Presidential Letters

Would it be too much to ask that we have a President who can write at a minimum of third grade level when corresponding with heads of other nations?

This is a “letter” transmitted through diplomatic channels to the Prime Minister of Norway authored by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. This is not humor or satire, it is the actual letter sent by President Trump. It is a sad reflection of the reality we now endure.

Dear Jonas:

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.

Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.

I have done more for NATO than any person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States.

The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.

Thank you!

President DJT

I ran it through Grammarly which found five blatant errors in this extraordinarily sophomoric communication. The only thing that surprises me is it wasn’t written in crayon.

Word’s built-in grammar checker found four.

AI produced this analysis

Overall Assessment

The paragraph is understandable but grammatically uneven, overly long in places, and unclear in logical flow. Capitalization, punctuation, sentence structure, and word choice sometimes distract from the intended message and reduce its persuasive clarity.

This reduces credibility and clarity.

Logical clarity and flow

The argument jumps quickly from the Nobel Prize to NATO to Greenland’s ownership without strong transitions.
The rhetorical question about ownership interrupts the argument rather than advancing it smoothly.

Example:

“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?”

This combines a factual claim and a rhetorical challenge in a single sentence, which blurs emphasis.

Summary of Main Improvements Needed

Break long sentences into shorter, clearer ones
Remove unnecessary capitalization
Clarify vague or informal phrases
Improve logical transitions between ideas
Maintain a consistent, formal tone

If the President is so grammatically challenged, hire a sixth grader to rewrite it. This might give it a more Presidential tone. I mean, it’s not like using an Autopen or anything serious like that.

Here’s a quick rewrite for you, DJT.

Dear Sir,

Given that your country chose not to recognize my role in ending multiple wars, I no longer feel bound to frame every decision solely around the pursuit of peace. While peace will remain a priority, I must now focus more directly on what is appropriate and beneficial for the United States of America.

Denmark lacks the capacity to defend Greenland against threats from Russia or China, and the basis for its claim of ownership is questionable. There are no formal written agreements—only historical settlement by arrival centuries ago, a circumstance not unique to Denmark.

I have contributed more to NATO than any individual since its founding, and it is now reasonable for NATO to reciprocate in support of the United States. Global security cannot be assured unless the United States maintains complete and total control of Greenland.

Thank you,

DJT

The tone, content, and purpose are still childish, selfish, and anything but Presidential, as well as mostly false, but at least it would sound like someone who finished third-grade English Composition wrote it.

If the Prime Minster of Norway could, even for a moment, dispense with protocol and decorum, he should reply with a letter on a comparable level.

“Dear DJT,

I am in receipt (that means I got it) of your letter. I must say that if your writing is an example of the work being done by your Department of Education I fully concur (that means I agree) with your decision to defund it.

Now as to the Greenland issue, let me put it in the simplest terms I can. Not in this lifetime will Greenland ever become a US territory.

I understand you are not used to hearing and often ignore the word no (or stop, or take your hand out of there) but this is a definite no. Or should I say nyet? Nikakoy Grenlandii dlya tebya!

Quite frankly I would be surprised you could even find it on a map if we gave it to you. Which, let me say it once again, we are not, ever.

Regards,

Jonas

Now that would be Presidential!