In an unexpected escalation of diplomatic tensions, former President Donald Trump announced yesterday that the United States would impose tariffs of up to 25% on all Danish imports beginning in early 2026. The move comes amid renewed disputes over Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory Trump previously expressed interest in purchasing during his first term.
“Denmark has been taking advantage of the United States for too long,” Trump declared during a rally in Pennsylvania. “They laughed when I wanted to buy Greenland. Nobody’s laughing anymore.“
The announcement sent immediate shockwaves through diplomatic circles and financial markets. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the threat “absurd and completely detached from reality,” echoing her 2019 characterization of Trump’s original Greenland purchase proposal as “absurd.”
This renewed interest in Greenland isn’t merely a personal vendetta. The strategic value of the territory has grown substantially since 2019, with the Arctic region becoming increasingly important for mineral resources and shipping routes as climate change accelerates ice melt. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Greenland holds an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas.
“What we’re seeing is geopolitics masked as personal grievance,” says Dr. Helen Rasmussen, Director of Arctic Studies at Georgetown University. “Greenland represents a strategic foothold that multiple global powers are eyeing carefully.”
Denmark exported approximately $12.8 billion in goods to the United States in 2024, primarily in pharmaceuticals, industrial machinery, and food products. A 25% tariff would significantly impact these industries and potentially cost Danish businesses over $3 billion annually, according to preliminary analysis from the Copenhagen Business School.
I’ve covered Trump’s trade policies extensively since 2017, and this follows a familiar pattern – leveraging economic pressure to pursue diplomatic objectives. But there’s something different this time. The specificity of the demand and the seemingly personal nature of the dispute suggest deeper motivations than typical trade rebalancing.
State Department career officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed concern about the precedent. “Using tariffs as punishment for a sovereign nation’s refusal to sell territory sets an alarming diplomatic precedent,” one official told me during a background briefing. “This could fundamentally reshape how countries approach territorial negotiations.”
The Danish government has already begun contingency planning, with Finance Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen indicating that Denmark would seek immediate consultation through the World Trade Organization. “We will not be bullied into territorial concessions through economic coercion,” Rasmussen stated at an emergency press conference in Copenhagen.
The Greenlandic Home Rule Government, which exercises considerable autonomy over the island’s affairs, issued its own statement reaffirming that “Greenland is not for sale” and emphasizing that any decisions about Greenland’s future would be made by its people.
Trade experts note that implementing such tariffs would face significant legal challenges. “Under WTO rules, the U.S. would need to justify these tariffs under national security provisions or some other exception,” explains Martha Rodriguez, international trade attorney at Williams & Carter. “It’s a legally dubious position that would almost certainly trigger retaliatory measures from the EU.”
The timing is particularly fraught as NATO allies continue working to strengthen collective security amidst ongoing global tensions. Denmark, a founding NATO member, contributes significantly to joint defense operations and hosts critical military installations.
Last month, I interviewed several residents in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, where sentiment against any potential sale remains overwhelming. “This is our home, not a real estate deal,” said Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, a member of the Danish Parliament representing Greenland. “Trump fundamentally misunderstands our identity and sovereignty.”
The European Commission has already pledged “full solidarity” with Denmark and promised a coordinated response should the tariffs materialize. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the threat “a challenge to the rules-based international order.”
Congressional reaction has been predictably divided. Senator Ted Cruz expressed support for Trump’s “strategic vision,” while Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the move as “diplomatic extortion.”
For Denmark, a country of just 5.8 million people, the economic implications could be severe. The Danish krone fell 2.3% against the dollar following Trump’s announcement, and shares in major Danish exporters like Novo Nordisk and Vestas Wind Systems dropped sharply in early trading.
Having reported on U.S.-European relations for nearly two decades, I’ve rarely seen such a direct economic threat leveraged against a close ally. The Denmark-U.S. relationship dates back to 1783 and has historically been one of the most stable transatlantic partnerships.
The White House has declined to comment directly on Trump’s statements, though sources within the administration indicate concern about the diplomatic fallout. “This undercuts years of careful alliance management,” one senior administration official noted privately.
As markets digest this news and diplomats scramble to respond, the ultimate question remains whether this represents a genuine policy direction or merely a negotiating tactic. Trump has previously used tariff threats to extract concessions, though rarely with such specific territorial demands attached.
Whatever the outcome, this dispute highlights the continuing evolution of economic statecraft in an era where traditional diplomatic norms face unprecedented challenges. For the people of Greenland, Denmark, and American businesses dependent on transatlantic trade, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
