Sol White
U.S. President Donald Trump’s bid to press for influence over Greenland has suffered a significant setback. Firm resistance from European allies has forced an abrupt tactical reversal that underlines the limits of his foreign policy influence even among NATO partners, despite his posturing over his Western sphere of influence.
Over recent days, Trump escalated pressure on Denmark and its autonomous territory, Greenland, threatening punitive tariffs on NATO allies unless they acquiesced to U.S. demands linked to acquiring complete control of the large Arctic island and its strategic assets. That brinkmanship, including the threat of a 10–25% levy on British and other European exports, sparked widespread alarm across Europe and deep diplomatic pushback.
After threatening to levy tariffs on eight European allies opposing his push over Greenland, Trump appeared to step back mid‑week following intense diplomatic engagement.
During a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he and NATO Secretary‑General Mark Rutte announced what Trump described as a “framework of a future deal” for security cooperation in the Arctic. Trump also ruled out the use of force to secure the territory, a sharp change in tone from earlier rhetoric.
Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister and NATO’s chief, later clarified that sovereignty was not on the table in discussions with Trump. He emphasised the alliance’s focus on collective defence rather than territorial transfer, rebuffing one of Trump’s core objectives. The details of their deal have not yet been publicised.
European officials also flagged that Trump’s tariff threat and aggressive posture were likely destabilising, potentially harming transatlantic relations and NATO unity.
European Leaders Push Back
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been a central voice resisting Trump’s campaign. She maintained that NATO does not have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of Denmark or Greenland, and reiterated that sovereignty over Greenland is non‑negotiable. Frederiksen also highlighted the importance of respectful dialogue on Arctic security while underscoring Danish territorial integrity.
Greenland’s own leader, Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen, sharply rejected Trump’s assertions about the negotiated deal. He stressed that any agreement on the future of the territory must involve Greenland itself. At a press conference in the capital of Nuuk, Nielsen said he was not aware of the contents of what Trump described as a “framework” with NATO’s chief, and reiterated that “no one else but Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark have the mandate” to make decisions about the island.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in turn, delivered one of the most striking diplomatic rebukes from a Western ally. Starmer condemned Trump’s tariff threats as “completely wrong” in a series of calls with the U.S. president and European counterparts. He argued that threatening allies over collective security matters risked igniting a damaging trade war. This stance represents a notable break with the traditionally deferential UK‑U.S. relationship, signalling a push for closer alignment with European partners on strategic issues.
Starmer, as well as French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and other European leaders have also insisted that the future of Greenland belongs to its people and the Kingdom of Denmark alone; a position he has repeatedly underscored in communications with Trump. At both home and abroad, this marked a rare moment of unity in Europe across the political spectrum.
Frederiksen has publicly expressed gratitude for Starmer’s support, underscoring the solidarity among European leaders in the face of Trump’s overtures, and following this up with a visit to 10 Downing Street on 22 January 2026.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
The episode marks a rare moment of open tension between the U.S. and key NATO allies over strategic posture in the Arctic: a region of growing importance given climate change, mineral wealth, and rival competition from Russia and China.
Trump had asserted that Greenland was essential to U.S. national security, and indicated a desire for “total access” to bases and resources. However, details of any agreement remain vague and contested by Danish and Greenlandic officials, who say they were not consulted and that no binding deal has been concluded.
NATO’s role has also been tested, with Rutte’s clarification underscoring that the alliance’s remit does not encompass ceding sovereignty, likely intended to reassure European capitals unsettled by Trump’s earlier claims.
Trump, too, drew criticism after claiming that NATO soldiers did not fight on the front line in Afghanistan, a statement that was quickly contradicted by the public record of the war. Troops from NATO allies were heavily involved in combat operations under the ISAF and later Resolute Support missions. British, Canadian, Danish, Dutch and other forces all sustained significant casualties over two decades of fighting alongside U.S. troops.
Starmer called the remarks “insulting and frankly appalling”. He noted the sacrifices made by allied troops, and suggested Trump should apologise for diminishing their contributions. Following the backlash, Trump took to social media to praise British soldiers as “brave [ ] warriors”, but did not issue a clear public retraction of the original statement.
For Trump, the episode exposes his inability to compel cooperation on international security matters, even from traditional allies, and underscores the diplomatic costs of adopting confrontational strategies toward NATO partners. This will be seen by many as a deeply embarrassing saga for the U.S. president.