EU leaders assess damage after Trump retreats on Greenland tariffs

European leaders gathered in Brussels this week for an emergency summit that laid bare the fragility of the transatlantic alliance. The immediate trigger, Donald Trump's threat to impose 10% tariffs on eight EU member states unless they acquiesced to a US takeover of Greenland, had been withdrawn by the time they sat down. But the damage, as the EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put it, was already done. Relations between Europe and the United States "have definitely taken a big blow over the last week," she told reporters, adding that Europeans were "not willing to junk 80 years of good relations."

A crisis manufactured and then abandoned

The sequence of events was as abrupt as it was revealing. Over several weeks, Trump escalated rhetoric about acquiring Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. When Denmark and other European capitals refused to entertain the idea, the US president announced punitive tariffs targeting eight European nations. The European Union responded by preparing countermeasures: duties on €93bn worth of US goods and the potential deployment of its anti-coercion instrument, the most powerful economic sanctions tool at the bloc's disposal. Then, on Wednesday, Trump dropped the tariff threat entirely, announcing instead a vague agreement on Arctic security.

The speed of the reversal did not reassure Brussels. EU officials deemed the summit necessary precisely because the episode exposed a pattern of volatility. One day the US president threatens the territorial integrity of a NATO ally; the next he claims a diplomatic victory. As Kallas summarised the mood: "One day, one way; the other day, again, everything could change."

Denmark holds the line on sovereignty

Arriving at the summit, Denmark's prime minister Mette Frederiksen struck a firm tone. Danish sovereignty over Greenland, she said repeatedly, was not up for discussion. The United States and Denmark "have to work together respectfully without threatening each other." She also noted that NATO allies backed a permanent allied presence in the Arctic, including around Greenland, a framing that seeks to channel US security concerns into the alliance structure rather than unilateral action.

Greenland's own prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, speaking from Nuuk, reinforced the point. He said he did not know the details of the US-Danish agreement but emphasised that the territory's sovereignty was non-negotiable. "We choose the Kingdom of Denmark, we choose the EU, we choose NATO," he stated, making clear where Greenland's political alignment lies.

Divergent European instincts on display

The summit revealed familiar fault lines in how member states approach Washington. Germany's chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed Trump's change of heart with undisguised relief: "I am very grateful that President Trump has distanced himself from his original plans to take over Greenland, and I am also grateful that he has refrained from imposing additional tariffs on 1 February." The language was diplomatic, even warm, a contrast with the scepticism emanating from Paris.

Emmanuel Macron, still wearing the aviator shades that attracted attention at Davos, urged Europe to "remain extremely vigilant and ready to use the instruments at our disposal should we find ourselves the target of threats again." The French president has long argued for strategic autonomy; the Greenland episode gave fresh ammunition to that view.

The Baltic and Polish perspectives were shaped by immediate security dependence on the United States. Lithuania's president Gitanas Nausėda referenced the two US battalions deployed in his country: "I still treat the United States as our closest friend." Poland's Donald Tusk, another staunch transatlanticist, called for absolute European unity to protect relations with Washington "even if it is much more difficult than ever before." But he added a condition: politics needed "trust and respect … not domination and for sure not coercion."

Zelenskyy's critique and the defence question

The summit took place against the backdrop of a withering assessment from Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He accused Europe of being slow to act on key decisions while the United States moved boldly on Iran and Venezuela. "Right now, NATO exists thanks to the belief that the United States will act … but what if it doesn't?" he asked, renewing his call for a united European armed forces.

The numbers underscore the scale of European commitment. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the EU had allocated €188.6bn to Ukraine by 31 October 2025 since January 2022. A further €90bn loan was pledged last month. Von der Leyen pointed to these figures as evidence that "actions speak louder than words." Yet Zelenskyy's criticism resonates in capitals where ammunition deliveries have been delayed by months of procedural hesitation.

Trade deal revived, but vigilance remains

One concrete outcome of the summit week was the European Parliament's decision to resume work on the EU-US trade agreement. MEPs had paused ratification on Wednesday in direct response to Trump's tariff threats. The deal, signed at Trump's Turnberry golf resort last summer, includes 0% tariffs on many US goods. Parliament president Roberta Metsola confirmed the process would move forward again. Bernd Lange, chair of the trade committee, struck a cautionary note: "There is no room for false security. The next threat is sure to come. That's why it is even more important that we set clear boundaries, use all available legal instruments and apply them as appropriate to the situation."

The episode demonstrated that the EU's threat of retaliation, €93bn in tariffs plus the anti-coercion instrument, was credible enough to concentrate minds in Washington. Even the most transatlantic-minded governments, including Berlin and Warsaw, had signalled such a response would be necessary if the tariffs materialised. That unity, von der Leyen argued, had "paid off."

The 'board of peace' and a rival to the UN?

Beyond Greenland and tariffs, leaders discussed Trump's proposed "board of peace," launched at Davos on Thursday. Initially framed as part of a Gaza peace and reconstruction plan, the concept is reportedly morphing into an organisation with a sprawling geopolitical role operating under Trump's direct control. European Council president António Costa said the EU had "serious doubts" about its scope, governance and compatibility with the United Nations. The EU remains ready to work with Washington on Gaza, where the board was envisaged as a transitional administration, an idea the UN has endorsed.

So far, only Hungary and Bulgaria among EU member states have accepted invitations to join the board. France, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom have all declined. The split reflects a broader dilemma: whether to engage with ad hoc US initiatives that bypass multilateral institutions, or to defend the existing architecture even at the cost of friction with Washington.

What the episode reveals about European leverage

The Greenland crisis was resolved without a trade war, but it left a residue of uncertainty. The EU's ability to threaten meaningful retaliation, and the willingness of diverse member states to back that threat, forced a climbdown. Yet the underlying asymmetry remains. The United States can threaten a NATO ally's territory, impose tariffs unilaterally, and propose parallel international structures with minimal domestic political cost. Europe's response requires consensus among 27 capitals, each with different threat perceptions and economic exposures.