Trump threatens tariffs on 8 NATO allies over Greenland, deepening transatlantic rift

President Trump announced plans to impose a 10% tariff on eight NATO allies in response to their deployment of troops to Greenland.

The measures target Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The tariffs are scheduled to take effect Feb. 1, 2026, and are expected to increase to 25% in June.

Trump issued the announcement on Truth Social, stating the tariffs will remain in place until an agreement is reached for the United States to fully acquire Greenland. The move reportedly came without prior diplomatic warning, catching allies by surprise.

European leaders reacted sharply, calling the threat "unacceptable" and pledging a unified response. Both French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the move.

In the U.S., Republican Sen. Thom Tillis also criticized the policy. He argued the tariffs would damage American alliances and primarily benefit Russia and China.

European Union ambassadors have scheduled an emergency meeting to discuss the situation.

President Trump’s recent maneuvers represent far more than a conventional trade dispute; they constitute a foundational challenge to the cohesion and structural integrity of the NATO alliance. The decision to weaponize economic policy—specifically through the imposition of tariffs—against military allies over a territorial matter involving Denmark marks an unprecedented departure from established norms. By bypassing traditional diplomatic channels in favor of social media pronouncements, the administration has prioritized maximum disruption, signaling a strictly transactional foreign policy that subordinates long-standing alliance commitments to immediate U.S. interests.

This strategy is not only alienating key partners but also triggering significant friction within Washington. Critical pushback from Senator Thom Tillis, a prominent Republican, underscores a deepening domestic divide over the administration’s geopolitical calculus. Tillis’s warning—that such a breach in Western solidarity provides a strategic opening for Russia and China—highlights the potential for lasting damage to the global security architecture.

Ultimately, the administration’s approach may be yielding unintended consequences in Europe. Rather than fracturing under pressure, European leaders are demonstrating a newfound unity born of previous confrontations. This collective resistance suggests that the White House’s tactics may serve as a catalyst for the European Union to accelerate its pursuit of strategic autonomy, potentially distancing the bloc from U.S. leadership for the long term.

While this dispute does not directly target Vietnamese-American businesses, it highlights the risks of sudden and unpredictable shifts in U.S. trade policy. This creates a broader climate of economic uncertainty that can ultimately impact all small business owners, from the local phở restaurants and the nail salon industry to the vibrant commercial hubs of Little Saigon.