UPDATE: Internet remains undefeated.
Release the Epstein Files.
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:
For more than 75 years, the fondest dream of Russian strategy has been to divide Western Europe from the U.S. and break the NATO alliance. That is now a possibility as President Trump presses his campaign to capture Greenland no matter what the locals or its Denmark owner thinks.
Mr. Trump is taking reckless risk with the NATO alliance that advances U.S. interests in the arctic. If he doesn’t believe us, he can look up Norway, Sweden and Finland in an atlas. The latter two joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization recently, and already are discovering that with Mr. Trump no good strategic deed goes unpunished.
The Greenland Tariff War of 2026 imperils other U.S. priorities. The trade tax on Britain could upset an agreement Mr. Trump struck last year under which Britain will pay more for pharmaceuticals in exchange for Washington dropping tariffs on medication imports from the U.K. Speaking of which: Why Mr. Trump would want to head into midterm elections foisting higher prices on voters worried about affordability is a mystery.
No one should underestimate the shock his Greenland project is producing among allies. Along with his tariffs and his tilt toward Russia against Ukraine, he is alienating Western Europe in a way that will be hard to repair. It’s true that Europe may not be in a position to resist if Mr. Trump really wants to go to war over the island. But say good-bye to NATO.
The sad irony is that China and Russia may be the biggest winners, though Mr. Trump justifies his Greenland necessity in the name of deterring both. Canada’s Prime Minister bent the knee to Xi Jinping last week, and Britain’s PM is heading there this month. The EU and South American countries have struck a big free-trade pact.
Greg Ip in the Wall Street Journal:
The pursuit of Greenland, a territory of Denmark, is different. A country will tolerate a lot of economic misery rather than giving up territory; just look at Ukraine. Goldman Sachs estimates a 10% tariff would reduce the eight affected countries’ GDP by 0.1% to 0.2%. They might consider that a small price to pay for territorial integrity.
The bigger fear is that if Trump doesn’t get Greenland, he could abandon Ukraine or NATO, leaving Europe vulnerable to Russian aggression. Fear of such abandonment led the European Union to agree to a 15% tariff last summer and waive retaliation.
I wrote at the time that the trade peace was fragile: “Trump is at liberty to threaten higher tariffs again for any reason,” such as wresting Greenland from Denmark.
That scenario has now come to pass, and Europe might be reluctant to give up Greenland and risk a repeat. “The next thing will be Iceland or some part of Norway or whatever crazy thing comes to mind,” said Thorsten Benner, co-founder and director of the Global Public Policy Institute, in Berlin.
For a while, Trump talked of making Canada the 51st state. The talk has ceased, but a successful acquisition of Greenland could whet his appetite anew.
Still, historically, economic warfare has seldom been sufficient to achieve geostrategic goals. After decades of sanctions, it ultimately took American military force to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and decapitate Venezuela’s leadership.
Economic coercion over time loses potency as the targets adjust. China has responded to U.S. tariffs by finding other markets: The share of its exports going to the U.S. has dropped from 20% in 2018 to 10% at the end of last year.