President Donald Trump announced on January 17 that the United States will impose a 10% tariff on all goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland beginning February 1, 2026, rising to 25% from June 1. He tied the measures explicitly to his demand that Washington be allowed to “fully, thoroughly purchase” Greenland, saying the tariffs will remain in place until such an agreement is reached.
European capitals reacted with near-unanimous condemnation. French President Emmanuel Macron called the threat “unacceptable” and pledged European unity; British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the move as “completely wrong” and said London would raise the issue directly with the U.S. government. Leaders across the affected states — from Copenhagen to Helsinki — framed the announcement as a coercive and destabilizing step between allies.
Brussels moved quickly to coordinate a response. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa warned that unilateral U.S. tariffs would damage transatlantic relations and risk a “dangerous vicious circle.” The European Parliament’s international trade committee urged the Commission to activate the bloc’s anti-coercion instrument, a mechanism designed to counter extraterritorial economic pressure.
The dispute revives a long-running strategic argument over Greenland, the world’s largest island and an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark controls the island’s defence and foreign policy and hosts a U.S. military facility there. Trump’s repeated 2025-era proclamations that Washington should acquire Greenland — and his suggestion that force could not be ruled out — have already strained relations with Copenhagen and alarmed NATO partners.
European states have sought to signal political support for Denmark. In recent days several countries announced troop deployments to join Denmark’s “Arctic Endurance” exercises in Greenland; the publicised contributions are small and largely symbolic, intended to underscore solidarity over sovereign integrity rather than to alter the military balance in the Arctic.
Beyond the immediate diplomatic fallout, the tariff threat carries practical economic consequences. A 25% barrier on all goods from major European exporters would disrupt supply chains, raise consumer prices in the U.S., and invite reciprocal measures. Brussels has legal avenues at the World Trade Organization and through EU instruments to challenge or retaliate against coercive unilateral tariffs, creating the prospect of a tit-for-tat escalation between close partners.
Analysts say the episode underscores a deeper strategic recalibration. Greenland sits astride key Arctic sea lanes and hosts infrastructure relevant to missile warning and strategic surveillance; control or influence over the island matters to long-term military posture in the North Atlantic. At the same time, heavy-handed economic coercion against allies risks undermining NATO cohesion at a moment when Western unity is considered critical in deterring Russian assertiveness and managing China’s Arctic interests.
Voices quoted in the Chinese coverage framed the American move as a symptom of declining U.S. respect for international law and multilateral norms. Whether portrayed as brinkmanship or serious policy, the tariffs-and-purchase ultimatum raises immediate questions about the durability of post-war transatlantic institutions and the economic cost of turning strategic competition into punitive commerce.
For businesses and markets, the immediate signal is disruption and uncertainty. Companies that rely on integrated transatlantic supply chains will face planning headaches and potential losses if tariffs are implemented and maintained. For governments, the dilemma is political and legal: calibrate a response that protects sovereignty and trade interests without inflaming a rift that could have lasting strategic consequences.