Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Trump threatens 10% tariffs to Nato allies over Greenland deal
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Art of the deal again? Another stupidity to be slapped down by the courts.

"President Donald Trump said Saturday that he would impose a new 10% tariff on Denmark and seven other European countries until “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”

The other countries affected would be Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland.

Trump said the duties would increase to 25% if a deal is not reached by June 1.

“China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.


“Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that!” he added.

Trump also pointed to joint security exercises around Greenland between Denmark and other European allies, calling them a “very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet.”

“Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s announcement was the latest step in a sharp escalation in tensions between the U.S. and some of its closest allies in Europe. Any direct confrontation would threaten to undo 70 years of security and stability in the Atlantic under the NATO alliance.

Already, the U.S. has a trade framework agreement with the European Union capping tariffs at 15% and an agreement with the United Kingdom capping tariffs on imports at 10%. It was not immediately clear if the new tariffs would void that deal or be in addition to those rates.

The E.U. is America’s largest trading partner and its largest source of imports.

“The EU stands in full solidarity with Denmark and the people of Greenland,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa in a joint statement.

The new tariffs “would undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral,” they added. “Europe will remain united, coordinated, and committed to upholding its sovereignty.”

"The European Union will always be very firm in defending international law, wherever it may be, and of course, starting within the territory of the European Union's member states," Costa said in a press conference on Saturday about a separate trade deal signing.

The chairman of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, Bernd Lange, called the new tariffs “unbelievable.”

Lange said he would be calling for the European Parliament to suspend work on implementing the U.S.-E.U. trade deal “until U.S. ends its threats.” He also said the E.U.’s so-called “trade bazooka,” formally called the Anti-Coercion Instrument,”must now be used.”

Manfred Weber, the leader of the largest party in the European Parliament said that "given Donald Trump's threats regarding Greenland," approval of the E.U.'s trade deal with the U.S. "must be put on hold."

“Applying tariffs on allies for pursuing the collective security of NATO allies is completely wrong,” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. “We will of course be pursuing this directly with the U.S. administration.”

Denmark said it was surprised by Trump's announcement. "We agree with the US that we need to do more since the Arctic is no longer a low tension area," the Danish foreign ministry said in an email. "That’s exactly why we and NATO partners are stepping up in full transparency with our American allies."

"We are in close contact with the European Commission and our other partners on the issue," it added.

"We will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed," said Sweden’s prime minister Ulf Kristersson in a statement. "Only Denmark and Greenland decide on issues concerning Denmark and Greenland."

Germany’s foreign ministry said in a statement that it was working with other E.U. member states on coordinated response.

French president Emmanuel Macron said "no intimidation nor threat will influence us," adding that "tariff threats are unacceptable."

Macron said he too would consult European partners on a response.

Last week, European troops began arriving in Greenland in a show of support for the island territory, which is part of Denmark.

On Wednesday, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said his nation, at the request of Denmark, had sent military officers to Greenland to help plan the Danish-allied joint security exercise “Operation Arctic Endurance.”

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told reporters Friday after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that “it’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland.”

Rasmussen said he told the Trump administration that “this is not in the interest of the kingdom.”

The new tariffs would come as the Trump administration battles widespread cost-of-living issues facing consumers in the U.S.

In November, the administration walked back some food tariffs. The president has also called for a 10% cap on credit card interest rates and has ordered government-controlled entities to buy $200 billion in mortgage bonds to drive down mortgage rates.

Increasing tariffs on European countries could lead to higher prices on everything from pharmaceuticals to aircraft parts.

Germany, one of the countries named by Trump on Saturday, is a large source of industrial and pharmaceutical imports to the U.S.

“President Trump is completely wrong to announce tariffs on the UK over Greenland,” Kemi Badenoch, leader of the U.K.’s Conservative Party, said on social media. “People in both UK and US will face higher costs.”

The U.K. has sent just one military officer to Greenland as of Saturday, Sky News reported.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., responded to the president’s announcement on Fox News, saying that Trump “is right that Greenland is vital for the national security interests of the United States.” Cotton added “the best decision probably would be to acquire Greenland from Denmark.”

"These tariffs are unnecessary, punitive, and a profound mistake," Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said in a social media post.

"This response to our own allies for sending a small number of troops to Greenland for training is bad for America, bad for American businesses, and bad for America's allies," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said on X.

"Continuing down this path is bad for America, bad for American businesses and bad for America’s allies," Sens. Jeanne Shaneen, D-N.H., and Tillis added in a bipartisan statement. "This kind of rhetoric also further helps adversaries like Putin and Xi who want to see NATO divided."

"Our allies deserve better, and so do the American people who have made their opposition to this flawed policy resoundingly clear," the two senators continued. "At a time when many Americans are already concerned about the cost of living, these tariffs would raise prices for both families and businesses."

It was not immediately clear under what authority the new tariffs would be applied. Currently, tariffs on the U.K. and E.U. have been applied using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court is set to rule any day on whether that law grants Trump the authority to impose his country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs."
First, you would think that reciprocal tariffs would be a given... even just out of simple fairness in international free trade. Shouldn't even require the pretense of an emergency. The EU adding even more tariffs, under their Anti-Coercion Instrument, just further escalates a trade war that they initiated through unilateral and protectionist trade barriers.

Second, if NATO member states are so concerned about mutual protection, why has the US shouldered the largest burden for decades? We are owed compensation.

