Facing President Trump's tariff threats, European leaders are rigorously studying countermeasures. On January 18, The Wall Street Journal outlined for Europe the available options, which include trade retaliation, utilizing the so-called "trade nuclear option"—the Anti-Coercion Instrument—strengthening cooperation with other regions, and even reducing defense cooperation with the United States.
The analysis suggested that while individual European nations may struggle to effectively respond to Trump's threat of 10% tariffs, the European Union, acting as a bloc, could increase the cost for the U.S. to impose such tariffs, potentially securing concessions from Washington on the Greenland issue.
Europe is reassessing its stance towards the United States.
Bloomberg pointed out on the 19th that Trump, who often places himself center stage during overseas visits, deliberately made his trip to Davos this week particularly dramatic. Before attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Trump once again shook the foundations of the EU and NATO alliances, threatening a new series of tariffs centered around his "Greenland ambitions." These tariff threats not only impact Europe but also blatantly violate agreements he previously reached with the EU and the UK.
Trump has long held grievances against Europe, repeatedly portraying the bloc—which includes many of America's closest allies—as "free-riders" enjoying U.S. generosity and military protection while simultaneously "harassing" American tech giants.
Last year, when confronted with Trump's threats of "reciprocal tariffs," most European leaders opted for a restrained response, hoping to maintain U.S. investment in NATO, particularly regarding the defense of Ukraine.
But this past weekend, Trump's new round of tariff threats against eight European nations has reignited tensions, potentially forcing Europe to adopt retaliatory measures it has thus far avoided. Analysis from The Wall Street Journal suggests that by linking trade issues so directly to security matters, Trump is prompting Europe to reevaluate its position.
Mujtaba Rahman, Managing Director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, stated there is a widespread belief within the EU that a response is necessary, as "the price they are paying for U.S. support on NATO and Ukraine has become too high." However, he also noted that the EU is unlikely to take major action before the new tariffs officially take effect.
Several European diplomats revealed that no decision has been made on which path to take, and there is still time for negotiation with the U.S. and internal coordination before a formal EU response. European leaders hope to meet with Trump, who is expected to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos this week. Subsequently, European leaders will meet again later this week to further discuss the Greenland issue.
Currently, members of the European Parliament have announced they will freeze the approval process for the trade deal reached last summer between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and are publicly calling for trade retaliation against the United States.
Furthermore, according to a January 19 report by the Financial Times, during an emergency meeting on the 18th, the EU discussed reactivating a tariff list prepared last year, which would impose tariffs on approximately €93 billion worth of U.S. products. They even considered deploying the previously unused "Anti-Coercion Instrument" to restrict access to the EU market for U.S. companies, particularly large tech firms.
Europe holds some cards, but does it dare play them?
According to the U.S. media's analysis, the response options the EU is evaluating or could consider mainly include the following aspects.
First, postponing the implementation of zero tariffs on U.S. products. The EU, with 450 million consumers, is the United States' largest regional trading partner. Last summer, the EU and the U.S. reached an asymmetrical trade arrangement where the U.S. applies a 15% tariff on most EU goods, while the EU planned to eliminate existing tariffs on a range of U.S. products. This tariff reduction still requires approval by the European Parliament. Trump's latest tariff threats have already prompted several major political groups within the Parliament to call for suspending the approval process.
Second, imposing new retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. products. Last year, the EU drafted a list targeting over $100 billion worth of U.S. goods, including items like chewing gum, motorcycles, and peanut butter, as a countermeasure against potential Trump tariffs. This list was shelved after the two sides reached a trade agreement.
Now, with several member states facing new 10% tariffs, potentially rising to 25% in June, the EU may revive this list. Analysts suggest that while this move could provoke U.S. dissatisfaction and lead to escalated tariffs, on the Greenland issue, economic countermeasures might be sufficient to prompt EU action.
Third, activating the Anti-Coercion Instrument. This instrument, in principle, grants the EU broad powers, including implementing export controls, taxing services, restricting intellectual property rights, and limiting U.S. companies' participation in European public procurement contracts. The tool originates from an EU regulation that came into force over two years ago but has not yet been used in actual trade measures. Once the EU formally认定 another country's actions constitute "economic coercion," it can trigger various countermeasures. Ironically, when the mechanism was initially passed, European舆论 widely believed this trade defense measure was aimed at countries like China, not allies like the United States.
