EU Considers Suspending US Deal Amid Greenland Tensions

The European Parliament is weighing whether to suspend the European Union’s implementation of its trade agreement with the United States following US President Donald Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland. The European Parliament has been debating proposals to remove many of the EU’s import privileges for US products while retaining the zero tariffs on American lobster originally agreed with Trump in 2020. The Parliament had been scheduled to set its position in votes on Jan. 26 and 27, but Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) now suggest these should be postponed.

Key members of the interparliamentary Trade Committee met on Jan. 14 to discuss delaying the vote. No final decision was made, and the committee will reconvene next week. According to a parliamentary source, centrist and left-leaning groups favor postponement.

On the same day, 23 deputies urged EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola to halt work on the agreement while the US continues to threaten Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory. “If we approve a deal Trump sees as a personal victory while he makes claims on Greenland and refuses to rule out any means of achieving them, it will be perceived as rewarding him and his actions,” wrote Danish legislator Per Clausen.

The letter’s signatories were mainly from Clausen’s Left group, along with social democrats and Greens. Green Deputy Anna Cavazzini argued that the only rationale for the deal was stability. “Trump’s actions repeatedly show that chaos is all he offers,” she said. French MEP Valérie Hayer, leader of the centrist Renew Europe group, suggested that the EU should consider postponing the vote if Trump’s threats continue.

Many have criticized the trade deal as unbalanced, pointing out that the EU must remove most import tariffs while the US maintains a 15% tariff rate. However, freezing the agreement could provoke Trump, potentially triggering higher US tariffs. The Trump administration has ruled out concessions, including reductions on alcohol or steel tariffs, until the agreement is fully implemented.

Trump Pushes for US Control of Greenland Amid Strategic and Mineral Interests

This week, Donald Trump intensified tensions with Denmark by asserting that Greenland should come under US control, citing its strategic importance for American national security and NATO. He described Greenland as central to the “Golden Dome” defense system under development and suggested NATO would be stronger if the US controlled the island. Denmark and Greenland’s foreign ministers are scheduled to meet with US Vice President JD Vance at the White House to discuss the matter.

Trump’s interest is largely driven by Greenland’s mineral wealth. The island contains 25 of 34 critical resources identified by the European Commission, including rare earth elements, graphite, copper, nickel, zinc, platinum, cobalt, gold, diamonds, tungsten, titanium, vanadium, iron, and uranium. These minerals are vital for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and advanced electronics. Key deposits include rare earths in the Gardar province, graphite at the Amitsoq project, copper and nickel at Disko-Nuussuaq, and zinc at Citronen Fjord, among others. Uranium extraction is currently limited due to a 2021 Greenlandic ban.

Beyond resources, Greenland offers strategic Arctic positioning. The US Thule Air Base underscores its military and surveillance significance. Despite Trump’s proposals, Greenlandic authorities maintain strong sovereignty. Prime Minister Mute Egede stressed that all decisions on resource development and foreign agreements are made solely by Greenland.

An Unbalanced Deal

The 2025 US-EU trade deal, finalized in August 2025, followed a period of escalating tariff threats from the United States, creating tensions and a sense of imbalance for European exporters. On May 23, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on all EU imports starting June 1, criticizing the EU for trade barriers. These tariffs were later delayed to July 9 to allow additional negotiation time. In July 2025, Trump expanded his threat, announcing that 30% tariffs on EU goods could take effect on Aug. 1 if no agreement was reached.

In July, the EU and US reached a framework deal that imposed a 15% US tariff on most EU exports while the EU removed duties on selected US industrial, agricultural, and food products. Both sides agreed to explore further reductions, including on steel and aluminum, although sector-specific duties remained high. While the deal averted a full trade war, many European exporters and lawmakers criticized it as unbalanced, pointing out that the EU had conceded broad access to its markets while gaining limited relief on US tariffs. In addition, the US later expanded duties to products previously exempt, creating further tension for European industries.

A proposed “sunset clause,” which would have ended tariff cuts after five years if the agreement was not renewed, was debated but ultimately rejected due to concerns about provoking the Trump administration. Member states approved measures allowing the European Commission to suspend the deal if the US failed to comply, including safeguards to temporarily halt imports should surges threaten the European market. Both the Council and the European Parliament must approve a final text by next spring. While most member states reportedly support including a sunset clause, Germany opposes it due to fears of US retaliation. 

Relations between the EU and US remain fragile amid continued pressure over digital regulations. In late 2025, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that the EU must revise its digital rules to secure tariff reductions on steel and aluminum. During a Nov. 24 visit to Brussels, Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer discussed potential tariff relief in exchange for regulatory changes favoring US tech firms.

The EU has maintained that it will not compromise on digital regulations under the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, which govern online platforms and marketplaces. Investigations into Apple, Google, and Meta are ongoing, examining whether these companies favor their own platforms, restrict competition, or impose unfair conditions on third parties. Violations could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue, rising to 20% for repeated breaches, or structural remedies for persistent non-compliance.