President Donald Trump has ordered sweeping new tariffs on Denmark and seven other European countries, invoking emergency economic powers in a move that is already facing legal scrutiny and diplomatic resistance across the Atlantic.
Under the directive, the United States will impose 10 percent tariffs beginning in February on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland, with rates set to rise to 25 percent on June 1. Trump said the tariffs will remain in force until a deal is reached for what he called the “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
The announcement, made via Truth Social, links trade penalties directly to a territorial demand involving Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark that has repeatedly rejected any proposal to be sold.
“We have subsidized Denmark and the European Union for many years,” Trump wrote, asserting that tariffs are now necessary to protect U.S. interests and global security.
Legal Authority and Court Challenges
Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 as the legal basis for the tariffs. The statute allows the president to regulate international economic transactions during a declared national emergency involving an “unusual or extraordinary threat” to the United States.
However, the legal foundation of Trump’s tariff strategy is already under serious challenge. The U.S. Court of International Trade and two federal appellate courts have previously ruled that broad tariffs imposed under IEEPA exceed presidential authority, particularly when applied to allied nations without a clear national security emergency.
The Trump administration has appealed those rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now expected to determine whether emergency powers can lawfully be used to impose wide-ranging tariffs on foreign countries. A ruling against the administration could significantly limit executive power over trade policy.
Legal scholars note that conditioning tariffs on the acquisition of foreign territory raises additional constitutional and international law concerns, including potential violations of World Trade Organization rules and longstanding principles of sovereignty.
International Law and Sovereignty Concerns
European leaders reacted sharply, framing the tariffs as both unlawful and destabilizing. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that the measures undermine international law and the territorial integrity of states.
“Territorial integrity and sovereignty are fundamental principles of international law,” von der Leyen said, cautioning that tariff coercion risks triggering retaliatory measures and damaging transatlantic cooperation.
French President Emmanuel Macron described the tariff threat as “unacceptable,” stating that economic pressure would not influence Europe’s position on Greenland or other geopolitical issues.
Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said the announcement followed what had been a “constructive meeting” with senior U.S. officials and stressed that recent NATO exercises in Greenland were defensive and coordinated with allies.
NATO Implications and Domestic Pushback
The tariffs have also drawn criticism within the United States. Senator Thom Tillis (R–North Carolina) warned that penalizing NATO allies for military cooperation could weaken the alliance and benefit U.S. adversaries.
Legal analysts note that any attempt to use economic coercion to force the transfer of territory from an ally would be unprecedented in modern U.S. foreign policy and could conflict with treaty obligations under NATO.
Foreign policy experts have warned that unilateral action against Denmark over Greenland could expose the United States to claims of treaty violations and invite countermeasures under international trade law.
What Comes Next
Trump is expected to defend the tariffs during appearances at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where global leaders are likely to question both the legality and economic consequences of the move.
As the Supreme Court weighs the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA, the dispute may become a landmark case defining the limits of executive power in trade, national emergencies, and foreign policy — with implications extending far beyond Greenland.
