President Donald Trump has Europe on edge as he prepares to meet with foreign leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Wednesday and Thursday at the World Economic Forum.

The World Economic Forum is a Switzerland-based organization that convenes global political leaders, business executives, academics and activists each year in Davos to discuss major economic, political and social issues, with the U.S. and Trump expected to take center stage this year. Leaders from Germany to France to Norway and beyond are expected to attend. 

Calls for the U.S. to acquire Greenland and tariff threats loom over the event as Trump puts European allies on notice to reach a deal on the island by Feb. 1 or face the consequences. Goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom will face a 10% tariff if no deal is reached by February, with the taxes increasing to 25% by June 1 if there is no deal. 

Top European leaders have balked over Trump’s demands to make a deal on Greenland, citing that NATO allies can work together to ensure the Arctic is secure. Greenland is a self-governing Danish territory nestled between North America and Europe in the Arctic Circle. 

Trump wants to acquire the island — the largest island in the world –—from a national security standpoint, noting Russia’s and China’s growing presence in the Arctic. Greenland as a pivotal outpost during the Cold War because it was along the shortest routes between North America and the Soviet Union, allowing for speedy missile detection. 

The World Economic Forum kicked off Monday, with some European leaders questioning their relationship with the U.S. as tariff threats loom. The threats follow the U.S. and EU reaching a comprehensive trade framework in 2025 that fixed a 15% tariff level on most EU exports. 

‘The European Union and the United States have agreed to a trade deal last July,’ European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said from Davos on Monday, according to The Associated Press. ‘And in politics as in business — a deal is a deal. And when friends shake hands, it must mean something.’

‘We consider the people of the United States not just our allies, but our friends. And plunging us into a downward spiral would only aid the very adversaries we are both so committed to keeping out of the strategic landscape,’ she added.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said from a press conference in Nuuk ahead of the forum that there needs to be respect for ‘territorial integrity.’ 

‘International law, it’s not a game,’ he said. ‘We have been a close and loyal ally to the United States, to NATO, through many, many, many years. We can do lots more in that framework. We are willing to cooperate much more, but of course in mutual respect, and if we cannot see that, it will be very difficult to have a good and reliable partnership.’

Trump is set to hold a signing ceremony for the Gaza Board of Peace in Davos, Fox News confirmed Tuesday, which is styled as a new oversight body tied to the next phase of the Gaza peace plan. ‘Dozens’ of countries have been invited to join the board, Fox News confirmed. 

Some invited countries, however, have raised concerns about the terms of the proposed Gaza peace board, as participation would come with a substantial financial commitment, adding to the heightened tensions at the forum, Bloomberg reported. 

French President Emmanuel Macron, for example, has increasingly become a target for Trump’s criticisms and denied membership on the board. 

Macron’s office said the Board of Peace proposal ‘goes beyond the framework of Gaza and raises serious questions, in particular with respect to the principles and structure of the United Nations, which cannot be called into question,’ according to Politico. 

Trump threatened additional tariffs on France when asked about Macron’s refusal to join the board. 

‘I’ll put a 200 percent tariff on his wines and Champagnes and he’ll join. But he doesn’t have to join,’ Trump told reporters on Monday. 

Trump is expected to kick off his first day in Davos at about 8 a.m. EST for a day of events and meetings, before returning to the U.S. Thursday. 

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report. 

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — a Republican who left office earlier this year after a falling out with President Donald Trump last year — poured cold water on the president’s ambitions to add Greenland to the U.S.

‘We are approaching $40 Trillion in debt and Social Security is going to be insolvent by 2033. Is anyone even talking about how much it’s going to cost the American people to take over Greenland?’ Greene asked in a Tuesday post on X.

‘Saying it’s ‘for your safety’ is not sufficient. We’ve heard that one before and it didn’t turn out so well,’ she added.

The U.S. national debt is more than $38.46 trillion, according to fiscaldata.treasury.gov.

Trump has said the U.S. needs to acquire Greenland as a matter of national security.

‘The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building,’ he asserted in part of a Truth Social post last week.

‘China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it,’ he declared in part of another Truth Social post last week. 

‘Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake,’ he asserted. ‘Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important.’

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., is calling for bipartisanship on a key vote that could lead to former President Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facing criminal charges.

Comer will ask Democrats to join Republicans in teeing up House-wide votes on holding the Clintons in contempt of Congress on Wednesday, after both defied subpoenas to appear for his committee’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein.

‘The Committee does not take this action lightly. But subpoenas are not mere suggestions; they carry the force of law and require compliance,’ Comer will say, according to an excerpt obtained by Fox News Digital. ‘Former President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for depositions before this Committee. They refused.’

Comer’s statement will also argue the committee ‘acted in good faith’ in trying to schedule the depositions but that ‘actions have consequences.’

‘We’ve offered flexibility on scheduling. The response we received was not cooperation, but defiance, marked by repeated delays, excuses, and obstruction,’ Comer will say. ‘Today, the Clintons must be held accountable for their actions. And Democrats must support these measures, or they will be exposed as hypocrites.’

The committee is meeting at 10 a.m. on Wednesday to mark up a pair of reports on holding the Clintons in contempt. 

If they pass — which they are expected to do, largely along party lines — it will pave the way for the full House to vote on whether to refer the Clintons to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for prosecution.

‘We must do what is necessary to uphold Congress’s investigative authority, which is imperative to the legislative process,’ Comer will say. ‘And we are doing so to demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally to everyone, regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige.’

