President Trump announced yesterday that he was canceling his planned tariffs on US allies in Europe over US control of Greenland. The announcement came after he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte agreed to the “framework of a future deal” on Arctic security. Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump also stated that he was ruling out military force to acquire the island.

As Dr. Ryan Denison explained in Tuesday’s edition of The Focus, missile defense systems that form a primary deterrent against attacks on the US rely heavily on Greenland’s location. Melting ice caps have opened shipping lanes that were previously closed; Russia and China have increased their presence in the region. There are also significant rare earth minerals, oil, and hydrocarbon reserves on the island.

All of this argues for Greenland’s escalating geopolitical and military significance for the US in these fraught days. Nonetheless, Mr. Trump’s statement that he would not use military force or tariffs to acquire the island was met with approval. In fact, only 17 percent of Americans support the US taking Greenland; only 8 percent support using military force to do so.

Such reticence is understandable. A basic principle undergirding the world order is that nations are sovereign and that no country has the right to impose its values on another.

Let’s apply this thesis to the most urgent moral issue of our day.

What is the leading cause of death worldwide?

January 22 is the saddest anniversary of the year. More than sixty-five million babies have lost their lives in the US since the Supreme Court discovered a “right” to abortion in the US Constitution on this day in 1973.

More than a million babies in the US were aborted in 2024. This makes abortion the leading cause of death in America, far outstripping heart disease, the second-leading cause of death, with 680,981 fatalities. Abortion is also the leading cause of death worldwide: globally, more than seventy-three million babies were aborted just last year.

According to World Health Organization estimates, abortion accounted for nearly 52 percent of total deaths worldwide. Think about that for a moment: More than one in two deaths around the world were by abortion. If a disease was causing such horrific fatalities, it would lead the news every day. As it is, I would presume that you’re only now learning this.

At the same time, the world is facing an escalating demographic crisis. The global fertility rate for 2025 was 2.2 children per woman, the lowest level in recorded history. For the fourth year in a row, China reported more deaths than births last year as its birthrate plunged to a record low.

This matters because people are living longer than ever, meaning that fewer young people will be working and contributing to the support of more retirees. Over time, there will also be fewer people to buy goods and services, so economies will shrink, further exacerbating financial pressures.

Imagine the difference millions of aborted lives would make to this burgeoning crisis. You don’t have to wonder: according to the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress, $6.9 trillion is lost each year from work that aborted individuals would have contributed to the American economy.

And there is a worldview factor here as well. A dear friend and I were discussing this issue the other day, and he noted that when people have no children or grandchildren, they are less invested in the future and more focused on what seems best for them in the present. As a result, they mortgage the future for themselves and everyone else as well.

When my room was bugged in Russia

Despite these global consequences, it is commonplace for Americans and even many evangelical Christians to respond to the abortion epidemic with the claim, “I don’t believe in abortion, but I have no right to force my beliefs on others.” I have heard this personally in conversations, radio interviews, and responses to speaking engagements over the years.

I understand the sentiment. When I was in St. Petersburg, Russia, some years ago, we were warned that our hotel was likely bugged by the government and that my roommate and I should not discuss our religious beliefs even in the “privacy” of our room. When I was in Beijing, China, I was permitted to teach the Bible only inside an international church closed to Chinese citizens. In Cuba, I had to be very careful to say nothing negative about the Communist government—even in private conversations—on the assumption that government infiltrators were listening.

To have the government or anyone else force their beliefs on us feels like an invasion of our basic freedoms. The same sentiment is behind the pro-abortion protester’s sign, “My Body, My Choice.” And it is behind those who advocate for same-sex marriage and transgender rights. And those who champion the “right” to death by euthanasia.

What makes abortion different?

Gandhi on “the true measure of any society”

In a recent survey, 96 percent of the 5,577 biologists who responded affirmed the view that human life begins at conception. This was not a survey of evangelicals: 89 percent of the respondents also identified as liberal and 63 percent as non-religious.

Nonetheless, their scientific position aligns with the clear declaration of Scripture. David said to God, for example: “You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13).

This means that an unborn baby is scientifically and biologically just as human prior to its birth as after its birth. Consequently, it has the same scientific and biological right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as anyone else. But he or she obviously has no way to defend themselves in their mother’s womb.

This is what separates abortion logically from all other “rights.”

Abortion advocates claim that pro-life proponents are “forcing” their beliefs on them. But is a woman who chooses abortion not “forcing” her beliefs on her unborn child?

Which of the two is more vulnerable?

At their core, criminal laws “impose” societal values on would-be perpetrators to protect those who would otherwise become their victims. We do this to defend those who might not be able to defend themselves.

Can a baby in a womb defend himself or herself from abortion?

Mahatma Gandhi reportedly observed,

“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

How would the “most vulnerable members” of our society “measure” you today?

Quote for the day:

“He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Our latest website resources:

• Faith and politics, yoga and Christian practice, salvation, and hope in a divided culture
• Is Greenland worth what it will cost the United States?
• Why the Buffalo Bills were right to fire Sean McDermott
• Are you SAD? How to fight against the winter blues
• Texas A&M University removes Plato from a philosophy course

Denison Forum

When President Trump takes the stage in Davos, Switzerland, later today for his speech at this year’s World Economic Forum, it will mark the first time he’s visited the conference in person in six years. He appeared via video conference at last year’s event to call for a quick end to the war in Ukraine and to foreshadow the tariffs and other economic policies he would unleash in the months to come.

