Photo credit: iStockphoto.com/thomas saloni
A major transatlantic crisis erupted after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 10 percent tariff on imports from eight European nations - Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom - beginning February 1, with a planned increase to 25 percent by June 1 if Washington did not secure control of Greenland. Trump justified the move by claiming Greenland was essential to U.S. national security and hinted that force could be used if negotiations failed. The announcement followed a small Danish-led reconnaissance mission to Greenland involving troops from several European NATO members, which Trump interpreted as a provocation.
European leaders immediately condemned the tariffs as coercive and destabilizing. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that Europe would not be blackmailed, while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to Greenland’s and Denmark’s sovereignty. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz each emphasized that tariffs on allies undermined NATO solidarity and transatlantic trust. Macron urged activation of the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), a 2023 mechanism allowing retaliatory trade measures such as blocking U.S. market access and investment.
The European Council, led by President Antonio Costa, convened an emergency summit in Brussels to coordinate a unified response. EU ambassadors met on January 18, followed by plans for a leaders’ summit on January 22 to decide whether to trigger the ACI or revive a €93 billion retaliatory tariff package previously suspended under a 2025 trade deal. German industry groups warned that the tariffs would impose severe costs on European exporters and urged Brussels to respond collectively.
Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen described the U.S. threats as endangering the world order and NATO’s future but insisted Copenhagen would pursue diplomacy, citing recent meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide reiterated that Arctic security must be managed collectively within NATO. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte confirmed discussions with Trump and European leaders, emphasizing continued cooperation on Arctic defense.
Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the tariffs, arguing that Greenland’s integration into the U.S. was necessary for hemispheric security and warning Europe against retaliation. Trump’s statements on social media accused Denmark of failing to counter Russian threats near Greenland, asserting that the U.S. would act unilaterally if necessary.
Public protests erupted in Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, where demonstrators opposed U.S. annexation plans. A Reuters/Ipsos poll cited by European media indicated that only 6 percent of Greenlanders and 17 percent of Americans supported U.S. control of the island.
By January 20, Denmark and Greenland had proposed a NATO surveillance mission on the island, discussed with NATO Secretary General Rutte and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt. The proposal aimed to reinforce collective defense and deter unilateral U.S. action. Former Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod warned that a U.S. seizure of Greenland would end NATO and trigger open conflict between the U.S. and Europe.
The European Union’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reiterated that sovereignty was not negotiable and that Europe had a full range of tools to defend its interests. EU trade spokesman Olof Gill stated that the bloc sought engagement rather than escalation but was prepared to act if tariffs were imposed.
The Greenland confrontation represents the most severe rupture in transatlantic relations since the Cold War, combining economic coercion, alliance fragmentation, and military signaling. Trump’s tariff escalation transformed a territorial dispute into a systemic challenge to NATO’s cohesion and the postwar order. By linking trade penalties to territorial acquisition, Washington blurred the line between economic policy and coercive diplomacy, undermining the credibility of U.S. commitments to allies.
For Europe, the crisis forced a reckoning over strategic autonomy. The EU’s consideration of the Anti-Coercion Instrument against the United States marked a historic shift: a readiness to deploy tools originally designed for adversarial powers like China against its closest ally. Macron’s advocacy for the ACI and Germany’s cautious alignment reflected a new European consensus that economic sovereignty must be defended even at the cost of trade confrontation. The €93 billion retaliatory tariff package under discussion demonstrated Europe’s capacity to inflict reciprocal costs, signaling that coercion would not go unanswered.
The military dimension deepened the stakes. Denmark’s proposal for a NATO mission in Greenland and the deployment of European reconnaissance teams underscored the island’s strategic importance for Arctic surveillance, missile defense, and maritime control. Trump’s refusal to rule out force suggested a potential militarization of the Arctic dispute.
Diplomatically, the crisis tested NATO’s internal resilience. European leaders, including Starmer, Merz, and von der Leyen, emphasized that Arctic security must remain a collective endeavor. Yet Trump’s framing of European troop deployments as hostile acts and his accusations of Danish weakness revealed a widening perception gap within the alliance. If the U.S. were to act against a NATO member’s territory, as former minister Kofod warned, the alliance’s mutual defense clause would be rendered meaningless.
Economically, the tariffs threaten to disrupt transatlantic supply chains and energy cooperation. Germany’s export-oriented industries faced immediate exposure, while retaliatory measures targeting U.S. aerospace, agriculture, and technology sectors could reverberate through global markets. The confrontation risks undermining the 2025 EU-U.S. trade deal and destabilizing investor confidence in both economies.
Strategically, the Greenland dispute intersected with broader great power competition. Trump’s justification that Greenland was needed to counter Russia and China echoed Cold War-era logic but alienated allies whose cooperation is essential for Arctic stability. The EU’s invocation of international law and sovereignty principles positioned Europe as a defender of multilateral norms against unilateralism, potentially aligning it more closely with Canada and other Arctic stakeholders wary of U.S. assertiveness.
Ultimately, the Greenland crisis underscores the fragility of transatlantic trust. Its outcome will shape NATO’s future, the EU’s strategic autonomy, and governance of an Arctic region central to global security and energy politics.
- United States
- European Union
- Denmark and Greenland
- NATO
- United Kingdom
- France
- Germany
