Analysis
In an announcement that blends elements of aggressive diplomacy with strategic national security interests, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a series of trade measures targeting Denmark and several European Union countries, along with other allies.
The decision, framed within the dispute over the potential acquisition of Greenland, marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, with repercussions that go beyond the bilateral relationship and affect broader global dynamics.
The presidential statement, posted on Trump’s official account on the social media platform Truth Social, underscores the imposition of initial U.S. tariffs of 10% starting Feb. 1, 2026, with a planned increase to 25% if no agreement is reached on the sale of Greenland.
The affected countries include Denmark—the sovereign owner of the territory—Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland. Trump justified the move as a response to what he described as decades of implicit subsidies by the United States, arguing that these nations have failed to adequately compensate Washington for the military and strategic protection it provides. In his words, “it is time for Denmark to give back,” referring to Greenland’s importance to world peace due to its strategic Arctic location, coveted, according to Trump, by powers such as China and Russia.
Trade war and international (dis)order
From an economic perspective, the measure echoes the protectionist principles that defined Trump’s first administration, but with a more explicitly geopolitical edge. The proposed tariffs would not only hit European exports to the United States—in key sectors such as manufacturing, technology and consumer goods—but could also trigger an escalation of retaliatory trade measures.
According to preliminary estimates based on U.S. Commerce Department data, bilateral trade with these countries exceeds $500 billion a year, raising the risk of disruptions to global supply chains. For Denmark, for example, exports to the United States account for about 8% of its GDP, with a strong focus on pharmaceuticals and machinery. A 25% tariff could erode competitiveness and generate domestic inflationary pressures.
Beyond the numbers, the announcement highlights the intersection of national security and economics. Trump argues that acquiring Greenland is necessary to counter external influence and invokes defense-related arguments, including control of Arctic shipping routes and strategic mineral resources such as rare earths that are critical to the energy transition. This view aligns with the “America First” doctrine, but raises questions about the sustainability of longstanding alliances such as NATO.
Impact on NATO and LNG flows to the EU
The consequences for NATO are particularly serious. The transatlantic alliance, founded in 1949 on the principle of collective defense, faces unprecedented strain as its leading member—the United States—moves to impose economic sanctions on eight allies over a territorial dispute that directly involves Denmark, a founding partner.
European leaders have warned that any attempt at a forced acquisition of Greenland could spell the end of NATO, already weakened by earlier debates over defense spending and perceptions of a less committed United States. The recent deployment of European troops to Greenland for Arctic defense exercises—in response to U.S. pressure—underscores a growing rift. What should be cooperation against shared threats, such as Russia in the Arctic, is turning into mutual distrust. This dynamic could erode the alliance’s credibility, encourage members to seek alternative security arrangements and, in a worst-case scenario, weaken collective deterrence against global adversaries.
An additional source of vulnerability lies in U.S. energy flows to the European Union, particularly crude oil and liquefied natural gas. In 2024, U.S. energy exports to the EU totaled close to $80 billion, with LNG accounting for a growing share. The United States supplied about 45% to 60% of EU LNG imports in various quarters of 2025, cementing its role as the bloc’s top supplier following the sharp reduction in Russian deliveries.
U.S. crude oil exports to Europe averaged 1.93 million barrels per day in 2024, with notable growth toward the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom and similar trends in 2025. Annual values for crude exports are estimated at roughly $40 billion to $50 billion, depending on average prices of $65 to $70 a barrel.
This mutual energy dependence—the EU as a key destination for U.S. LNG and crude, with the United States covering up to 14% to 15% of Europe’s oil imports in 2025, and the U.S. as a strategic supplier in the post-Ukraine context—makes the proposed tariffs a double-edged sword. Any tariff escalation on European goods could provoke retaliation that hits U.S. energy exports, raising costs for European consumers, since U.S. LNG is already more expensive than some alternatives, and potentially reducing volumes. That would worsen energy insecurity in Europe while denting revenues for U.S. producers in Texas and Louisiana.
In a global context, the initiative could also alter dynamics in emerging markets, including Latin America. For Argentina, for instance, a weakening of the euro against the dollar—stemming from transatlantic tensions—could influence commodity prices for exports to Europe, affecting already fragile trade balances.
At the same time, Argentina is positioning itself before the EU as a reliable energy supplier in the coming years. Alignment with the United States and the potential for Argentine LNG exports to Europe emerge as two key factors that warrant close analysis.