Tariff Announcement Links Greenland Dispute to Trade Leverage President Trump announced a 10 % duty on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, citing U.S. security concerns over Greenland and setting an initial start date of 1 February 2026, with the possibility of raising the rate to 25 % if negotiations stall [2][3][5]. He framed the measure as leverage to force talks on a potential U.S. acquisition of the Danish territory [2][5]. The announcement was made via his Truth Social platform, emphasizing “Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet” [5]. European officials noted the tariffs target allies, not traditional trade rivals [2][3].

European Governments Issue Unified Condemnation and Call for Dialogue Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland released a joint statement denouncing the tariffs as a threat to transatlantic relations and insisting the Arctic Endurance troop deployments are non‑threatening [2][3][4][5]. EU Council President Antonio Costa announced a summit later in the week to coordinate a collective response and warned the move would undermine the EU‑U.S. trade framework [2][3][4]. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron publicly called the action “unacceptable” and “intimidation” [5][4]. The joint rebuke highlighted a rare display of alliance unity amid the dispute [2][3].

EU Mobilizes Economic Counter‑measures and Threatens Massive Tariffs EU diplomats warned they could impose up to €93 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, restrict American banks and high‑tech firms from the single market, and otherwise pressure Washington if the Greenland plan proceeds [1][5]. An emergency meeting of all 27 EU ambassadors was convened in Brussels to discuss the crisis [5][4]. Germany’s finance minister rejected any “blackmail” over tariff threats, underscoring a hardline European stance while maintaining alliance rhetoric [1]. The EU’s response aims to preserve unity and deter coercive economic measures [1][5].

Legal and Implementation Uncertainties Cloud Tariff Viability Analysts note it is unclear how the White House could legally enforce tariffs on EU members and whether such actions would survive a Supreme Court challenge under U.S. law [2][3][4]. Questions focus on the use of emergency powers and the constitutional limits of unilateral trade penalties against NATO allies [2][4]. These legal ambiguities add to doubts about the practicality of the proposed 10 % duties [3]. European leaders pointed to these uncertainties while urging diplomatic solutions [4].