A statement issued by United States President Donald J Trump has triggered sharp diplomatic unease across Europe after he threatened sweeping tariffs on Denmark and several European countries unless negotiations begin for the complete purchase of Greenland by the United States.
In the statement, President Trump claimed that the United States has subsidised Denmark and the European Union for decades by not imposing tariffs, arguing that it was now time for Denmark to “give back”. He framed Greenland as critical to global and American national security, citing strategic competition with China and Russia in the Arctic region. Trump asserted that Denmark was incapable of defending Greenland adequately and warned that global peace was at stake.
The statement outlined that from February 1, 2026, a 10 percent tariff would be imposed on all goods sent to the United States from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The tariff would rise to 25 percent from June 1, 2026, and remain in force until a deal is reached for the “complete and total purchase of Greenland”.
Trump further argued that Greenland was essential for advanced missile defence architecture, referring to the so called Golden Dome system, and suggested that decades of American security guarantees entitled the United States to acquire the territory. He concluded by stating that the United States was open to negotiations with Denmark and the other named countries.
The threat to use tariffs as leverage to compel the transfer of territory represents a profound departure from established principles of international law and diplomatic practice. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and its status is protected by the principle of territorial integrity enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Any attempt to coerce a sovereign state into surrendering territory through economic pressure risks violating the prohibition on coercion in international relations.
From a trade law perspective, the threatened tariffs raise serious concerns under World Trade Organization rules. While national security exceptions exist, they are not designed to justify territorial acquisition. Using trade barriers explicitly as a bargaining tool to force a land purchase would likely be challenged as an abuse of those exceptions, potentially undermining the credibility of the global trading system itself.
The statement also disregards the right of self determination of the Greenlandic people, who possess recognised political autonomy and whose consent would be indispensable under international law. Treating Greenland primarily as a strategic asset rather than a populated territory reflects a colonial logic that modern international law has sought to dismantle.
Geopolitically, the move risks destabilising the Arctic by sidelining multilateral governance mechanisms and NATO security frameworks in favour of unilateral action. It may also encourage other global powers to justify economic coercion for territorial or strategic gains, accelerating a broader erosion of rules based order.