Third, as for Greenland, either European countries need to establish a significant and capable military presence in Greenland, or the US needs compensation for our past and ongoing protection. Whether that's offshore drilling rights or more in order to secure cooperation and ensure players are not influenced by Russia, China, etc..

So far, no one seems willing to even have the conversation... mostly due to TDS. So there has to be some way to get the players to the negotiating table, and Trump's usual ploy is to start with a big ask... even if that isn't the actual end goal.
No..at no time in history has America demanded payment for its military protection, and certainly never the complete surrender of a sovereign territory itself. This clearly is about one thing and one thing only...oil. Oil, oil, and more oil. Oh and oil. This is a global embarrassment and will go down in history as one of the most laughable farces of our time. Nobody is selling anything, and the EU is prepared to militarily defend Greenland to the hilt. But hey, as Donny Dumbass says himself, all press is good press. La Dee Dahl!
You sure?

Yes, the U.S. has demanded increased financial contributions for military protection, notably pressuring allies like Japan and South Korea for higher payments for hosting U.S. troops, a concept sometimes framed as "burden-sharing," but traditional alliances like NATO involve mutual defense, not direct payment for protection, though allies do cover some U.S. basing costs. While not "demanding payment" in a simple invoice sense, there's a history of U.S. administrations pushing for greater allied defense spending, often linked to the costs of U.S. forward-deployed forces.
- Google AI

If you'd even occasionally play devil's advocate with your own beliefs.

If you think this is unprecedented in history, even between the US and Denmark:

Yes, the U.S. hinted at potential force if Denmark didn't sell the Danish West Indies (now U.S. Virgin Islands), particularly fearing German takeover during World War I, with Secretary of State Robert Lansing suggesting occupation might be the only option if negotiations failed, though it was ultimately a negotiated purchase for $25 million in gold in 1917. The U.S. used strategic concerns about German expansion as leverage, but the sale was framed as a mutual agreement, with Danish voters approving it.
- Google AI

And under Democrat president Woodrow Wilson at that.
You should read your own fine print:

"but traditional alliances like NATO involve mutual defense, not direct payment for protection, though allies do cover some U.S. basing costs"

No charges for defense of allied territories. Can't be any clearer than that. Get a college education instead of relying on random Google AI summaries.
That's called cherry picking.
I'm pretty sure Trumps grand strategy has come about because he's been the proverbial dog chasing a car, and when he caught one... well to be honest he didn't know what to do with it, so just went off chasing another car.

How I mean?

Well Venezuela was a Car he caught.

He had intentions of getting the private sector to pony up the money to pump Venezuelan oil and assume it would all be profits. What he didn't consider is that such private sector companies are apprehensive, not just because of the security guarantees but to be honest the growth of a business requires getting stake holders to put the money up based upon returns.

Th companies look at margins... The current price of oil, versus the running costs that currently exist versus the expansion cost (taxes et al), the increase in costs of hiring, the decrease in overall oil prices (As pumping more would bring the price down) etc.


The balance between the two

So Venezuela is currently a no-go from the private sector. So what can he do to make a turn around... Well for one, run off an chase another Car (Greenland) for two use the threat of increasing Tariffs further to get the funding up to fund both Venezuela as well as attempt to gain Greenland.

If however he got Greenland, well he'd be in the same boat as Venezuela. Private sector companies wouldn't want to screw up their margins or get global backlash from investing in a bum deal.

I guess at that point Trump will find another Car to chase.
The world is beginning to question the ferocity of the bite of an 80 year ADHD fat man..
(Jan 18, 2026 11:10 AM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]Well Venezuela was a Car he caught. 

He had intentions of getting the private sector to pony up the money to pump Venezuelan oil and assume it would all be profits.  What he didn't consider is that such private sector companies are apprehensive, not just because of the security guarantees but to be honest the growth of a business requires getting stake holders to put the money up based upon returns.
Who said he's let go of Venezuela? Not everything can happen overnight, nor did he assume it would.
Considering Venezuela was once the richest country in Central and South America, if it manages to become stable and secure again, there's huge profit to be made. Just look at Chevron, who never fully left Venezuela and is now poised to make a mint... and their stock value is already reflecting that.

Quote:So Venezuela is currently a no-go from the private sector.  So what can he do to make a turn around... Well for one, run off an chase another Car (Greenland) for two use the threat of increasing Tariffs further to get the funding up to fund both Venezuela as well as attempt to gain Greenland. 

If however he got Greenland, well he'd be in the same boat as Venezuela.  Private sector companies wouldn't want to screw up their margins or get global backlash from investing in a bum deal. 
Considering Greenland doesn't have inherent existing security concerns for oil companies, offshore drilling there is more immediately feasible. It's just a matter of the price of oil being high enough to make the juice worth the squeeze. But that also assumes the US has zero strategic use for Greenland... a point most leftists scoff at, even though the UK and Europe are taking protecting the Northwest Passage seriously.

And unlike the US Virgin Islands (which the US bought from Denmark), Trump is currently only using tariffs, instead of threatening occupation.

(Jan 18, 2026 12:53 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]The world is beginning to question the ferocity of the bite of an 80 year ADHD fat man..

We'll see, if or when he takes action against Iran.
Manbaby pouts that since Norway didn't award him the Nobel Peace Prize, he will no longer think purely of peace, whatever the fuck that means. The president of Norway reminded Trump once again that the award was chosen by an independent panel and not the Norwegian govt. Such a pathetic embarrassment. It's like dealing with a spoiled third grader.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPlsXmY6cLQ
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5