EU Weighs Trade Retaliation as Trump Ramps Up Pressure Over Greenland

European Union leaders will convene in Brussels on Thursday night to finalize a concrete response to economic threats from U.S. President Donald Trump.

The meeting follows allegations that Trump used explicit tariff threats to exert economic and political pressure on Denmark regarding the status of Greenland.

In response to the escalating tension, the European Parliament has voted to suspend the ratification of a prior trade deal known as the Turnberry agreement. EU leadership is now facing calls to declare that agreement null and void.

The bloc is considering a massive retaliatory package, including the potential reimposition of €93 billion in tariffs on U.S. exports. These duties are scheduled to take effect on Feb. 7 unless Washington retreats.

EU officials are also weighing the first-ever activation of the Anti-Coercion Instrument, a powerful economic defense mechanism.

On the security front, Denmark is reportedly considering invoking NATO’s Article 4. The move would force the military alliance to hold formal consultations regarding the threat.

The escalating friction between Washington and Brussels transcends a mere trade dispute; it represents a defining trial for Europe’s geopolitical standing. The Trump administration’s overtures regarding Greenland, coupled with the imposition of economic sanctions, have forced the European Union into an existential predicament. Brussels must now project a unified front or risk total marginalization on the global stage.

This trajectory was perhaps inevitable, born of a European policy stance that prioritized de-escalation over deterrence. Last July’s “Turnberry Agreement,” initially framed as a stabilizing compromise, has instead served as a catalyst for more aggressive American demands. It reinforces a stark axiom of international relations: concessions rarely secure peace; they typically invite further coercion.

The crux of the impasse lies not in economic capacity—both sides wield sufficient leverage to inflict significant mutual damage—but in political resolve. While the EU possesses a formidable arsenal of retaliatory tools, ranging from sweeping tariff packages to its hitherto untested anti-coercion instrument, its perennial Achilles’ heel remains internal fragmentation. With the core interests of a member state now under direct threat, the pressure for a cohesive response is unprecedented. How Brussels navigates this crisis will serve as a definitive signal to Washington, Moscow, and Beijing alike regarding Europe’s true strategic weight in an increasingly contested world order.

While this confrontation may not have a direct impact on specific Vietnamese-American concerns like remittances or visa processing for categories such as F2B, H-1B, TPS, and EB-5, an all-out trade war between the U.S. and the EU would trigger widespread global economic instability. This volatility would indirectly squeeze small businesses throughout the community—from the nail salon industry and phở restaurants to the various enterprises in Little Saigon—as they face rising supply chain costs and a decline in consumer purchasing power.