A contempt of Congress conviction is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum fine of $100,000 and up to one year in jail.

Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, associates of President Donald Trump, were each found guilty of the charge after defying subpoenas sent by the now-defunct House select committee on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The Clintons were two of 10 people Comer subpoenaed over the summer as part of the Oversight Committee’s probe into Epstein. But despite the initial bipartisan push, the investigation has fallen into partisan infighting as both sides accuse the other of politicizing the probe at the expense of Epstein’s victims.

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, accused Comer of hypocrisy in trying to hold the Clintons accountable while not pushing harder to enforce the subpoena aimed at forcing the DOJ to release all of its Epstein files, which it has not yet done.

‘I think it’s incredibly hypocritical for James Comer to go out and try to hold in contempt his political enemies while [Attorney General Pam Bondi] is actively breaking the law, and he refuses to hold her in contempt,’ Garcia told MS NOW last week.

Comer also issued a statement on Tuesday stating that he rejected an offer from Bill Clinton’s lawyer for himself and Garcia to sit down with the former president in New York, for an interview without an ‘official transcript.’

‘The House Oversight Committee rejects the Clintons’ unreasonable demands and will move forward with contempt resolutions on Wednesday due to their continued defiance of lawful subpoenas,’ Comer said.

President Donald Trump has spent the bulk of his second White House term testing the limits of his Article II authorities, both at home and abroad – a defining constitutional fight that legal experts expect to continue to play out in the federal courts for the foreseeable future.

These actions have included the U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, who was deposed during a U.S. military raid in Caracas earlier this month, and Trump’s continued fight to deploy National Guard troops in Democrat-led localities, despite the stated objections of state and local leaders.

The moves have drawn reactions ranging from praise to sharp criticism, while raising fresh legal questions about how far a sitting president can go in wielding power at home and abroad.

Legal experts told Fox News Digital in a series of interviews that they do not expect Trump’s executive powers to be curtailed, at least not significantly or immediately, by the federal courts in the near-term.

Despite near-certain challenges from Maduro – who would likely argue any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago – experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little trouble citing court precedent and prior Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.

U.S. presidents have long enjoyed a wider degree of authority on foreign affairs issues – including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue Maduro’s arrest was made within the ‘national interest’ or to protect U.S. persons and property.

Even if an arrest were viewed as infringing on another country’s sovereignty, experts say Trump could cite ample court precedent and longstanding Office of Legal Counsel and Justice Department guidance to argue the action was legally sound.

A 1989 memo authored by then-U.S. Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr has surfaced repeatedly as one of the strongest arguments Trump could cite to justify Maduro’s capture. That OLC memo states that ‘the president, pursuant to his inherent constitutional authority, can authorize enforcement actions independent of any statutory grant of power.’ It also authorizes FBI agents to effectuate arrests ordered by the president under the ‘Take Care’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, and says the authority to order extraterritorial arrests applies even if it impinges ‘on the sovereignty of other countries.’

Importantly, federal courts have read these powers to apply even in instances where Congress has not expressly granted statutory authorization to intervene.

‘When federal interests are at stake, the president, under Article II, has the power to protect them,’ Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

That’s because Article II, at its core, is ‘the power for a U.S. president to protect [its] people,’ Blackman said. 

‘The reason why we detained Maduro was to effectuate an arrest. DOJ personnel and FBI agents were there to arrest him and read him his rights. And the reason why we used 150 aircraft, and all the other military equipment, was to protect the people who were going to arrest Maduro,’ he added. ‘It was a law enforcement operation, but [with] military backing to protect them – so Article II does factor in here, indirectly.’ 

Though Trump himself has not cited a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who described Maduro’s arrest respectively, as a mission to indict two ‘fugitives of justice,’ and as a ‘joint military and law enforcement raid.’

In Minnesota, next steps for Trump are a bit more fraught. 

Trump’s National Guard deployment efforts were stymied by the Supreme Court in December, after the high court halted Trump’s National Guard deployments under Title 10. 

Trump had deployed the federalized troops to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect ICE personnel. But the high court issued an interim order rejecting Trump’s bid, noting that under Title 10, the administration could not federalize the National Guard until it first showed they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but could not do so. 

Some court watchers have noted that the ruling essentially closes off alternatives for Trump to act.

Instead, Trump could opt to enact his Article II ‘protective powers’ domestically via a more sweeping and extreme alternative.

This includes the use of the Insurrection Act to call up active-duty U.S. troops and order them deployed to Minnesota and elsewhere. 

The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the U.S. when ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion’ make it ‘impracticable to enforce the laws.’ 

Critics note it is a powerful, far-reaching statute that could grant Trump an expansive set of powers to act domestically in ways that are not reviewable by Congress or by the courts.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, noted this possibility in a recent chat with former White House counsel Robert Bauer. By ‘closing off this other statute,’ he said, the Supreme Court ‘may have, some argue, driven the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because this other source of authority was not available.’

Trump allies, for their part, have argued that the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s interim ruling.

Chad Wolf, the America First Policy Institute’s chair of homeland security and immigration, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump could have ‘little choice’ but to invoke the Insurrection Act.  

‘If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to grow violent, with ICE officers being targeted and injured as well as other violent acts … Trump will have little choice,’ he said. 

Experts are split on to what degree there is a through-line between the two issues.

Blackman, the South Texas College of Law professor, said the ‘point of connection’ in Trump’s actions is the presidential ‘power of protection’ under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. ‘The president can protect his law enforcement domestically, and he can protect his law enforcement abroad, both under Article II.’

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.