WASHINGTON — President Trump's latest move to impose tariffs on Denmark and other European allies has ignited a firestorm of debate over U.S. policy in the Arctic.
On Saturday, Trump announced a 10 percent tariff on Denmark, the United Kingdom, Norway, France, Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands, set to begin on Feb. 1 and rise to 25 percent by June 1, citing national security needs tied to Greenland. This decision follows heightened rhetoric about acquiring Greenland, with Trump not ruling out military action. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), among other lawmakers, have openly opposed the tariffs, warning of damage to U.S. interests and NATO unity.
The issue has sparked intense debate over whether these tariffs serve America’s strategic goals or undermine critical alliances. Critics, including prominent Republican and Democratic lawmakers, argue that the measures alienate partners at a time when cooperation is vital. Supporters of Trump’s stance, however, see the tariffs as a necessary push for securing U.S. dominance in the Arctic.
Earlier this week, Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Greenlandic and Danish officials at the White House, revealing deep disagreements over Greenland’s future. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen noted a “fundamental disagreement” on how to address Arctic challenges. This tension set the stage for Trump’s tariff announcement, which followed Denmark’s expansion of military presence in the region and joint exercises with European nations like France and Sweden, as The Hill reports.
On Friday, a bipartisan delegation including Tillis, Murkowski, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and others traveled to Copenhagen to meet with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. Their joint statement emphasized Denmark and Greenland’s readiness to collaborate on security and resource priorities without any need for hostile takeovers. This diplomatic outreach underscores a growing rift between the administration’s approach and that of key congressional leaders.
Tillis didn’t hold back in his critique, pointing to the broader implications of the policy. “It’s great for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, [Chinese President Xi Jinping] and other adversaries who want to see NATO divided,” he warned. That’s a sobering reminder—alienating allies over Greenland could hand a strategic win to America’s biggest rivals.
Murkowski echoed similar concerns, labeling the tariffs as “unnecessary, punitive, and a profound mistake.” She argued they push European partners away without advancing U.S. security interests—a blunt assessment that questions the logic of punishing allies over a territorial ambition.
The tariffs, Trump claims, address years of the U.S. “subsidizing” Denmark and the EU without fair compensation. He’s tied their continuation to a deal for the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland, framing it as essential for world peace. But with polling showing most Americans oppose military action for Greenland, this hardline stance risks domestic as well as international backlash.
Even within Republican ranks, there’s unease—Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell cautioned that forcing Greenland’s acquisition could “incinerate” ties with NATO. That’s not just a policy disagreement; it’s a warning about long-term damage to America’s global standing. When even party loyalists push back, it signals a deeper problem with the strategy.
Shaheen and Tillis, co-chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group, stressed after their Copenhagen trip that allies are eager to partner on Arctic security under existing treaties. Forcing the issue through tariffs or military rhetoric, they argue, is counterproductive. Why risk fracturing NATO when cooperation is already on the table?
Murkowski further highlighted the real-time fallout, noting that NATO allies are diverting resources to Greenland instead of focusing on broader threats. This dynamic, she contends, plays directly into the hands of adversaries seeking to destabilize the alliance. It’s hard to argue with the logic—distraction benefits Moscow and Beijing, not Washington.
Trump’s colorful dismissal of Greenland’s defenses as mere “two dogsleds” might rally his base, but it glosses over the complexity of Arctic geopolitics. Mocking an ally’s capabilities doesn’t exactly build trust, especially when Denmark has already stepped up its military presence. The quip risks turning a serious policy debate into a punchline.
Murkowski has called on Congress to prevent tariffs from being used as tools to harm alliances, a plea for legislative oversight amid escalating tensions. If unchecked, such measures could erode American leadership at a critical juncture. That’s not just a policy misstep; it’s a potential unraveling of decades of diplomatic work.
The administration’s insistence on Greenland’s strategic value to counter Russia and China in the Arctic isn’t baseless, but the method raises questions. Tariffs and military posturing might signal strength, but they also risk isolating the U.S. from partners who share the same geopolitical concerns.
As this saga unfolds, the divide between Trump’s approach and congressional pushback reveals a deeper struggle over America’s role in the world. Will the U.S. prioritize unilateral action, or rebuild trust with allies to face shared threats? The answer could shape not just Arctic policy, but the future of NATO itself.