Ignacio García Bercero, former Director-General for Trade at the European Commission, stated that Trump's tariff threats "fully meet the conditions for triggering the anti-coercion mechanism." However, to deploy this tool against the U.S., the European Commission would need support from a slightly qualified majority of member states representing at least 65% of the EU population. One EU diplomat noted that the political acceptance for such a move would likely require even higher support.
Fourth, strengthening European defense and restricting the use of U.S. military bases. Some EU leaders fear that if Trump is allowed to control Greenland, other European territories could become his next target, which would also impact NATO's stability and affect the situation in Ukraine.
Europe could respond by increasing its military presence in Greenland, accelerating increases in defense spending, or reducing military equipment procurement from the U.S. However, the practical constraint is that many key weapon systems are produced solely by the United States, and Europe's own defense industrial capacity remains insufficient.
A more radical option would be to restrict or even terminate U.S. military use of bases in Europe, such as the Ramstein Air Base in Germany. However, this would significantly escalate tensions and could prompt Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe—an outcome neither side currently desires.
Fifth, enhancing cooperation with other parts of the world. Trump's tariff threats have reignited the EU's willingness to promote diversification of foreign trade to reduce dependence on the United States. On the same day Trump threatened new tariffs over Greenland, the EU signed a trade agreement with four South American countries.
The EU plans to announce a trade deal with India as early as this month and may advance a similar arrangement with Australia. Furthermore, Trump's latest threat might also prompt the EU to re-examine its "de-risking" strategy towards China.
Whether Trump's tariff threats will materialize remains uncertain.
According to Bloomberg, Trump's trip to Davos is expected to feature details of his housing and cost-of-living policies, aimed at consolidating his support base ahead of this year's U.S. midterm elections. But his recent tough stance on Greenland has shattered the fragile trade truce formed between Washington and European capitals after last year's agreements with the EU and UK.
All eight targeted countries issued statements opposing the tariffs. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who generally maintains a cautiously good relationship with the White House, this time bluntly stated that Trump's tariff move was "completely wrong." Starmer said in a statement, "We will of course be taking this up directly with the U.S. administration."
French President Emmanuel Macron stated on social media on the 17th that Trump's tariff threats following France's support for Greenland were "unacceptable," adding that "no threat or intimidation will affect us."
A senior French official revealed on the 18th that Macron would request, on behalf of France, the activation of the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument. An aide to the French economy and finance minister told the Financial Times that France and Germany are coordinating a joint response; their finance ministers will meet in Berlin on the 19th before heading to Brussels to meet with other European counterparts. "This issue also needs to be discussed with all G7 partners during the French presidency," the aide said.
German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit responded, "The German government has taken note of the U.S. President's statements and is consulting closely with European partners. We will jointly decide on appropriate countermeasures in due course."
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre stated on social media that there should be no threats between allies. He said, "Norway's position is firm: Greenland is part of Denmark. Norway fully supports Danish sovereignty," adding that there is broad consensus within NATO on strengthening security in the Arctic region, including Greenland.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also issued a written statement, saying, "We will not be blackmailed. Only Denmark and Greenland can decide matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said the tariff policy announced by Trump was "surprising," and that Denmark is maintaining close dialogue with the EU.
Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp stated on social media that the Netherlands had noted Trump's statement on tariffs and is maintaining close contact with the European Commission and partners to discuss response measures.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb also posted, stating that problems between allies should be resolved through dialogue, not pressure. He wrote, "Tariffs damage transatlantic relations and can lead to their deterioration."
On the 17th, demonstrations took place in various locations in Denmark and Greenland, with protesters holding signs like "Greenland is not for sale" and "Americans, please go away," rejecting U.S. attempts to "control" or "purchase" Greenland.
Amid the opposition, whether Trump's tariff threats will ultimately be implemented remains uncertain. The White House refused throughout the weekend to specify under what legal authority the tariffs would be imposed, and the potential legal basis may face limitations or even rejection by the U.S. Supreme Court. White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said on the 18th that he had not been briefed on the legal basis for the tariffs but described the move as a negotiating tactic.
"The President was able to write 'The Art of the Deal' because he's very good at making deals," Hassett told Fox News. "I think now is a good time for calm. We should set aside the rhetoric, sit down at the negotiating table, and see if we can reach a deal that is in the best interest of everyone."
Furthermore, there is a significant loophole in Trump's tariff plan. Professor Joseph Foudy of NYU's Stern School of Business pointed out that there are no borders between Spain, Italy, Germany, and France. Member states targeted by U.S. tariffs could reroute trade within the EU to circumvent them. "If we try to impose tariffs on individual countries, anyone can easily ship goods through other countries," he said.
