Ten Percent Coercion - How Trump Is Using Tariffs to Strong-Arm Europe Into Controlling Greenland

Donald Trump crossed a line over the weekend that, even in the long history of American power politics, has rarely been practiced so openly. Eight European countries are to be hit with a flat ten percent import tariff starting in February, not over trade disputes, not over dumping or subsidies, but because they refuse to accept American control over Greenland. Should there be no agreement by early June on the full acquisition of the island by the United States, Trump announced an increase to 25 percent. Affected would be Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland - a substantial portion of Europe’s economic and security architecture.

The threat is no misunderstanding, no rhetorical slip, but explicitly framed as a pressure tactic. Trump said the United States was immediately ready to negotiate with all those countries that, in his view, had “risked so much” despite what America had done for them. The tone is unmistakable. Tariffs are not being used here as a trade policy instrument, but as a lever to force geopolitical submission. Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark with around 57,000 inhabitants, is being treated as if it were a negotiable commodity.

In Europe, the announcement triggered immediate resistance. In Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, hundreds of people marched through cold, rain, and ice to defend their self-government. In Copenhagen, thousands took to the streets, many carrying Greenlandic flags, some holding signs stating that no country was for sale. The message was clear. This decision does not lie in Washington. It lies with the people on the ground. The leadership of the Inuit Circumpolar Council also sharply rejected Trump’s move, making clear that there is no such thing as a good colonizer.

Politically, the episode is explosive. Greenland is part of the NATO area, its defense has for decades been handled by Denmark in close coordination with the United States. Washington already has access based on a defense agreement dating back to 1951. Today, the United States operates a central base there for missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance. Nevertheless, Trump claims the island is indispensable to U.S. national security and must not remain outside American control. To justify this, he points to possible interests by Russia and China, even though Danish military officials emphasize that in recent years they have observed no corresponding military activities by those states off Greenland’s coast.

Particularly sensitive is the threat of tariffs against the European Union, which acts as a single economic area. How individual member states are to be targeted remains legally unclear. It is equally unresolved which legal basis the U.S. administration intends to rely on. A possible recourse to emergency powers is being discussed, powers that are themselves currently contested in U.S. courts. That such instruments might now be deployed against close allies marks a new level of escalation.

France’s president reacted with unusual clarity. Intimidation and threats would not influence Europe, whether in Ukraine, Greenland, or elsewhere. Tariffs have no place in this context, and Europe would respond in unity. Criticism is also coming from within the United States. Lawmakers warned that Congress must reclaim control over trade policy to prevent tariffs from becoming a president’s personal weapon. What is visible here is more than a dispute over an Arctic island. It is a test case for the relationship between power and law, between alliances and coercion. Trump is openly betting on inflicting economic damage to force political consent. He is exploiting European states’ dependence on the American market to underpin territorial demands. That this is happening toward long-standing NATO partners calls the alliance’s basic logic into question.

Greenland itself is reduced, in this logic, to an object of external interests. Yet the people there have repeatedly made clear in recent years that they want to determine their own future - neither as U.S. property nor as a pawn in global power competition. The protests in Nuuk and Copenhagen express this claim. They are also a signal to Europe not to give in. In the end, an uncomfortable realization remains. When tariffs are used to force political submission, it is no longer about trade. It is about power. And about whether Europe stands together against it or allows itself to be pressured one by one. Greenland is only the most visible stage. The real confrontation concerns the relationship between sovereignty, alliance loyalty, and the price one is willing to pay to defend both.