Overall, the speech set the tone for his first year in office, even if it came in contrast to the theme of “Collaboration for the Intelligent Age.” And most expect today’s speech to fall along similar lines.

The theme of this year’s conference is “A Spirit of Dialogue,” and expectations are mixed on how much genuine dialogue will occur. A White House official said the president is expected to focus on affordability while calling on Europe to fall in line on both Greenland and the policies he will argue “propelled the United States to lead the world in economic growth.”

But while the world waits to see what he will say, it’s the meetings behind the scenes that could end up being the most significant aspect of the event.

The meetings that matter

President Trump is taking some of his cabinet’s most important (and busiest) people with him. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and special envoy Steve Witkoff are all expected to attend the conference alongside the president. Their presence has many speculating that Trump intends to accomplish far more than simply address the world during his time in Switzerland.

Among those expected endeavors, the most important are thought to be:

• A meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where some believe they will sign new security guarantees that could pave the road for a ceasefire with Russia.
• The first meeting for the newly formed “Board of Peace,” which has grown more controversial in recent days after a draft of its charter revealed its members intend to “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” That work would require a far greater scope and scale than simply facilitating the rebuilding of Gaza, and has many concerned that Trump is attempting to start a new NATO, but under his leadership.
• An advancement of conversations concerning Greenland, with the President speculating that “things are going to work out pretty well, actually. So, I think something’s going to happen that’s going to be very good for everybody.” Most doubt such a quick resolution is possible, but as I discussed in yesterday’s edition of The Focus, the ice-covered island is shaping up to be an inflection point after which America’s relationship with its European allies is likely to change in lasting and substantial ways, regardless of which path they take.
• Other international conflicts, like the evolving situation in Iran and China’s continued efforts to convince the world that it should be allowed to take Taiwan. It’s quite possible that the manner in which the Greenland situation plays itself out could have a direct effect on China’s willingness to advance on the much-coveted island near its own borders.

Against the backdrop of these geopolitical developments, the question of just what kind of world will be waiting for global leaders this time next year remains as difficult to answer as at any point in recent history. As a result, the conference itself has seen a similarly substantial shift in its focus.

The world has more pressing issues

Across recent years, the World Economic Forum has seemed primarily concerned with “high-minded panel discussions about climate change, caring for refugees, and the future of health care.” It was essentially a venue for the world’s elites to decide on the most direct path to living on the right side of history—at least as they saw it.

This year, however, that’s all changed quite a bit.

While climate change, poverty, and other social ills still have their place in the proceedings, the largest crowds and most significant interest are centered on artificial intelligence and technological advancement. Attendees aren’t really even trying to pretend that the social and cultural aspects matter to the same degree as before.

In short, the world has more pressing issues than climate change, and the conference’s content reflects that reality.

Perhaps that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, though. After all, civilizations have prioritized their most immediate concerns for most of human history, and the people who didn’t were rarely given the opportunity to repeat that decision.

When used well, that necessary reordering of priorities can clarify what’s truly important in ways that a general sense of peace or security cannot. In fact, many of the most important theological principles at the core of how we understand God and the nature of salvation were codified for that very same reason, and we would each do well to apply that lesson to our own lives today.

God’s redemption of our desperation

Starting in the 300s, the church embarked upon a series of councils to clarify some of the most divisive and challenging aspects of understanding our infinite God. However, the vast majority of these councils occurred in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, especially once you get to the 400s.

While the Emperor’s proximity in Constantinople explains part of that reasoning, the barbarian tribes that routinely invaded the Western half of the Empire played a much more significant role.

As the church began to discover, it’s far easier to find the time to debate theological minutiae when there’s not a horde of traveling armies attempting to burn your villages and kill your people. Consequently, the East had the margin to debate these issues while the West was forced to rely on the teachings that they’d always considered true, and then try not to die before they could put them into practice. And heresy was often less of a problem there as a result.

In the same way, the clarity we receive while in the midst of difficult times is often part of God’s redemption of those inevitable trials. Some lessons can only be taught when our focus is forced on him out of a desperate recognition of our need for his power, presence, and peace in our lives.

Our smaller problems don’t go away, but they can be easier to put in their proper place.

So, are there any issues in your life that have risen to a far greater place of importance than they actually warrant? Is God trying to get your attention and recalibrate your priorities?

Now is the best time to ask him.

Quote of the day:

“Our greatest fear should not be of failure but of succeeding at things in life that don’t really matter.” —Francis Chan

Our latest website resources:

• Faith and politics, yoga and Christian practice, salvation, and hope in a divided culture
• Is Greenland worth what it will cost the United States?
• Why the Buffalo Bills were right to fire Sean McDermott
• Texas A&M University removes Plato from a philosophy course
• ICE shooting, Iran on edge, Golden Globes & postseason football | Ep. 52

Denison Forum