Posted on 01/18/2026 11:38:32 AM PST by SharpRightTurn
President Donald Trump announced on Jan. 17 that the United States will impose a 10 percent tariff on eight European countries that have opposed America’s efforts to acquire Greenland—a move the president says is critical for U.S. national security.
The tariff, set to take effect Feb. 1, targets Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland—all NATO members. Trump warned that the tariff will rise to 25 percent on June 1 if a deal is not reached.
“This tariff will remain in place until a deal is reached for the complete and total purchase of Greenland,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The United States has been pursuing this transaction for over 150 years. Many presidents tried, but Denmark always refused. Now, with modern weapons systems and The Golden Dome missile defense initiative, the need to acquire Greenland is stronger than ever.”
Trump emphasized that Greenland is a strategic linchpin for protecting the Western Hemisphere, warning that if America does not control the island, Russia or China will take advantage.
“Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” Trump said on Jan. 4. “We need it for national security, and the European Union understands that we must have it.”
The Golden Dome project, estimated at $175 billion, is designed to intercept missiles from anywhere on the globe—including threats from space—and is slated to be operational before the end of Trump’s second term.
“This is a very dangerous situation for the safety, security, and survival of our planet,” Trump wrote. “These countries are playing a risky game that cannot continue. Strong measures are necessary to protect global peace and security.”
European NATO nations have reportedly deployed troops to the Arctic in response, backing Denmark and Greenland. Trump, however, reiterated that the U.S. remains “immediately open to negotiation” with Denmark and any country named in the tariff announcement.
The president’s bold move signals that America First is not just a slogan—it’s a strategy, defending U.S. interests and national security at a time when global powers are circling.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
He needs to impose tariffs on Minnesota.
To be known as Trumpland.
Maybe a multinational agreement of some kind? At least one in which no player is put on the defensive or loses face, and we don't put unnecessary distance between the USA and our allies.
It's more doable than a hostile takeover attempt, IMHO.
Greenland is a must for security reasons if we don’t get it China and Russia will the risk is to high to avoid.
The pacifists and communists cause greatest danger to everyone and everything this country stands for.
I just don’t see the big picture reasoning for this. Yes, we can perhaps enable a better defense system. (But defense systems usually have a workaround by enemies within a few decades, if not years.) But we probably could have gotten what we need without the threats—with a carrot rather than a stick.
You might not always like our allies. But, if it is us against the world, we lose—superpower or not. I think that this plan of action causes us to be in more danger down the road than in less.
Did I miss something? I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to rule last week on tariffs.
Our republic doesn’t have a single ally among Western Europe’s governments.
Not one.
We need Greenland.
“He needs to impose tariffs on Minnesota.”
I agree. Or, better yet, trade Minnesota to Denmark in return for Greenland.
“To be known as Trumpland.”
I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right—he does like naming rights.
If we don’t have an ally anywhere in the world, it won’t matter whether we have Greenland or not. We will lose.
The Danes have oppressed and worse, sterilized Inuit young women. They have done nothing for the native people, and will do nothing to stop China and Russia from exploiting the resources. Besides how go they get to claim it? However they did, we can do the same.
“I wish he would consider a more tactful and diplomatic approach on Greenland.
Maybe a multinational agreement of some kind? At least one in which no player is put on the defensive or loses face, and we don’t put unnecessary distance between the USA and our allies.”
A very good point. But the Euro-weenie leaders definitely have their backs up over this. Maybe the upfront threats (bluster?) on Trump’s part are just a negotiating tactic (art of the deal)?
“Greenland is a must for security reasons”
I’m no geo-political expert but Greenland does seem to me to be a vulnerability as far as potential attacks on the US by bad actors.
The Danes have oppressed and worse, sterilized Inuit young women.”
I have just been reading about that. It might do Trump well to let the Greenland residents know their lives will be much improved in concrete ways and thereby begin some agitation on the part of the Greenlanders for Denmark to trade the island to the US.
Allies are over rated these days.
But unbridled enemies are even worse.
The U.S. purchased Alaska in 1872 for 7.2 million and perhaps that is the ONLY solid smart move the US Government ever made!
Alaska today is worth trillions and pivotal for defense of the lower 48 and the 51st State (Canada). Under no circumstances can the U.S. allow Russia or China to take over Greenland. Our so-called “partners” are marxist, athiest, socialist controlled by Karens who are far left politicians. We don’t want to put ourselves in a position of having to “ASK” those low IQ morons anything (e.g a multinational agreement) in a future crisis situation. Ownership is the only way. I think Greenland will vote to take 250,000 each and Trump will pay it. That would ultimately be comparable to the Alaska purchase in terms of “Smart Move”.
I support Trump but a little diplomacy thrown in with the tariffs and threats would probably help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.