Losing Trust

In January, Donald Trump ramped up his rhetoric in regards to Greenland. The vague strategic musings evolved into explicit demands that the United States acquire the Arctic territory. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security” he posted on Truth social.  Unlike earlier, more tentative discussions about purchasing the island, that no one was taking seriously, Trump publicly threatened tariffs against key NATO allies if they don’t acquiesce to his demands. 

In a wave of posts on his Truth Social platform, Trump announced a plan to impose 10% tariffs on imports from eight European countries including Denmark, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. These were to begin on February 1, with an increase to 25% in June unless Greenland was turned over to the United States. He repeatedly linked his bullying tactics to geopolitical competition with China and Russia, arguing that “world peace is at stake” if the U.S. does not assert complete control over Greenland’s strategic geography.

But just as quickly as he began his threats, he pulled back, announcing that a deal framework was in place, and the tariffs would evidently not go into effect.

The posts triggered alarm bells among Europe’s political leadership, who are starting to become painfully aware that Trump respects nothing, not even sovereign territory. He pulled back this time, sure, but who is to say the next threat towards Europe won't be acted upon? If the US is willing to attack its own allies, can it truly be trusted?

Why Greenland?

Why Trump decided to target Greenland so aggressively is a mystery, but it is possible that it wasn't simply to posture or appear strong.

Greenland has been significant strategic and economic asset, filled notable if inaccessible natural resources. Trump has previously shown interest in extracting resources from allies, like his plan to continue aid to Ukraine only in exchange for rare earth minerals. It has also always been a strategically important location, hence the 1951 agreement between NATO and Denmark, which affirmed Denmark’s ownership of the island, as well as establishing coordination with US troops on the island. 

Greenland is in a unique position, connecting the shortest routes between North America and Europe. This geography has made the island a cornerstone of early-warning architecture. It allows the US and NATO to monitor air and missile traffic crossing the Arctic. Greenland is the most direct pathway for potential intercontinental ballistic missile launches. As Arctic ice recedes from global warming and sea routes grow more active, Greenland’s relevance has only increased, turning it into a forward sentinel for transatlantic defense and communications.

The U.S. operates Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland, which holds advanced radar systems used for missile warning and space surveillance, allowing NATO to track objects in orbit. It also providing crucial data to NATO allies. It also supports secure satellite communications that link North America with Europe, making it a key node in NATO’s integrated defense posture. It is important to note that these capabilities already function through longstanding agreements with Denmark, obviously showing that the United States enjoys deep strategic access without needing to outright own the island.

Trump highlighted these resources to justify his annexation threats. He attempts to frame control over Greenland as essential to preventing adversaries like Russia, China, and others from exploiting the Arctic. By emphasizing ownership over working together, he undermines the alliance framework that allows these systems to operate effectively in the first place.

Greenland holds vast reserves of rare earth elements and other minerals critical to supply chains. Previously inaccessible due to harsh weather conditions, these resources are increasingly tempting as Western nations seek to reduce dependence on China’s dominant position in rare-earth processing. Extraction is still challenging due to those harsh conditions and environmental concerns, but interest persists. Climate change is rapidly increasing accessibility in the Arctic, due to retreating ice opening new shipping lanes and makes resource extraction more feasible.

Just as likely however, even if frustratingly simplistic, is that Trump wanted Greenland as a result of his being snubbed for the Nobel peace prize. “I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace”, he wrote in a letter to the Norwegian Prime Minister. Trump may have forgotten that Norway does not own Greenland, and does not have control over the Nobel committee. 

The EU’s response

European governments and institutions have responded to Trump’s pressure campaign with strong condemnation and symbolic deployment of troops to Greenland. These troops are not meant to truly fight off a US invasion, but to show solidarity with the people of Greenland.

On behalf of eight affected NATO countries, European leaders issued a joint warning that tariff threats “undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.” The statement reaffirmed solidarity with Denmark and Greenland and rejected coercion as a tool among allies.

National leaders took firm positions, with Starmer of Britain calling the tariff threats “completely wrong” and reiterated that Greenland’s future is a matter for the Kingdom of Denmark and its people. French President Emmanuel Macron declared that “no intimidation or threat will influence us” and that such tactics have no place among allies. Other leaders have made similar statements, with none in agreement with Trump. 

Greenland’s people have also soundly rejected the idea of an annexation, with Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen vowing that Greenland will not be pressured. Only 6% of Greenlanders agree with annexation, with a strong 85% opposing the idea of Trump’s rule over their island. 

European ministers have openly discussed using the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, a clause that enables retaliation against economic pressure by third countries, as a method to counter potential U.S. tariffs. Emergency EU summits are under consideration to agree on possible responses.

This willingness to consider countermeasures against the United States is unprecedented in recent diplomatic history, showing building resentment with the President's threats.

Alliance Erosion

The Greenland dispute is adding to the strained way allies perceive U.S. leadership and reliability. Trump’s aggressive posture has caused many European allies that traditionally saw the U.S. as a security anchor to reconsider. Tariffs against NATO members for participating in joint military exercises in Greenland signal to allies that cooperation could lead to economic punishment rather than shared security gains. Even if the members paid the 2%, or double that at 4%, Trump’s original gripe with the EU NATO members, nothing signals that it would change his aggressive messaging towards Europe.

European officials have warned that divisions in the transatlantic alliance benefit geopolitical competitors. EU foreign policy representatives explicitly stated that China and Russia are “having a field day” amid the discord, capitalizing on Western disunity to advance their own influence in global forums. With similar insinuations aimed at Canada, one only needs to look at their recent deal with China to see this playing out in real time. Rivals can, and will, exploit cracks in alliances to strengthen their positions within US allied circles.

European leaders will likely embrace initiatives for European autonomy by strengthening defense capabilities independent of Washington. While not a direct pivot to Russia or China, this defensive hedging reflects diminished trust and a desire to ensure security without relying solely on U.S. support.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s brief but intense Greenland episode has morphed from an odd policy gambit into a defining moment of diplomatic strain in the early 21st century. Although he has officially backed down from tariffs and threats of force, the impact on international trust and alliance cohesion is already palpable. Trump’s approach has aggravated transatlantic tensions and weakened U.S. soft power for the foreseeable future. America is now untrustworthy, constantly acting tough with their allies, and playing nice with their enemies.

The future of the transatlantic alliance is grim. It is fracturing under the weight of unilateral demands, giving rivals room to expand their influence. The Greenland episode is now a defining moment in early 21st-century diplomacy, but there are still 3 more years of the Trump Administration. Greenland may be in the clear for now, but other territories, especially those not in NATO, may be at risk. If we are willing to threaten our allies and kidnap foreign leaders, what could be next? The President is not known for his moderation. He will push and push to get the most that he can, and when he is gone, he will leave America's reputation in shambles.