The geopolitical war over Greenland is here: Donald Trump offends EU partners – resistance in the USA is growing

Arctic war over resources: Trump's confrontational course and unprecedented affront to other NATO states shocks the world

The renewed threats of tariffs by US President Donald Trump raise fears of an unprecedented rupture in the transatlantic partnership. On January 17, 2026, Trump announced that, starting February 1, he would impose punitive tariffs of initially ten percent on goods from eight European countries, including Germany, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Finland. These tariffs are to increase to 25 percent on June 1 if no agreement on the US purchase of Greenland is reached by then. This measure is not in the context of legitimate trade policy disputes but serves solely as a means of exerting pressure to enforce territorial ambitions that violate fundamental principles of international law.

Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark with approximately 56,000 inhabitants, is militarily protected by Denmark's NATO membership. Trump is completely ignoring this mutual defense obligation and is instrumentalizing trade policy for an agenda unprecedented in recent history. The announced tariffs target NATO partners who participated alongside Denmark in a military exercise in Greenland explicitly designed to strengthen Arctic security. Trump described this action as a dangerous game and claimed that only the US could protect Greenland from Russia and China.

Suitable for:

• Donald Trump's Greenland ultimatum: Escalation on January 17 – When the most important ally suddenly becomes the enemy

The economic dimension of tariff threats

The economic consequences of this tariff policy would be significant for all parties involved, but would hit the German economy particularly hard. In the first quarter of 2025, Germany exported goods worth €41.2 billion to the United States, achieving a trade surplus of €17.7 billion, the highest among all of Germany's trading partners. With a share of 10.4 percent of all exports in 2024, the USA is Germany's most important export market outside Europe. This share is the highest since 2002 and underscores the importance of transatlantic trade relations for the German economy.

Those sectors already suffering under the 15 percent tariffs introduced in August 2025 would be particularly affected. The pharmaceutical industry is at the forefront of this. Nearly a quarter of all German pharmaceutical exports went to the US in 2024, with a total value of around €27 billion. For immunological products such as antisera and vaccines, the US share even reaches 34.4 percent. The automotive industry, traditionally a backbone of the German economy, exported motor vehicles worth €34 billion to the US in 2024, representing 13 percent of all German vehicle exports. For passenger cars, the share is 15.6 percent. In addition, there were machinery worth €31.8 billion and medical devices and optical products worth €11.8 billion.

Simulations by the Institute for Macroeconomics and Business Cycle Research show that tariffs of 30 percent would reduce German economic growth by approximately a quarter of a percentage point in both 2025 and 2026. This would correspond to virtually zero growth in 2025 and an increase of just 1.2 percent in 2026. The burden would worsen further with additional tariffs of initially ten percent on further product groups starting in February 2026, which could rise to 25 percent in June. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that a comprehensive tariff increase to 25 percent would result in German gross domestic product being 1.4 percent lower one year after implementation than in the reference scenario. The European Commission forecasts a decrease in EU GDP of 0.2 to 0.4 percent, depending on whether countermeasures are taken.

The irony of this tariff policy lies in the fact that the economic damage to the US itself is likely to be far more severe than to Europe. Studies by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy show that the US economy could suffer a GDP loss of up to 1.7 percent with comprehensive tariff increases, while the EU would have to expect a decline of around 0.2 percent. Inflation in the US could rise to as high as seven percent, which would significantly reduce the real disposable income of American households. The Federal Reserve's monetary policy would have to remain restrictive, which would further stifle growth and investment.

The legal and diplomatic dimension

The announced tariffs raise fundamental questions regarding their compatibility with international trade law. The World Trade Organization has already ruled in several cases that previous US tariffs violated WTO rules. In 2020, the WTO decided that American punitive tariffs on Chinese goods violated the most-favored-nation principle and lacked sufficient justification under the exception clauses of the GATT agreement. Trump's new tariff threats related to Greenland exhibit structural similarities, as they discriminate against individual countries and are not based on legitimate trade policy objectives, but are purely politically motivated.

Furthermore, the measure directly contradicts existing trade agreements. The trade agreement between the EU and the US, concluded in August 2025, which stipulates a tariff ceiling of 15 percent for most EU goods, is effectively nullified by the new tariff threats. The European Commission and the European Parliament have already indicated that ratification of this agreement is not possible under the current circumstances. Bernd Lange, Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade, described Trump's announcement as unacceptable and called for the immediate activation of the EU's anti-coercion instrument.

The international legal issues, however, extend far beyond trade matters. Trump's demand for the annexation of Greenland violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter, particularly the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states. Under international law, Denmark possesses full sovereignty over Greenland, even though the island has enjoyed extensive self-governance rights since 2009. The Permanent Court of International Justice confirmed this sovereignty as early as 1933. The 2009 Self-Government Act recognizes Greenlanders as a people within the meaning of international law with a right to self-determination, but provides for only two possible future options: either the continuation of the association with Denmark or complete independence. A transfer to a third state is neither provided for nor clearly regulated under international law.

