BRUSSELS, Jan 18 – European Union governments reacted sharply after U.S. President Donald Trump issued fresh tariff threats linked to Greenland, triggering emergency diplomacy across Europe and raising the prospect of economic retaliation. The dispute has rapidly moved beyond rhetoric, testing transatlantic relations and forcing EU leaders to consider tools that have never before been used against Washington.
Trump announced that he would impose escalating tariffs on several European countries unless the United States is permitted to purchase Greenland, a semi autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty. The statement immediately drew condemnation from European capitals, where officials described the move as coercive and destabilizing.
The countries named in the tariff warning include Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Britain, and Norway. All, except Italy, have recently contributed limited military personnel to Greenland as part of joint Arctic security activities. European officials stressed that these deployments were defensive in nature and aimed at safeguarding regional stability, not provoking confrontation.
In a rare joint declaration, the eight European states warned that tariff threats undermine trust between long standing allies and risk setting off a cycle of retaliation that would harm both sides. They emphasized that the Arctic exercises were lawful, transparent, and conducted with respect for international norms, including sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen welcomed the united response from across Europe, saying it demonstrated that the continent would stand together under pressure. Similar language was echoed in Berlin and Stockholm, where senior officials openly criticized the use of economic pressure to force political concessions. The Dutch foreign minister went further, calling the approach outright blackmail during a televised interview.
European Unity
As tensions escalated, the European Union moved quickly to coordinate its response. Cyprus, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council, convened an emergency meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels. Diplomats described the gathering as urgent and necessary, given the scale of the threat and its potential impact on global trade.
Behind the scenes, European leaders intensified phone calls and consultations. According to a source close to French President Emmanuel Macron, Paris is actively pushing for the activation of the EU’s Anti Coercion Instrument. This legal framework, adopted in recent years but never used, allows the bloc to respond to economic pressure by restricting access to public procurement, limiting investments, or curbing trade in services where the United States runs a surplus, such as digital and financial sectors.
Support for this approach is growing within EU institutions. Key figures in the European Parliament, including the chair of its trade committee and leaders of centrist political groups, have publicly backed exploring the instrument as a signal that Europe is prepared to defend its interests. Germany’s powerful engineering industry has also voiced support, warning that failure to respond could invite further pressure in the future.
Not all leaders, however, agree on immediate action. Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin urged caution, stating that while retaliation must remain an option, it may be too early to deploy the most aggressive tools available. His comments reflect concerns among some member states that an overly rapid escalation could damage fragile economic ties at a time of global uncertainty.
Italy has taken a notably different tone. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who maintains comparatively warmer relations with Trump, described the tariff threat as a mistake rather than an act of hostility. Speaking to reporters during a trip to South Korea, she confirmed that she had spoken directly with the U.S. president and expressed her concerns. Meloni said Trump appeared willing to listen, and she indicated plans to brief other European leaders in hopes of easing tensions. Italy, notably, has not sent troops to Greenland, a fact that may shape its diplomatic positioning.
Trade Fallout
The dispute has also cast a shadow over recently negotiated trade arrangements between the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Limited trade agreements reached earlier this year were already controversial within Europe, as critics argued they favored Washington by preserving broad U.S. tariffs while requiring European partners to reduce their own import duties.
Now, the European Parliament appears poised to halt progress on the EU U.S. trade deal altogether. Lawmakers were scheduled to vote later this month on removing a range of EU import duties, but senior parliamentary figures have indicated that approval is unlikely under the current circumstances. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, said that moving forward while tariff threats loom would be politically impossible.
Some European politicians have floated even more drastic ideas. A German lawmaker suggested that, as a last resort, European countries could consider boycotting the upcoming football World Cup hosted by the United States. While such a move remains highly unlikely, the comment underscores the depth of frustration in parts of Europe over what is seen as an unprecedented challenge to allied relations.
Britain has struck a more cautious note. Asked about London’s response, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy emphasized the importance of resolving the dispute through dialogue rather than confrontation. She reaffirmed that Britain’s position on Greenland is firm and non negotiable, but warned against escalating rhetoric that could spiral into a broader trade conflict. Her remarks suggest that while Britain stands with its European partners on principle, it remains keen to preserve constructive ties with Washington.
At the heart of the crisis lies Greenland’s strategic importance. The vast Arctic territory holds growing significance due to climate change, emerging shipping routes, and potential natural resources. European leaders argue that these realities make cooperation, not coercion, essential. Any attempt to force a change in status through economic pressure, they warn, risks destabilizing the region and undermining international law.