President Donald Trump escalated a transatlantic confrontation on 20 January by declaring Washington's goal of taking control of Greenland "irreversible" and refusing to rule out using force to secure the island. Speaking at a White House press conference and on his social platform, he said Greenland was "vital" to U.S. security and warned that if U.S. attempts to pressure Denmark and allied governments through tariffs were blocked in court, he had "other options." The comments followed an earlier announcement that Washington would slap punitive duties on goods from eight European countries that oppose a U.S. acquisition.
Trump’s public posture was terse and deliberately ambiguous. Asked how far he would go to obtain Greenland he replied only, "you will find out," and when pressed about the possibility of military action he offered no explicit commitment either way. He also suggested that North Atlantic Treaty Organisation partners would arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, while reiterating his long-standing view that NATO’s strength depends overwhelmingly on the United States.
The reaction in Europe and Canada was immediate and unified. Leaders from Paris to Vilnius condemned the rhetoric and vowed not to be intimidated. French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe would not yield to "bullies," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called punitive U.S. tariffs a mistake, and an emergency EU summit in Brussels was convened to coordinate a joint response. Canada likewise declared firm support for Denmark and Greenland.
Former NATO secretary-general and ex-Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned the row had precipitated the biggest crisis NATO has faced in its history, arguing that sycophancy toward American leaders must end. Greenland’s own premier, Jens Frederik Nielsen, described the risk of U.S. military action as unlikely but "not impossible," and said Nuuk must prepare for all contingencies while pursuing diplomatic channels.
The dispute amplifies long-standing strategic questions about Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory that sits astride key Arctic sea lanes and hosts U.S. military infrastructure established in the Cold War. The island’s position makes it attractive to great-power competition as melting ice opens new maritime routes and access to natural resources. The idea of buying the territory recalls two centuries-old precedents but would be unprecedented in the post-UN Charter era among close allies.
Washington’s chosen instruments—threats of tariffs and the suggestion of force—point to a broader willingness to use economic coercion to meet geopolitical aims. European officials warned that punitive duties risked sparking a wider trade confrontation and undermining the rules-based trading system. The director-general of the World Trade Organization urged de-escalation to prevent a slip into a full-blown trade war.
The immediate diplomatic calendar gives the dispute multiple venues for resolution or further escalation. President Trump travels to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he said he would meet NATO officials and other leaders to discuss the matter. EU leaders prepare for an emergency meeting in Brussels, and legal questions about the constitutionality and practicality of using tariffs as leverage are likely to surface in U.S. courts and political debate.
Beyond the headline confrontation, the episode poses deeper risks to transatlantic cohesion. If Washington persists with unilateral economic and territorial pressure, it could accelerate European strategic recalibration, deepen mistrust within NATO, and invite other powers into the Arctic. What started as an audacious geopolitical gambit may force both sides to choose between short-term gains and the long-term upkeep of allied institutions and norms.