The long simmering dispute over Greenland erupted into a full blown transatlantic crisis on January 17, as U.S. President Donald Trump threatened sweeping tariffs on imports from Denmark, France, Germany and five other European allies unless Washington secures what he called the “complete and total purchase” of the Arctic territory.

The move, framed in Washington as a national security necessity and in Europe as economic coercion over an ally’s land, has jolted NATO partners, rattled businesses on both sides of the Atlantic, and thrust Greenland to the center of a volatile mix of trade warfare and great power rivalry.

More News

A Tariff Ultimatum Tied Directly to Greenland

In a series of posts on his social media platform and remarks in Florida, President Trump said goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland will face a 10 percent import tax starting February 1, rising to 25 percent on June 1 unless a deal is struck for U.S. control of Greenland. He described the measures as overdue compensation from countries he argued have long benefited from U.S. security guarantees and favorable trade access.

Trump accused the eight nations of “journeying to Greenland” and deploying forces there for “purposes unknown,” casting their recent military activity as a direct challenge to U.S. interests and a destabilizing factor for global security. He linked the tariffs explicitly to what he characterized as Europe’s efforts to block an American takeover of the island, a semi autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark that already hosts the key U.S. air base at Thule.

The threat marks one of the most far reaching uses of U.S. trade power against NATO partners, sweeping up everything from European autos and aircraft components to consumer goods and specialty foods. It also revives, in far more confrontational form, Trump’s earlier interest in buying Greenland, which first surfaced during his previous term and was dismissed at the time as unrealistic by Danish leaders.

Denmark and Greenland Reaffirm “Not for Sale” Stance

Danish officials moved quickly to reject the tariff pressure and restate their position that Greenland is not on the market. Copenhagen, which handles the island’s foreign and defense policy, stressed that questions over Greenland’s future status rest ultimately with the Greenlandic people, not foreign buyers. Senior ministers framed the new tariffs as an attack not only on Denmark’s sovereignty but also on NATO unity at a moment of heightened tension with Russia.

Greenland’s leadership also denounced the move. Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen and other Greenlandic politicians reiterated in public statements that the island will not be annexed, and that local opinion polls continue to show overwhelming opposition to U.S. acquisition. For many Greenlanders, Trump’s fixation has paradoxically strengthened debates over eventual independence from Denmark, driven by a desire to control the island’s natural resources and avoid becoming a bargaining chip between larger powers.

Officials in Nuuk highlighted that the United States already enjoys a robust security footprint in Greenland through existing defense agreements. They argued that expanding economic and security cooperation with both Washington and Europe does not require a transfer of sovereignty, undercutting the idea that only U.S. ownership can secure the island against Russian or Chinese influence.

European Capitals Condemn “Economic Warfare” on Allies

Leaders in Berlin, Paris and other European capitals reacted with unusual unanimity, condemning the U.S. move as unjustified economic warfare against allies. German officials warned that the new levies would hit major export sectors such as autos and machinery, and said retaliatory measures at the European Union level were under consideration if Washington follows through.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron drew a sharp comparison between using tariffs to extract territorial concessions and the pressure tactics typically associated with geopolitical adversaries, not partners. French officials stressed that Greenland’s status is a matter for Denmark and Greenland, and insisted that Europe would stand behind Copenhagen in defending the integrity of the kingdom’s territory.

European Union trade officials stressed that several of the targeted states are EU members, complicating any country by country negotiations envisioned in Washington. Under EU rules, Brussels manages the bloc’s common trade policy, limiting Denmark’s ability to bargain bilaterally under tariff duress. Legal experts in Europe also questioned whether U.S. justifications under national security provisions could withstand scrutiny at the World Trade Organization, even if that system is already under strain.

Greenland’s Strategic Lure: Arctic Routes and Critical Minerals

The crisis has thrown renewed attention on why an icy island with a population of just over 56,000 wields such outsized geopolitical weight. Greenland sits astride emerging Arctic sea lanes that climate change is steadily opening, shortening shipping routes between Asia, Europe and North America. For the United States, the island offers a forward operating position in the North Atlantic and Arctic, crucial for missile warning, anti submarine warfare and monitoring Russian military movements.

Beyond geography, Greenland’s vast reserves of critical minerals have become a central driver of outside interest. Geologists point to significant deposits of rare earth elements, uranium and other minerals essential to batteries, wind turbines, advanced electronics and defense technologies. As Washington seeks to secure non Chinese sources of these materials, Greenland’s supply potential has attracted growing attention from U.S. companies and policymakers, as well as from European and Asian investors.