The application of economic sanctions to enforce territorial cessions constitutes a clear violation of the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in the UN Charter. Article 2, paragraph 4, prohibits not only the threat or use of military force, but also economic coercion aimed at violating territorial integrity or political independence. The use of tariffs as leverage for territorial claims is unprecedented in the post-war order and undermines the entire system of rules-based international trade.

Strategic motives and Arctic geopolitics

Trump's interest in Greenland is not new, but it can be explained by several strategic factors. As early as 2019, Trump offered Denmark the opportunity to buy Greenland, an offer the Danish government rejected as absurd. The island has immense strategic importance in the Arctic region. It lies between North America and Europe and controls the GIUK Gap, a critical maritime corridor connecting Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom. This corridor is crucial for monitoring Russian and potentially, in the future, Chinese submarines.

The US has operated the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland for decades, supporting missile warning systems, missile defense, and space surveillance. This base is an integral part of the American defense architecture and plays a central role in Trump's planned Golden Dome missile defense system, a multi-billion-dollar project designed to protect the US from missile attacks. Greenland's geographic location allows for the placement of ground receiving stations for satellites and secure communications infrastructure, which are becoming increasingly important in light of the growing threat from space weapons and cyberattacks.

Furthermore, Greenland possesses vast reserves of raw materials, particularly rare earth elements. The island is home to the world's largest deposits of heavy rare earths, which are essential for electric motors, artificial intelligence, and modern weapons systems. China currently dominates the rare earth market, accounting for 60 percent of production and 93 percent of processing in 2023. In the same year, Germany imported 71 percent of its rare earths directly from China. Dependence on China in this strategically critical sector poses a significant security risk to the West, which Trump seeks to mitigate by securing access to Greenland's resources.

However, extracting these raw materials in Greenland is extremely difficult and expensive for technical, climatic, and economic reasons. A Chinese-backed mining project on the island came to a standstill in 2021 after the Greenlandic government banned uranium mining. The current low global market prices for rare earth elements make new projects economically unviable. Experts from the German Mineral Resources Agency emphasize that all companies currently mining or processing rare earth elements are reporting financial difficulties, including those in China. Furthermore, Greenland lacks the necessary infrastructure for large-scale mining and processing of these raw materials.

Climate change also plays a central role in Arctic geopolitics. The melting of Arctic ice is opening up new shipping routes, particularly the Northwest Passage and the Transpolar Sea Route, which could significantly reduce travel times between Asia and Europe. These routes would offer alternative trade routes to the Suez Canal and further increase the strategic importance of the Arctic. Russia has already invested heavily in Arctic military infrastructure and is continuously expanding its presence in the region. China, which describes itself as a Near-Arctic state, is increasingly cooperating with Russia in the development of the Northern Sea Route.

Resistance in the USA and the political context

The resistance to Trump's Greenland policy within the United States itself is remarkable. A CNN poll from January 2026 found that 75 percent of Americans oppose the US attempt to take control of Greenland. Bipartisan opposition is also forming in Congress. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, announced plans to introduce legislation to block the tariffs. He called Trump's tariffs foolish, emphasizing that they had already driven up prices and harmed the US economy. The new tariffs would only worsen the situation.

Even Republicans are voicing sharp criticism. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina called the tariffs bad for America, for American companies, and for American allies, but great for Putin, Xi, and other adversaries. He warned that using military force against Greenland would cost Trump significant support from his base and likely end his presidency. Republican Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska called the tariff announcement foolish policy, arguing that Greenland's NATO membership already gives the U.S. sufficient grounds to station more troops there.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska called the tariffs unnecessary, punitive, and a grave mistake. She emphasized that the move did not serve national security and appealed to Congress to halt the tariffs. Murkowski warned that NATO partners would be forced to redirect their focus and resources to Greenland, which directly played into Putin's strategy of jeopardizing the stability of the world's strongest coalition of democracies. Senator Mitch McConnell, normally a cautious critic within the Republican Party, stated that a forceful approach toward Greenland would damage relations with NATO and harm Trump's legacy more than the withdrawal from Afghanistan damaged his predecessor's.

The bipartisan opposition in Congress is remarkable because it transcends the usual partisan divide. A delegation of eleven senators and representatives from both parties traveled to Copenhagen in mid-January 2026 to signal support for the Danish government and reject Trump's plans. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Thom Tillis emphasized in a joint statement that there was neither need nor desire for a costly takeover or hostile military conquest of Greenland, as Danish and Greenlandic partners were ready to work with the U.S. on Arctic security, critical minerals, and other priorities under long-term agreements.

