Tariff threat forces EU emergency summit Donald Trump’s ultimatum to levy tariffs on eight European allies unless the United States secures a deal for Greenland prompted an emergency meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels, where officials debated a coordinated response and awaited a Commission update [2]. The same threat appears in the Associated Press report, which links the Greenland gambit to broader strains on NATO partners and notes that the tariff proposal was announced alongside social‑media posts about annexation [1]. Both outlets describe the move as a sudden escalation that risks a “downward spiral” in transatlantic relations.

European leaders push back, citing security commitments British Prime Minister Keir Starmer rebuked the tariff idea in a direct call with Trump, emphasizing NATO’s collective security and rejecting any economic coercion over Greenland [2]. The AP article adds that Britain, France, and Germany have offered only tentative support for the Gaza Board of Peace, reflecting a broader hesitancy among key NATO members [1]. Together the reports show a clear European backlash that isolates the United States diplomatically.

Gaza Board of Peace stalls amid low participation and costly seats Trump’s 2025‑backed United Nations‑endorsed Board of Peace, intended to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, has sent more than 60 invitations but secured only a handful of acceptances, many from autocratic leaders [1]. CNN notes that permanent board seats can be purchased for $1 billion, with proceeds earmarked for Gaza rebuilding, yet the Palestinian Authority remains excluded [2]. The combination of sparse membership and a pay‑to‑play model threatens the board’s legitimacy and its ability to function as a neutral peace mechanism.

U.S. Congress moves to curb Greenland aggression Senators Tim Kaine (D) and Rand Paul (R) announced a bipartisan effort to draft a war‑powers resolution that would limit Trump’s unilateral actions on Greenland, including tariff imposition and potential NATO withdrawal [2]. The AP piece does not mention this legislative response, highlighting a discrepancy between domestic political coverage and the international focus of its report. This congressional initiative underscores growing concern within the United States about executive overreach in foreign policy.