Trump’s $108 Billion Tariff Threat Sparks European Retaliation: Denmark and EU Respond

Trump’s New Tariff Threat — What’s Happening Now

In mid‑January 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump escalated trade tensions with Europe by announcing new tariffs on a group of NATO allies — including Denmark and several EU countries — in connection with a dispute over Greenland. The tariffs are unusually large: U.S. threats and potential European retaliation are being quantified at around $108 billion worth of goods on both sides of the Atlantic.

Trump’s announcement, made via social media and official statements, said he would impose a 10 % tariff on imports from eight European countries starting February 1, raising that rate to 25 % on June 1 if no agreement is reached. He linked this tariff directly to his controversial effort to persuade Denmark (a NATO ally) to allow the United States to purchase Greenland — a semiautonomous territory of Denmark with strategic significance in the Arctic.

This linkage — using trade tariffs as a lever for geopolitical goals — has jolted global markets and diplomatic relations, reigniting fears of a transatlantic trade war that mirrors disputes seen in earlier Trump administrations.

The expected tariffs — $108 billion in European counter‑measures — refer to EU discussions of imposing retaliatory duties on U.S. exports should the Trump tariffs go forward.

Why Greenland Is at the Center of This Dispute

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is strategically positioned between North America and the Arctic. Its geographic location makes it geopolitically valuable for missile defense, early warning systems, and monitoring both Russia and China as Arctic competition grows ever fiercer.

While Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it has extensive self‑government and the right to determine its future. Denmark has consistently rejected U.S. offers — including historic ones — to buy the territory and has emphasized that Greenland isn’t for sale. President Trump’s renewed push to acquire it has been widely criticized by European allies as “unacceptable” and destabilizing.

Linking trade penalties to sovereignty questions over Greenland has been seen by many European leaders as economic coercion, prompting a coordinated response across eight European nations.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Reacts: ‘Europe Will Not Be Blackmailed’

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been one of the most vocal critics of Trump’s tariff threat. Danish officials have firmly rejected the idea that economic pressure could or should dictate Greenland’s future, emphasizing that Europe and NATO allies should operate through diplomacy, shared principles, and mutual respect rather than coercion.

In public remarks, Frederiksen stated that “Europe will not be blackmailed” and stressed the solidarity shown by other European leaders in response to what she described as an unprecedented and destabilizing trade move.

She reiterated that Denmark seeks cooperation, not conflict, but would not bow to economic threats tied to territorial ambitions. This stance encapsulates a broader European sentiment: alliance obligations and long‑standing diplomatic relationships cannot be overridden by punitive trade measures.

How Other European Leaders Are Responding

Other European leaders have echoed Denmark’s position — not only defending sovereignty over Greenland but also condemning the tariffs as undermining transatlantic relations and NATO unity.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called Trump’s tariffs “completely wrong” and warned that a trade war would be detrimental to all parties involved.

EU states have issued a joint statement asserting that such tariff threats could trigger a dangerous downward spiral in diplomatic and economic relations.

National leaders from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Finland have also publicly criticized the tariffs as coercive and unbefitting long‑term allies.

This broad chorus of opposition underpins a rare moment of European unity in the face of external pressure — even among countries with differing priorities within the EU.

Retaliatory Tariffs and Trade War Risks

To counter Trump’s tariff threat, the European Union is exploring retaliatory tariffs of up to €93 billion (about $108 billion) on U.S. goods. These measures would be designed to mirror the impact of U.S. tariffs, and are part of a broader set of options being discussed in emergency EU meetings.

The discussions include using the EU’s Anti‑Coercion Instrument (ACI) — a rarely invoked mechanism created to defend the bloc against economic pressure from external powers — and imposing restrictions and levies on U.S. companies operating in Europe.

Such countermeasures, if enacted, would mark one of the most significant trade escalations between the United States and its closest political and economic partners in decades. Economists have warned a potential EU‑U.S. trade war could disrupt global supply chains, weaken investor confidence, and slow economic growth on both sides.

Economic and Strategic Implications

1. Market Volatility and Business Impact

Financial markets have reacted sharply to the tariff threats. Precious metals like gold and silver reached record highs while stock indices dipped, reflecting investor concerns about potential disruptions to global trade and economic growth.

For European exporters — particularly in automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and industrial machinery — increased tariffs could translate into higher costs and reduced competitiveness in the U.S. market. Likewise, U.S. importers and businesses could face reduced purchasing access and higher prices in European markets if retaliatory tariffs proceed.

2. NATO and Transatlantic Security

Observers say the tariff dispute threatens to fracture NATO cohesion at a time when geopolitical tensions — especially around Russia’s Arctic interests — are already high. A conventional assumption behind the alliance is that member states should consult and resolve differences without economic coercion. Using tariffs to punish allies could weaken that principle.

European leaders have emphasized that Arctic and NATO securitycooperation should be managed through established institutional frameworks, not through punitive measures.

3. Trade Agreements and Future Dialogue

Prior to this crisis, the European Union and the United States were negotiating a “reciprocal, fair, and balanced” trade agreement aimed at lowering some tariffs and stabilizing the transatlantic trading relationship. However, European leaders have indicated that the Greenland‑linked tariff dispute could stall or derail progress on any future agreements.

Diplomats from both sides have suggested that frank discussions are needed to clarify intentions and reestablish trust — but many experts believe that without significant concessions or a change in strategy from Washington, tensions may persist.

Assessing News Authenticity

The core reporting on this issue comes from major international outlets, including Bloomberg, Reuters, and Associated Press, as reflected in the sources above. These outlets confirm:

Trump announced tariffs tied to Greenland disputes;

The EU and Denmark have publicly responded;

Retaliatory tariffs of up to ~€93 billion are being discussed;

European nations across the board are signaling unified opposition.

The $108 billion figure refers primarily to EU potential retaliation, not a direct U.S. tariff bill of that magnitude. The actual U.S. tariffs on European imports begin at 10 % and rise to 25 % depending on diplomatic outcomes.

Ths, the news is authentic but must be accurately contextualized: it’s not that Trump already imposed $108 billion in tariffs, but that both sides are preparing measures that could total that amount if a broader trade escalation occurs.

Conclusion

The current tariff dispute underscores the fragility of global trade relations and the risks of using economic tools as leverage in geopolitical disputes. Denmark’s firm response — “Europe will not be blackmailed” — captures a broad European resistance to coercive tactics, even from long‑standing allies.

As both the U.S. and EU prepare their next moves, businesses, governments, and global markets watch closely: the decisions made now could reshape transatlantic economic and security ties for years to come.