Donald Trump’s appearance at Davos this week could have almost immediate and lasting economic consequences for the global economy, warns Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group, as tensions over Greenland move toward a decisive phase.
The warning comes as the European Union holds discussions on imposing retaliatory tariffs on up to €93 billion of US goods if the US president follows through on his threat to levy a 10% tariff on European countries.
Trump has said the tariff rate would rise to 25% unless Europe agrees to a deal involving the purchase of Greenland.
Trump is attending the annual World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday, where heads of state, finance ministers, central bankers, and business leaders gather to address global economic stability, trade relations, and geopolitical risk.
Nigel Green says Trump’s presence at Davos fundamentally changes the focus of the summit.
“Davos is meant to be about coordination and confidence, but Trump will arrive having already put a major territorial dispute at the centre of the global trade conversation.
“Greenland is not a side issue here. It sits directly on the fault line between geopolitics, security, and economic leverage, and that makes it impossible for global leaders to ignore.”
He adds that the Greenland dispute reshapes how transatlantic relations are being discussed behind closed doors.
“Trade disagreements between allies usually revolve around access, rules, or competitiveness. Tying tariffs to territorial ambition and national security shifts the dynamic entirely.
“This is why Greenland dominates this summit. It changes the nature of the relationship and raises the stakes for every discussion taking place in Davos.”
The EU’s preparation of countermeasures underscores that assessment. “€93 billion in potential retaliation is not symbolic,” notes the deVere CEO.
“It signals readiness. Once countermeasures are designed and quantified, the cost of stepping back increases on all sides.”
While the longer-term consequences hinge on policy decisions made in the coming days, markets have already responded to the prospect of escalation.
Markets reacted with speed and force. Gold jumped as much as 2.1% to a record $4,690 per troy ounce, while silver surged 4.4% as investors rush into havens.
European equities opened sharply lower, with the Stoxx Europe 600 down 1.5%.
US futures tracking the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 fell 0.9% and 1.2% respectively, even with US cash markets closed for Martin Luther King Jr Day.
Nigel Green stresses that these moves reflect anticipation rather than conclusion.
“Markets move early, but the more significant effects unfold through trade flows, corporate planning, and government response. Price action captures expectation, not resolution.”
He outlines three broad paths ahead. “A negotiated pause could limit immediate disruption, but uncertainty would persist because leverage has been established. A partial tariff implementation risks tit-for-tat escalation. A full move to higher tariffs would likely force companies to reassess supply chains and cross-border exposure.”
He adds that the implications extend well beyond Europe and the US. “Transatlantic trade underpins confidence across global supply chains. Disruption there feeds into investment decisions, currency stability, and diplomatic alignment worldwide.”
Nigel Green also warns of precedent. “If trade policy becomes an accepted tool for advancing strategic or territorial aims, other regions will take note. That reshapes expectations about how economic relationships function.”
Davos therefore represents a pivotal moment rather than a routine summit. Statements made there will be judged against prior threats and subsequent action, not tone.
“Attendance alone does not reset expectations,” Nigel Green says. “Consistency between words and policy determines credibility.”
He concludes that the Greenland issue now tests how economic influence is wielded in a more contested global environment.
“Trump will arrive at Davos with the power to reset or harden political risk globally. What happens next will shape how governments, businesses, and investors judge that risk.”