In recent years, the European Union has opened its own diplomatic office in Nuuk and pledged tens of millions of euros for clean energy and raw materials projects. That engagement reflects Brussels’ view of Greenland as a strategic partner in its bid to diversify away from Russian and Chinese commodities. Trump and his advisers have portrayed such European moves as encroaching on a region they believe should fall primarily within the U.S. strategic orbit.

NATO Unity Tested in the High North

At the heart of European anger is the charge that Washington is leveraging trade threats to override allied decision making on troop deployments and Arctic security. Several of the targeted countries recently announced plans to send forces to Greenland or participate in joint exercises with Denmark, moves they describe as routine NATO cooperation and a signal of support for Copenhagen amid U.S. pressure.

Trump has cast those deployments as a provocation and suggested, without offering public evidence, that they could trigger a dangerous confrontation in the Arctic. He argues that centralized U.S. control of Greenland would streamline defense arrangements and reduce the risk of misunderstandings among multiple foreign militaries operating in the same theater.

Security experts in Europe counter that the real risk lies in politicizing alliance decisions and tying economic punishment to the presence of allied troops on allied soil. Former NATO officials have warned that focusing political energy on a dispute over Greenland distracts from more immediate threats, including Russia’s war in Ukraine and military activity in the Baltic and Black Sea regions. The spectacle of NATO members trading tariff threats has also raised concerns in smaller alliance states that rely heavily on U.S. security guarantees.

Economic Shockwaves for Transatlantic Trade and Travel

The tariff announcement quickly reverberated through business and travel sectors. European exporters in automotive, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and luxury goods now face the prospect of steep price hikes in the U.S. market within weeks, with uncertainty over whether diplomacy can avert the June escalation to 25 percent. Industry groups warned that production and investment plans may be delayed or rerouted as companies evaluate supply chains and potential countermeasures from Brussels.

On the U.S. side, importers and retailers braced for higher costs on a wide range of European products, from cars and industrial components to fashion and food. Analysts said consumers could see higher prices and reduced variety if the standoff persists, particularly in specialized goods where Europe dominates. Airlines and tourism operators expressed concern that a broader political rift could dampen transatlantic travel demand at a time when carriers have been expanding routes between major U.S. and European hubs.

For Greenland itself, the turmoil creates a mix of risk and opportunity. On one hand, heightened tensions complicate efforts by Nuuk and Copenhagen to attract stable, long term investment in mining, infrastructure and sustainable tourism. On the other, the island’s newfound visibility may spur additional interest from investors and travelers drawn to its dramatic landscapes, Arctic culture and role on the front lines of climate change. Greenlandic leaders, however, have signaled that political stability and respect for local decision making will be prerequisites for any significant new projects.

Protests and Public Backlash in Denmark and Greenland

As the tariff threats dominated headlines, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Copenhagen and other Danish cities under banners reading “Hands off Greenland” and “Greenland is not for sale.” The protests, involving Greenlandic diaspora groups, trade unions and civil society organizations, reflected deep resentment over what many Danes see as an attempt to pressure a close ally into relinquishing territory through economic blackmail.

In Nuuk and other Greenlandic communities, smaller but highly visible gatherings featured Greenlandic flags and slogans asserting the island’s right to decide its own future. Activists emphasized that Greenlanders are not mere spectators in a geopolitical chess match, but citizens whose livelihoods, environment and cultural heritage are directly affected by decisions made in Washington, Copenhagen and Brussels.

The protests have already begun to shape the domestic debate in Denmark, where opposition politicians are urging the government to take a firmer line against what they term U.S. “bullying,” even if that risks short term economic pain. For the governing coalition, the challenge lies in balancing the imperative to shield Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty with the long standing strategic importance of the U.S. alliance.

With only weeks until the first tariffs are slated to take effect, diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are scrambling for off ramps. Some U.S. lawmakers, including members of the president’s own party, have voiced unease over the scope of the measures and questioned whether Congress should reassert greater authority over trade powers that have been broadly interpreted under national security statutes.

Legal challenges appear likely, both in U.S. courts and potentially at the World Trade Organization, although the latter’s dispute resolution mechanism has been weakened in recent years. Trade lawyers note that tying tariffs explicitly to a territorial demand, rather than to traditional security or economic concerns, raises novel questions about abuse of national security exceptions in global trade rules.

For now, European leaders insist they will not negotiate over Greenland’s sovereignty under tariff pressure, setting up a high stakes test of political resolve. Whether the crisis ultimately yields a negotiated compromise, a prolonged trade war among allies, or a recalibration of U.S. ambitions in the Arctic will depend on the coming weeks of diplomacy and domestic political maneuvering in Washington, Copenhagen, Nuuk and beyond. What is clear already is that a sparsely populated island in the North Atlantic has become the flashpoint for one of the most consequential transatlantic clashes in decades.