Unlock the free White House Watch newsletter
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
During his first and second terms, Donald Trump has pushed the boundaries of what was conceivable for an American president. However, his threats towards Greenland seem like a turning point. His tariff blackmail on an Arctic island has left the US and Europe on the brink of economic confrontation. If America takes any action on Danish territory, it could lead to the end of NATO. Whether Trump can be placated by his threats is now an existential question for the post-1945 transatlantic alliance.
Europe cannot afford for Trump’s threats of tariffs on six EU states, plus Britain and Norway, to go unanswered. This American president punishes perceived weakness, and important issues of principle are at stake. Yet European leaders must be wary of a spiraling spiral that could spin out of control. They should leave open space for constructive negotiated solutions.
For Europeans, the calibration of next steps must begin with a clear assessment of strengths and weaknesses. Despite Europe’s economic strength, its dependence on the US for everything from cloud computing to support for Ukraine gives the White House dominance. China last year forced Trump to partially cut tariffs by threatening a ban on rare earths. Europe lacks a trade weapon of comparable caliber and, unlike Beijing, has not spent years playing a game of confrontation with the US.
However, not having China cuts both ways. In contrast to Beijing, much of the American political, security, and business community would view the prospect of full-scale decoupling with Europe with horror. Europeans must realize that they are dealing with Trump and his circle, not a united American establishment.
The US president is dangerous because declining domestic ratings and an affordability crisis give him every incentive to seek distraction. Yet, even on his surprise takedown of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, polling shows the American public is divided. There is support for using US military against Greenland. very thin. The US Treasury and the dollar have reacted badly to Trump’s threats, and the Supreme Court may soon rule against their legal basis for tariffs.
All this suggests that Europe should combine a strong trade response with sustained, vigorous, political engagement. It would be right for the EU to suspend last year’s EU-US trade agreement, which resolved the looming trade war at the time, but in effect legitimized Trump’s use of tariffs as a form of coercion. The bloc should be prepared to impose its own retaliatory tariffs on $93 billion of American goods if Trump’s new measures go ahead. The EU may need to activate its anti-coercion tools in time to move forward. But French calls to do so are not necessarily helpful right now.
The political message from the EU, Britain and Norway should be threefold. First, despite Trump’s insistence on the psychological necessity of “ownership”, the US can achieve all of its security and economic goals in Greenland without ownership of the island. Second, NATO is willing to do more to boost Arctic security – even if a small Greenland exercise conducted by the eight countries targeted for tariffs was misinterpreted by Trump as a provocation. Third, NATO’s collapse would be bad for US and Arctic security by destroying cooperation in the North Atlantic – in addition to emboldening Moscow.
However, repudiation of Trump should not be limited to just Europeans. While some Republicans have publicly, albeit belatedly, broken with the president on Greenland, more lawmakers and business leaders should speak out. Even though the United States has borne a disproportionate share of the transatlantic alliance’s military burden, it has enjoyed enormous advantages in terms of commerce, security, and projection of influence. It would be the height of stupidity to allow Trump to blow it up over Greenland.
