The United States' decision to levy punitive tariffs on goods from eight European countries to press for a deal over Greenland has jolted the transatlantic relationship and hardened European resolve. On January 17 the U.S. announced a 10% tariff on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, rising to 25% from June unless Washington secures a ‘‘comprehensive, thorough’’ purchase of Greenland. European leaders called the move an unprecedented attempt to use trade coercion to pursue territorial aims.
The tariff threat follows a series of public overtures and threats by the U.S. to acquire Greenland — an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and a strategic linchpin in the Arctic. Denmark has responded by boosting military deployments to Greenland and leading the multinational ‘‘Arctic Endurance’’ exercises, in which European NATO members will rotate troops through the island. Officials framed the deployments as measures to strengthen Arctic security and to signal European determination not to see sovereignty issues treated as bargaining chips.
European institutions and capitals reacted swiftly. The presidents of the European Council and the European Commission joined eight governments in a January 18 joint statement condemning the tariffs as damaging to the rules that underpin international relations and threatening a dangerous downward spiral. National leaders from Paris to Stockholm denounced the U.S. move as unacceptable coercion: Emmanuel Macron framed it as an assault on sovereignty, while Britain’s Keir Starmer and other European ministers pledged direct diplomatic engagement with Washington.
Public opinion in Denmark and Greenland has also hardened. More than 20,000 people rallied in Copenhagen and thousands marched in Nuuk, chanting ‘‘never sell Greenland’’ and asserting the right of Greenlanders and Danes to determine the island’s future. The popular backlash complicates any binary transactional approach Washington might have imagined and raises the political cost of further pressure on Copenhagen.
The commercial fallout is immediate and concrete. European lawmakers warned they would withhold approval of a previously negotiated U.S.-EU trade accord and urged activation of the EU’s ‘‘anti-coercion’’ toolbox. Members of the European Parliament and trade officials described the tariff threat as the use of trade policy as a political weapon, and European capitals are openly weighing retaliatory measures including suspension of tariff concessions and countervailing duties.
Beyond immediate tit-for-tat trade measures, the episode exposes deeper strategic tensions in the alliance. Analysts warn it risks eroding NATO cohesion at a moment when Arctic geopolitics are intensifying and when European powers are seeking greater strategic autonomy. Several commentators urged the EU to deepen partnerships beyond the United States, including economic ties with China and other global actors, to blunt future coercion and protect supply chains.
If negotiations collapse into reciprocal tariffs or legal action at the World Trade Organization, the costs could be broad: higher prices for consumers and exporters on both sides of the Atlantic, disruption of political cooperation on defence and intelligence, and a precedent for using economic pressure to pursue territorial claims. For Europe the immediate imperative is unity — diplomatic, economic and military — while for Washington the choice is between coercion that fractures alliances and negotiation that respects sovereignty and allied sensitivities.