ED Atlantic order at risk
U.S. President Donald Trump reacts as a fan takes a photo before the College Football Playoff National Championship game between the Indiana Hoosiers and the Miami Hurricanes at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Fla., Monday, in this photo provided by Imagn Images. Yonhap
From protector to predator: America's alarming shift on allies
U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland has triggered the most serious crisis in transatlantic relations since World War II.
What began as an audacious geopolitical idea has now escalated into a full-blown confrontation, as the United States threatens punitive tariffs against European allies that oppose the plan and Europe prepares to retaliate in kind. At stake is not merely a trade dispute, but the integrity of the postwar international order that the United States itself helped to build.
After several European countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Denmark, participated in military exercises aimed at reinforcing Greenland’s defense, Trump announced plans to impose additional tariffs on their exports: 10 percent beginning next month and rising to 25 percent by June. The message was unmistakable. Opposition to Washington’s Greenland ambitions would come at a tangible economic cost. In response, the European Union has begun considering countermeasures worth up to 93 billion euros ($108 billion), including retaliatory tariffs and restrictions on U.S. firms’ access to the European market. EU leaders are set to debate these options at an emergency summit.
The gravity of the situation lies not in the numbers alone. This is the first time in the postwar era that the United States has openly used economic coercion against its closest allies to advance a territorial ambition. The notion that a superpower would pressure allies rather than adversaries to acquiesce to the effective seizure of allied territory is deeply unsettling. If carried through, it would mark a decisive break from the principles that have underpinned Western unity for more than eight decades.
Since 1945, the Atlantic alliance has rested on a foundational norm: that borders are not to be changed by force or intimidation. This principle was enshrined as early as 1941 in the Atlantic Charter, when the U.S. and the U.K. pledged to seek no territorial expansion. That commitment later shaped the creation of the United Nations and NATO, institutions designed to replace raw power politics with collective security and rules-based cooperation. A coerced annexation of Greenland would amount to a repudiation of that legacy by its chief architect.
European leaders have reacted with a mix of outrage and anxiety. French President Emmanuel Macron has called the idea “unacceptable,” while British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described it as “fundamentally wrong.” Yet Europe’s strategic reality limits its options. Despite growing calls for “strategic autonomy,” the continent remains heavily dependent on U.S. security guarantees, particularly as Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to expose Europe’s military shortcomings. This dependence explains why some European governments remain cautious, prioritizing negotiation over confrontation even as they brace for a trade war.
Trump has defended his Greenland policy as a matter of U.S. national security, arguing that American control is necessary to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic. But this rationale is unconvincing. The U.S. already maintains a military presence in Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark, which allows Washington to deploy forces as needed. There is no credible security justification for annexation — only the assertion of dominance. Even within the U.S., critics warn that such behavior would weaken Washington’s moral authority and ultimately benefit America’s rivals.
The repercussions extend far beyond Europe. The erosion of trust within the Atlantic alliance sends shockwaves across the Pacific, unsettling allies such as Korea and Japan. For Seoul in particular, the lesson is troubling. If Washington is willing to threaten Europe with tariffs and force over its territorial ambitions, long-standing assurances elsewhere may also prove conditional. Concerns are already growing that U.S. policy toward North Korea could shift from denuclearization to arms control or even de facto recognition of Pyongyang’s nuclear status, a move that would fundamentally undermine South Korea’s security.
Trump’s second term still has years left, but time may also be his greatest vulnerability. With U.S. midterm elections approaching, the temptation to act boldly — and impulsively — may grow. That combination of urgency and unpredictability risks further destabilizing an already fragile global order.
The United States stands at a crossroads. It can continue down a path where tariffs replace diplomacy and alliances are treated as obstacles rather than assets. Or, it can reaffirm the principles that once gave its leadership legitimacy: restraint, respect for international law and partnership with allies. Turning the world into a geopolitical jungle governed by coercion may offer short-term leverage, but it will ultimately leave America more isolated and the world far more dangerous.