Phoenix 24
When the economy is used as a political lever, alliances stop being safe ground.
Washington, January 2026.
The United States government confirmed this week the imposition of tariffs on eight NATO member countries as part of a strategy of direct pressure on Denmark, after that country reiterated that Greenland is not for sale. The measure, driven by President Donald Trump, marks one of the most tense episodes in transatlantic relations in recent years, turning trade into an instrument of territorial coercion.
The affected countries are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The White House announced that tariffs will begin at ten percent on imports from these nations starting in February and could rise to twenty-five percent by mid-year if there is no “substantial progress” in talks related to the status of Greenland.
From the official U.S. narrative, Greenland is presented as an indispensable strategic asset. The government argues that its Arctic location makes it a key piece for continental defense, early warning systems, and control of emerging routes opened by melting ice. In addition, its potential in critical minerals and energy resources is emphasized, increasingly contested in global competition.
Trump has publicly insisted that U.S. control of the island is a matter of national security, not merely economic opportunity. Under this logic, tariffs are not described as punishment but as a “negotiating mechanism.” However, the European reaction has been immediate and coordinated.
From the European Commission, the decision was described as an unacceptable form of pressure between allies. Spokespeople stated that tying trade to the cession of territory breaks basic principles of international law and the logic of cooperation that sustains NATO. Governments such as France and Germany agreed that sovereignty is not a bargaining chip and that alliances cannot operate under economic threats.
Denmark, directly targeted by the U.S. demand, reiterated that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark with broad self-government and that any decision about its future belongs, first and foremost, to its own people. Greenlandic authorities also reaffirmed that there is no intention to negotiate a sale and that the island is not an object of transaction.
In Nuuk and Copenhagen, citizen demonstrations were held under slogans defending self-determination and rejecting external pressure. For many Greenlanders, the debate is not only geopolitical but also identity-based: they fear their territory will be reduced to a chess piece between major powers.
From multilateral organizations, warnings have been issued that such strategies erode traditional mechanisms for resolving disputes. Within the United Nations, officials recalled that self-determination of peoples is a core principle of the international order and that any change in sovereignty must arise from legitimate internal processes, not from external economic pressure.
Security analysts in North America argue that the White House seeks to reposition the United States as the dominant Arctic actor in the face of Russian and Chinese advances. Moscow has increased its military presence in the region, and Beijing has declared strategic interest in polar routes and resource extraction. In that context, Washington views Greenland as a natural platform for power projection.
In Europe, however, the reading is different. Several governments believe that using tariffs against allies weakens the credibility of the collective defense system itself. NATO was built on the idea of mutual trust. If one of its members uses economic tools to impose territorial objectives, the principle of solidarity comes under suspicion.
From the United Kingdom, officials warned that the move could trigger reciprocal responses. British authorities stated that no country can accept having its foreign policy dictated by commercial threats. In Germany, some officials even spoke of reviewing certain economic cooperation schemes with the United States if the escalation continues.
At the same time, the European business sector expressed concern about the immediate impact of the tariffs. Automotive, chemical, food, and technology industries anticipate higher export costs, loss of competitiveness, and possible job cuts if the measure holds. Business chambers in several countries asked their governments for a firm but cautious response.
In the United States, the decision is not unanimous either. Some lawmakers, even within the president’s own party, have expressed reservations about using trade powers for territorial ends. They argue that Congress should have greater control over such sanctions and that the conflict could end up harming American consumers and companies.
The dispute has also revived debate over the future of the Arctic. What was once a peripheral region has now become a central space of competition for resources, shipping routes, and military presence. Countries in Asia, Europe, and the Americas are watching the north with growing interest, aware that climate change is rewriting strategic maps.
In that scenario, Greenland becomes a symbol of a new phase of the world order: territories once forgotten now concentrate global ambitions. What for some is security, for others is interference.
The standoff between Washington and its European allies goes beyond tariff figures. At its core, it questions the type of alliances that will define the twenty-first century: whether relations among partners will be based on shared rules or on the law of the strongest using economic tools.
For now, tariffs move forward and positions harden. Denmark and Greenland maintain their refusal. Europe closes ranks. The United States insists. NATO watches as an organization born to face external threats begins to strain from within.
Every silence speaks.