Trump Imposes 10% Tariffs on Eight NATO Nations Over Greenland Push
Updated (2 articles)
Tariff Schedule Targets Eight NATO Allies Starting February The White House announced a 10 percent duty on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland effective February 1, with a planned increase to 25 percent by June 1 if a “Complete and Total” purchase of Greenland is not reached [1][2]. The tariffs will remain until the United States secures an agreement on acquiring the Danish territory. Officials framed the measures as leverage in negotiations, linking them to national security and Arctic strategy.
Greenland Acquisition Serves Security and Resource Objectives Administration officials argue that control of Greenland would enhance U.S. missile‑defense positioning and broader Arctic influence [1][2]. Analysts note the move also opens access to Greenland’s mineral and energy reserves, suggesting a dual motive of strategic depth and resource extraction. Greenland’s prime minister reiterated that the island is “not for sale,” and polling shows strong local opposition to U.S. ownership [2].
NATO Cohesion Faces Its Sharpest Test Since the Cold War Eight NATO members issued a joint statement condemning the tariffs and pledging coordinated response, warning that the action threatens alliance solidarity [2]. EU leaders, including France’s Macron, warned the tariffs could fracture the trans‑Atlantic security pact and jeopardize a pending U.S.–EU trade accord [1][2]. Analysts warn that any coercive use of force would breach international law and could embolden rivals such as Russia and China [1].
Congress Considers War‑Powers Check on Greenland Initiative Bipartisan lawmakers are debating a resolution to limit presidential authority to seize territory from a NATO ally, citing constitutional concerns [1]. Critics argue the president lacks clear legal power to impose tariffs as a tool for territorial acquisition. The debate underscores tension between executive foreign‑policy prerogatives and legislative oversight.
Economic Fallout Extends Beyond the Arctic European officials warned the tariffs could derail the broader U.S.–EU trade and tax agreement awaiting ratification [2]. Trade ministries anticipate retaliatory measures that could affect billions of dollars in bilateral commerce. The dispute therefore intertwines geopolitical ambition with immediate economic repercussions for both sides.
Sources (2 articles)
-
[1]
CNN: Trump threatens Greenland and tariffs, risking NATO unity: details the 10 % tariff rollout, NATO‑fracture risk, EU backlash, and congressional checks on presidential power .
-
[2]
Newsweek: NATO allies warn Greenland tariffs risk dangerous downward spiral: highlights the eight‑nation joint condemnation, tariff timeline, security versus resource motives, Greenland’s rejection, and potential derailment of a U.S.–EU trade deal .
Timeline
Jan 18 2026 – Eight NATO members — Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom — publish a joint statement condemning the U.S. tariffs and pledging “to stay united and coordinated in our response.” The allies stress that Arctic security is a shared trans‑Atlantic interest and warn that any fracture would endanger alliance cohesion. [2]
Jan 18 2026 – The White House announces a 10 % tariff on goods from the eight nations beginning Feb 1, with a planned increase to 25 % on June 1 if no “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland” is reached. The duties remain in place until an agreement is secured, turning trade policy into a bargaining chip over the Arctic territory. [2]
Jan 18 2026 – Greenland’s prime minister declares, “Greenland is not for sale,” reaffirming the island’s opposition to U.S. ownership. Recent polls show a strong majority of Greenlanders reject joining the United States, underscoring domestic resistance to the tariff pressure. [2]
Jan 18 2026 – European officials warn that the new tariffs could derail the pending U.S.–EU trade and tax agreement, which is awaiting ratification. They argue that the economic fallout would compound the diplomatic crisis and strain trans‑Atlantic trade relations. [2]
Jan 19 2026 – President Trump threatens to use tariffs as leverage to force a Greenland deal, prompting analysts to label the move “the worst‑ever crisis for NATO.” They warn that the strategy could test Article 5’s mutual‑defense pledge and embolden rivals such as Russia and China. [1]
Jan 19 2026 – French President Emmanuel Macron calls the U.S. approach “reminiscent of territorial aggression” and says Europe will defend sovereignty. His remarks signal a sharp EU backlash and highlight the diplomatic rift over the Greenland push. [1]
Jan 19 2026 – Congressional leaders from both parties begin drafting a war‑powers resolution on Greenland, arguing that the president lacks clear authority to seize territory from a NATO ally. The debate reflects growing concerns about constitutional limits on unilateral foreign‑policy actions. [1]
Jan 19 2026 – Treasury officials and senior aides argue that “the United States is so powerful that it can press its interests globally,” framing the tariff threat as an exercise of presidential strength. Their stance fuels a broader debate over how far the executive can redefine NATO partnerships and use emergency powers. [1]