Trump Stuns By Floating Tariffs On Countries That Stand In The Way On Greenland

by Tyler Durden

Friday, Jan 16, 2026 – 09:50 AM

Days ago as it became clear that Europe and the United States would be locked in a showdown over the future fate of Greenland and its sovereignty, the EU touted that it has some cards to play, as leaders stepped up in defense of Denmark’s longtime hold on the resource-rich Arctic territory:

The European Parliament is considering putting on hold the European Union’s implementation of the trade deal struck with the United States in protest over threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to seize Greenland.

The European Parliament has been debating legislative proposals to remove many of the EU’s import duties on U.S. goods – the bulk of the trade deal with the U.S. – and to continue zero duties for U.S. lobsters, initially agreed with Trump in 2020. It was due to set its position in votes on January 26-27, which the MEPs said should now be postponed.

But the EU might soon regret this threat as diplomacy gives way to leverage, and the US under Trump has plenty of it.

President Trump on Friday went unexpectedly nuclear on the Greenland issue, openly floating tariffs as a pressure tactic against countries that refuse to “go along” with Washington’s ambitions over Greenland.

“I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security,” President Trump said at a White House event Friday, according to Bloomberg.

“Trump was speaking about tariff threats serving as leverage to secure most-favored-nation drug pricing before he mentioned Greenland,” the report indicates of the context.

While he stopped short of naming specific countries, the message is unmistakable – cooperation comes with benefits and those who stand in America’s way will suffer the consequences.

Critics have said the move could fracture NATO and deepen rifts with Europe at a time of already heightened geopolitical tension, while some other sources have speculated of NATO’s potential unraveling over this: maybe that’s the point?