On January 17–18, 2026, President Donald Trump announced he would impose new tariffs on eight European countries — initially 10 percent, rising to 25 percent — in response to what he described as resistance to U.S. efforts regarding Greenland and allied troop movements in the Arctic. The move was framed by the administration as a measure to protect American strategic interests in a region it calls vital to national security.
The White House said the tariffs were intended to pressure allies who participated in recent deployments or diplomatic activity in and around Greenland, and to leverage negotiations over access and security in the Arctic. Trump and his team argued that Greenland’s location and resources make it critical to U.S. defense planning, and that allies must coordinate with Washington on such matters.
European leaders reacted swiftly and angrily, calling tariff threats unacceptable and warning that using trade measures against allies risks a dangerous downward spiral in transatlantic relations. Figures including French President Emmanuel Macron, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, EU officials and Nordic leaders denounced the approach and emphasized Denmark’s and Greenland’s sovereignty.
Brussels moved quickly to coordinate a response, summoning ambassadors and signaling the possibility of reciprocal measures or suspension of cooperation in trade talks if the tariffs were carried out. EU officials, including the commission leadership, stressed that undermining allied solidarity would only benefit strategic competitors such as China and Russia.
On the ground, Greenlanders and Danish citizens staged protests and public statements underscoring that Greenland’s future should be decided by its people and the Kingdom of Denmark, not by external economic coercion. Local leaders in Nuuk and Copenhagen voiced strong opposition to any attempt to treat the territory as a bargaining chip, highlighting the political sensitivity of sovereignty claims.
Analysts warn that the episode could produce both short-term market disruptions and long-term diplomatic friction, complicating NATO cooperation on Arctic security just as tensions with Russia in the North Atlantic are rising. Washington and its European partners now face a choice between de-escalation through diplomatic channels or escalation into a broader trade and security standoff with real costs for both sides.
