The 1951 defense agreement already permits expanded US military presence in Greenland, but officials say ownership would “streamline” matters.
President Trump announced Saturday that the United States would impose 10 percent tariffs on Denmark and seven other NATO allies—Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and Finland—until they agree to facilitate the sale of Greenland, according to the New York Times. The tariffs, set to begin February 1, will increase to 25 percent in June if the territory remains unsold.
Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark. Its 57,000 residents, most of whom are Indigenous Inuit, have repeatedly indicated they do not wish to be purchased. Denmark has stated the territory is not for sale.
Existing Military Access
The United States already maintains Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland under a 1951 agreement with Denmark, which permits the expansion of American military presence on the island. Administration officials acknowledged this agreement exists but said direct ownership would “eliminate bureaucratic friction.”
“The agreement lets us be there,” one official explained on condition of anonymity. “Ownership lets us be there without having to say please.”
The president’s social media post framed the tariffs as long-overdue repayment for American protection. “Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back,” Mr. Trump wrote. “World Peace is at stake!”
European and GOP Reaction
European leaders responded with what officials described as “unified outrage.” French President Emmanuel Macron promised a “united and coordinated” European response. Several nations deployed troops to Greenland this week for joint Arctic exercises with Danish forces.
Republican lawmakers also criticized the move. Senator Thom Tillis called it “beyond stupid” and “great for Putin, Xi and other adversaries who want to see NATO divided.” Representative Don Bacon compared the approach to something President Putin would do.
Perhaps most notably, Nigel Farage—the British populist and longtime Trump ally—publicly opposed the tariffs. “We don’t always agree with the US government and in this case we certainly don’t,” he wrote.
Legal and Economic Uncertainty
The tariffs rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, an emergency law the Supreme Court is currently reviewing in a separate challenge. If the court rules against the administration, the legal authority for these tariffs may not exist.
Tariffs are paid by American importers, not by the exporting country, with costs typically passed to consumers. The new rates would be added on top of existing tariffs from previous trade disputes, effectively ending a deal struck with the European Union last year.
Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Bruegel think tank in Brussels assessed the situation bluntly: “We either fight a trade war, or we’re in a real war.”
Administration officials said they were encouraged by the intensity of the European response. “Outrage means engagement,” one said. “Engagement means negotiation. Negotiation means we’re getting closer.”
Denmark has not indicated any change in its position that Greenland is not for sale.
Developing.
About the Author