Our US expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations

Europe's response: between unity and uncertainty

The European Union reacted with a mixture of diplomatic restraint and the preparation of concrete countermeasures. On January 18, 2026, the EU Council Presidency convened an emergency meeting of the ambassadors of all 27 member states to develop a coordinated response. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, warned of a dangerous downward spiral in transatlantic relations. She emphasized that tariffs would undermine transatlantic relations and create the risk of a dangerous downward spiral. Europe would remain united, coordinated, and determined to defend its sovereignty.

French President Emmanuel Macron described the tariff threats as unacceptable and declared that Europe would respond in a united and coordinated manner if the measures were confirmed. He announced that France would participate in the military exercise in Greenland organized by Denmark to demonstrate European solidarity. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticized the imposition of tariffs on allies in pursuit of the collective security of NATO partners as completely misguided. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson stated that Sweden would not be intimidated and that only Denmark and Greenland could decide their future.

The EU is considering several options for countermeasures. The anti-coercion instrument, which entered into force in December 2023, offers the EU a wide range of response options to economic coercion by third countries. This instrument was originally designed as a response to Chinese trade restrictions against Lithuania and to earlier tariff threats from the first Trump administration. It allows the EU to impose retaliatory tariffs, restrict access to public procurement for US companies, limit financial services, or levy taxes on American technology companies, without requiring unanimity in the Council, but rather by qualified majority.

Bernd Lange, chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade, called for the immediate activation of the Alternative Trade Incentive (ACI) and described Trump's actions as crossing a new red line. He accused Trump of misusing trade as a tool of political pressure and demanded the suspension of the implementation of the EU-US trade agreement until the US withdraws its threats. Manfred Weber, chairman of the European People's Party, stated that approval of the trade agreement was not possible at this time and that the 10 percent tariffs on US products should be suspended.

The EU faces a strategic dilemma. Retaliatory tariffs would not mitigate or eliminate any of the negative consequences of the US tariffs. On the contrary, they would exacerbate the economic damage to the European economy. Studies by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy show that if the EU were to fully retaliate, GDP losses for Europe would increase from 0.2 to between 0.3 and 0.4 percent, while simultaneously severely impacting global trade as a whole. The real danger lies not in the direct effects of individual tariffs, but in the escalation of a tariff spiral that, in the worst-case scenario, could lead to a global economic crisis similar to that of the 1930s.

For this reason, the EU is initially focusing on dialogue and a phased approach. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is shuttling between Brussels and Washington to achieve as much as possible through negotiations without resorting to retaliatory tariffs. The European Commission generally does not react to mere announcements of tariffs, but only when they are actually implemented. This approach aims to test Trump's willingness to withdraw the threats without provoking an escalation.

Suitable for:

• The new Cold War is taking place in the ice: the fight for Greenland is just one aspect – the 4 background factors

The danger to NATO and the transatlantic security order

The most serious consequences of Trump's Greenland policy do not concern trade policy, but rather the West's security architecture. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that all alliance partners agree that security in the Arctic is a priority. The Arctic is a strategic region that opens up new routes, but also carries the risk of increased Russian and Chinese activity. However, the threat of tariffs against allies participating in a joint NATO exercise in Greenland fundamentally undermines confidence in the American guarantee of mutual defense.

Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. Greenland, as part of Denmark, is protected by this article. Should the US attempt to bring Greenland under its control by military or economic means, this would completely destroy the credibility of Article 5. If the most powerful NATO partner is prepared to annex the territory of another member against its will, how can the alliance's defense guarantee still be considered credible? The Danish chairman of the Defence Committee, Rasmus Jarlov, stated that Denmark would defend its territory and invoke Article 5 in the event of a US attack.

The implications for Europe are far-reaching. Trump's argument that he can only defend what he owns calls into question the entire American security guarantee for Europe. Guntram Wolff of the Bruegel think tank emphasized that this logic means Article 5, the US president's support for European security, can no longer be taken for granted. Former US Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith warned that the Greenland dilemma could break the EU and pose an existential challenge to NATO. She urged European leaders to take Trump's statements seriously and consider proactive measures, including new defense agreements.

Camille Grande, a leading French security expert, emphasized that the tensions surrounding Greenland highlight the urgent need for Europe to reduce its security dependence on the US and present a united front. Europe remains heavily reliant on the US in many critical areas, including intelligence and airspace capabilities. Discussions within NATO reveal that even in private conversations, European member states struggle to fully grasp the implications of a potential US military intervention in Greenland.

Long-term consequences for the international order

The economic and security disruptions caused by Trump's tariff policies extend beyond immediate trade effects. They represent a fundamental attack on the rules-based international order established after World War II. The World Trade Organization system is based on the principle that trade disputes are resolved through multilateral negotiations and legal processes, not through unilateral coercive measures. Trump's repeated disregard for WTO rules and his willingness to use trade instruments for non-trade-related political objectives undermine the foundations of this system.

