by Asad Mirza
Trump’s renewed threats over Greenland have alarmed Europe, prompting diplomatic, military, and trade responses as EU leaders weigh collective leverage against US coercive tactics
Greenland has become a focal point of international tensions yet again, as US President Donald Trump repeated arguments that Washington must control the territory for national security reasons and has refused to rule out using military force to acquire it. Trump also announced that he will impose tariffs on those countries that have sent troops to Greenland in recent days for a Danish-led reconnaissance mission aimed at strengthening its security.
It seems that there is never going to be a dull day under President Donald Trump’s watch. After kidnapping the Venezuelan president, he has again ratcheted up his demands for Greenland’s annexation to the United States or for more control over its natural resources.
Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a post on X that she had discussed Greenland and US actions with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. She emphasised that the European Union will always defend its strategic economic and security interests. “We will face these challenges to our European solidarity with steadiness and resolve,” she added.
The comments come as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte confirmed that he had spoken with President Donald Trump on January 18 regarding the security situation in Greenland and the Arctic.
US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his threats to deploy troops to Greenland, this time accusing Denmark of not doing enough to combat potential threats from Russia. “NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland,’” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.
EU’s Response
Belgium’s defence minister has played down his country’s role in European military deployments to Greenland, saying the mission is focused on reconnaissance and coordination rather than confronting the US. Belgium is sending a single officer to the autonomous Danish territory as part of a European detachment deployed at Copenhagen’s request.
UK opposition leaders also criticised Trump’s announcement. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the tariffs were a “terrible idea,” while Reform UK leader and Trump ally Nigel Farage said they “will hurt us.” Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey called Trump’s behaviour “unhinged” but said that how the UK responds “matters a lot.”
France’s Emmanuel Macron has called for the EU to activate its most potent trade weapon against the US after President Donald Trump threatened to hit several European countries with extra tariffs in response to the dispute over Greenland.
An Élysée official said on Sunday (January 18) that the French president would request that the EU activate its so-called anti-coercion instrument, which can restrict access to the single market for American companies.
Germany’s Vice-Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said that “a line had been crossed,” adding that the affected nations “must not allow ourselves to be blackmailed.”
“It is unacceptable to hit countries that are now taking more responsibility for our common security in NATO,” said Troels Lund Poulsen, Denmark’s defence minister.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark’s foreign minister, said that the tariff move was “surprising” because he had a “constructive dialogue” with Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday. He added: “It is paradoxical because what makes the president react is that we are doing what we are criticised for not doing, namely, taking care of the Arctic.”
Alexander Stubb, president of Finland, who is known to have a good personal relationship with Trump, said that “tariffs would undermine the transatlantic relationship.” The Swedish and Norwegian prime ministers, Ulf Kristersson and Jonas Gahr Støre, also warned that Europe “will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed.”
EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said on Sunday (January 18) that the implementation of the US–EU trade deal would be “very complicated” in light of Trump’s threats.
Trump Mania Over Greenland
Greenland’s strategic importance to the US dates back to the 19th century, and successive US administrations have explored acquiring the island. Since the Second World War, Washington has enjoyed extensive access to it under the 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement. But US Arctic engagement declined after the Cold War.
Trump’s fixation on Greenland emerged during his first term, when he publicly proposed purchasing the island. European leaders largely treated the episode as a curiosity rather than a warning. Yet Trump’s interest persisted. He reopened a US consulate in Nuuk in 2020, and officials who worked with him described his focus on acquiring Greenland as unusually intense and enduring. Upon returning to office in 2025, Trump framed it as a national security necessity and accused Denmark of failing to defend the territory adequately.
Greenland is home to massive deposits of rare earths, which are crucial to the US efforts to maintain its technological lead over China. But tapping these important minerals, crucial for modern technology, is not easy, according to experts.
The US Geological Survey identifies 60 minerals as critical for the American economy and national security. A subset of these minerals, termed “rare earth elements,” such as neodymium and dysprosium, are necessary for manufacturing the magnets and motors that power America’s tech industry, while others are key for the semiconductors driving the artificial intelligence boom.
Access to rare earth minerals is seen as a key choke point for many of today’s high-tech supply chains. China, one of America’s tech rivals, has grown to dominate rare earth production and refining and has used access to rare earths as a negotiating chip with Trump.
Due to ancient geological processes, Greenland hosts a variety of valuable ore and mineral deposits, from gold and iron to copper and graphite. Yet much of the country’s resources remain untapped due to the island’s isolation, harsh conditions, environmental stewardship, and the mining industry’s price sensitivity.
In addition to its rare earth supply, the world’s third-largest known land deposit, Greenland, also boasts extensive stores of germanium and gallium, two critical minerals needed for high-tech applications.
Germanium is a key component in fibre-optic wires, while gallium is used in semiconductors required for many consumer electronics, power supplies, data centres, and even quantum devices. China currently controls around 98 per cent of gallium and around 60% of germanium supplies worldwide, with particular dominance in mineral refining, and leverages this dominance in trade negotiations with the US.
What Should be the European Response?
Europeans have real leverage in the face of Donald Trump’s threats towards Greenland—and time is on their side. They must use it to raise the prospective costs of annexation.
Trump thrives on space, ambiguity, and fear of US power. Europe’s task is to fill that space calmly, collectively, and pre-emptively. The joint statement of January 6 by European leaders was a good start and a strong statement of resolve. So too is the ongoing deployment of troops to Greenland by some governments. But more is needed.
By acting fast, Europeans can outflank the US administration. Overall, Europeans have leverage. In Trump’s language, they have cards. Time is the major factor. Trump wants to move quickly. He already faces bipartisan criticism in Congress for his coercive diplomacy, midterm elections in November, and the end of his presidential term in three years. Political shifts within Greenland and any commercial benefits of US annexation would take much longer to materialise—if they materialise at all. By acting fast, European leaders can outflank the administration. They are right to be cautious in what they say, but must be clear-eyed about the challenge and decisive in curbing the chances of escalation.
(The writer is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on national, international, defence and strategic affairs, environmental issues, an interfaith practitioner, and a media consultant. Ideas are personal.)
