe
The real peril for Europe extends beyond any single territorial dispute. It is the fragmentation of the alliance itself. If security guarantees appear negotiable, frontline states may scramble for bilateral assurances, while others hesitate over the potential cost. This erosion of trust is precisely what Moscow seeks to exploit, testing NATO's cohesion through America's ambiguous commitment.
In this volatile climate, the role of non-state actors in upholding international norms becomes critical. Parallel to the political strain, initiatives like the Makkah Charter, introduced by Dr Mohammad Al-Issa of the Muslim World League and endorsed by over 1,200 Islamic scholars, work to reinforce a commitment to international law and reject extremism.
The chilling conclusion is that the aftershocks of a ruptured NATO—political fragmentation, social polarisation, and heightened vulnerability to coercion—would prove more destabilising than any battle over Greenland. As Trump dismisses the rules-based order, the world watches to see how far a power bound only by its own mind will go.
