European Union lawmakers are moving toward halting the approval of a long-negotiated EU–US trade agreement after President Donald Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on European countries that have expressed support for Greenland amid renewed American claims over the territory. The escalating row has injected fresh uncertainty into transatlantic trade relations and risks undoing months of delicate negotiations aimed at preventing a wider trade war.
The warning shot came from Manfred Weber, president of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in the European Parliament and a crucial swing bloc in any ratification vote. In a social media post on Saturday, Weber said that while the EPP had supported closer trade ties with Washington, the current political climate made approval impossible. “The EPP is in favor of the EU–US trade deal, but given Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, approval is not possible at this stage,” he wrote, adding that commitments to lower tariffs on US products must now be put on hold.
Weber’s statement significantly raises the stakes for the agreement, which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reached with Trump last summer. Parts of the deal have already been provisionally applied, but it still requires formal approval by the European Parliament to fully enter into force. If EPP lawmakers side with left-leaning and Green groups that have long opposed the accord, there may be enough votes to delay or block ratification altogether.
At the heart of the dispute is Trump’s announcement on Saturday that the United States would impose a 10% tariff starting February 1 on goods from European countries that have “rallied to support Greenland” against what he described as legitimate US interests. Trump warned that the tariff would rise to 25% unless “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland,” reviving one of the most controversial foreign policy ideas of his earlier presidency.
The trade agreement under threat was designed as a pragmatic compromise. It set a 15% US tariff on most EU exports in exchange for the EU eliminating duties on US industrial goods and selected agricultural products. Von der Leyen pushed the deal through in hopes of averting an all-out trade conflict at a time of fragile global economic growth. However, critics in the European Parliament argued from the outset that the agreement tilted too heavily in Washington’s favor.
Those concerns have only deepened in recent months. After the July accord, the United States expanded a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum to cover hundreds of additional EU products, a move that many lawmakers saw as a breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer further inflamed tensions last month by accusing the EU of failing to implement key aspects of the deal, particularly around its regulation of major technology companies.
European leaders responded sharply to Trump’s latest tariff threat. Von der Leyen warned that unilateral levies would “undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral,” while French President Emmanuel Macron dismissed the idea of linking trade measures to Greenland as “unacceptable.” Denmark, which governs the semi-autonomous territory, has reiterated that Greenland is not for sale and that its future can only be decided by its people.
Within the European Parliament, the controversy has complicated an already fraught ratification process. Bernd Lange, the veteran chair of the parliament’s trade committee, said the issue goes beyond economics. “It is clear that national sovereignty of any country needs to be respected by all partners of the trade deal,” Lange said in an interview this week, signaling that political considerations now outweigh commercial ones.
Following Trump’s announcement, Lange went further, calling for the suspension of work on implementing the trade accord until the US president’s threats are withdrawn. He also urged the European Union to consider activating its Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), the bloc’s most powerful and as-yet-unused trade defense mechanism.
The ACI was designed primarily as a deterrent against economic intimidation. If triggered, it would allow the EU to respond to what it deems deliberate coercive actions by third countries, including punitive tariffs or measures intended to influence EU policy choices. Potential responses range from imposing new duties and taxes—particularly on large technology firms—to restricting access to parts of the EU market or barring companies from bidding on public contracts.
So far, the parliament has adopted a cautious, wait-and-see approach. Members of Lange’s trade committee met on Wednesday for an initial discussion on whether Greenland’s sovereignty should be explicitly linked to the US trade deal. They agreed to reconvene in a week, reflecting both the sensitivity of the issue and the rapidly evolving political context.
Pressure is also building from individual lawmakers, particularly those from Nordic countries. Per Clausen, a Danish member of the left-wing group The Left, has gathered 30 signatures for a letter urging parliamentary leaders to freeze the trade agreement for as long as US claims and threats over Greenland persist. “It would seem extremely strange if we were to enter into an agreement with the US now,” Clausen said. “This would be a clear signal that, from the EU’s side, we are prepared to use the instruments we now have vis-à-vis the US if they continue their aggression.”
With Washington doubling down on its demands and Brussels facing internal pressure to defend sovereignty and credibility, the future of the EU–US trade deal hangs in the balance. What was intended as a stabilizing pact now risks becoming another casualty of rising geopolitical tensions across the Atlantic.