The use of economic sanctions to coerce territorial concessions sets a dangerous precedent. If the US, as the most powerful actor in the international system, demonstrates that territorial integrity and sovereignty can be violated through economic coercion, it encourages other powers to pursue similar strategies. China could argue that its claims in the South China Sea or on Taiwan can be enforced through similar methods. Russia could justify its aggression against Ukraine with comparable arguments.

The irony lies in the fact that Trump justifies his Greenland ambitions with the threat posed by Russia and China, while his actions actually strengthen those very actors. Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, emphasized that Trump's announcement would likely be welcomed by China and Russia, as both benefit from divisions among their allies. The Chinese and Russian leadership are closely watching how the West reacts to this crisis. A successful US attempt to blackmail Denmark would signal that might makes right and that territorial claims can be enforced through economic and military pressure.

This creates a precarious situation for Germany and the German economy. Germany's high export dependence on the US, particularly in strategically important sectors such as pharmaceuticals, automotive, and mechanical engineering, makes it vulnerable to American trade pressure. At the same time, the Greenland crisis demonstrates that Germany can no longer rely on American security guarantees. The consequence is a dual dependence coupled with a diminishing reliability of its partner. In the coming years, Germany must make substantial investments in its own defense capabilities while simultaneously attempting to diversify its export markets to reduce its reliance on individual partners.

The Danish and Greenlandic positions demonstrate that small states and territories can only withstand the pressure of a major power with the support of their allies. The majority of the Greenlandic population strives for independence from Denmark but clearly rejects a takeover by the United States. A survey showed that Greenlanders want to determine their own future, not through external powers. The economic reality of Greenland, which is two-thirds dependent on Danish subsidies, makes complete independence unrealistic in the short term. However, the alternative of subjugation to the United States is considered even less acceptable by the population.

Europe's wake-up call: The post-war order is crumbling – what must follow now?

Further developments depend on several factors. First, it is unclear whether Trump will actually implement the announced tariffs. His presidency has been characterized by repeated threats that have not always been translated into concrete action. Massive opposition at home, including from within his own party, could lead Trump to refrain from implementation. The US Supreme Court is currently examining the legality of Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the guise of economic emergency powers. A ruling against Trump could significantly restrict his ability to act.

Secondly, the question arises as to how the EU will react if the tariffs actually come into force. A phased response seems likely, beginning with WTO complaints and political pressure, followed by selective retaliatory tariffs if negotiations fail. Activating the anti-coercion instrument would allow the EU to take measures that go far beyond traditional trade tariffs and also encompass services, investment, and access to public procurement. However, political resolve within the EU is not uniform. Some member states, particularly those with strong transatlantic ties, may shy away from escalation.

Third, the Greenland crisis could lead to a fundamental reorientation of European security and defense policy. The realization that Europe can no longer rely on American security guarantees strengthens the arguments for a European defense union and increased defense spending. France and Germany have already undertaken initiatives in this direction, but the Greenland crisis could be the catalyst for accelerated integration. The challenge lies in the fact that Europe is still years away from genuine autonomy in many key military areas, from strategic airlift and satellite reconnaissance to precision munitions.

Fourth, the question of Arctic governance is crucial. The Arctic will become increasingly important for global trade, resource extraction, and military positioning in the coming decades. A multilateral framework that considers the interests of all Arctic and near-Arctic states would be in the interest of global stability. However, Trump's unilateral approach undermines efforts toward cooperative governance and threatens to turn the Arctic into an arena for great power rivalry. Russia has already invested heavily in Arctic military bases and infrastructure and responded to Trump's Greenland threats by announcing its intention to further expand its defense capabilities and infrastructure in the Arctic.

Economic analysis shows that all parties involved would lose from an escalation. The US would suffer the most, followed by the directly affected European economies. Germany, as an export-dependent economy, is particularly vulnerable, but also has options for mitigating risk through market diversification and strengthening intra-European trade relations. However, the long-term costs of destroying the transatlantic partnership would be immense for all sides, not only economically, but also in terms of security policy and the West's ability to respond to challenges from authoritarian regimes.

The Greenland crisis reveals fundamental fault lines in the transatlantic relationship that extend far beyond the term of a single president. It demonstrates that, under certain political constellations, the US is prepared to sacrifice fundamental principles of the international order in order to enforce national interests as defined by the respective administration. For Europe, this means that the post-war order, in which European security and prosperity seemed guaranteed under American protection, is irrevocably over. The question is no longer whether Europe must become more independent, but how quickly and how radically this process can be carried out.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 7348 4088 965 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month