Getting to ‘no’: Europe’s leaders find a way to speak with one voice against Trump

European Leaders Stand Firm Against Trump’s Greenland Demands

European leaders have dramatically shifted their approach to dealing with Donald Trump, moving from diplomatic accommodation to open defiance as the U.S. president revived his demand to acquire Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

The confrontation reached a critical point last week in Davos, Switzerland, when Trump declared that the United States “absolutely” must rule Greenland, prompting unprecedented unity among European officials who previously struggled to find an effective strategy for handling the president’s unorthodox approach to international relations.

“Britain will not yield” its support for Greenland’s sovereignty, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared firmly. Other European leaders echoed this sentiment with a collective warning that “Europe will not be blackmailed” over the territory.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre added to the chorus of opposition, stating plainly: “Threats have no place among allies.”

This newfound resolve marks a significant departure from the European leaders’ earlier approach during Trump’s second term, when many attempted to flatter the president with royal treatment and deferential language. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who earlier this year felt compelled to defend Denmark as “not a bad ally” following criticism from Vice President JD Vance, now stands at the forefront of this united European position.

“When Europe is not divided, when we stand together and when we are clear and strong also in our willingness to stand up for ourselves, then the results will show,” Frederiksen said. “I think we have learned something.”

The stark nature of Trump’s threat – one NATO member essentially threatening to annex territory from another – crossed what many European officials described as “red lines” in international relations. Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, responded with uncharacteristic bluntness: “Enough. No more pressure. No more hints. No more fantasies about annexation.”

Trump’s transactional worldview has consistently challenged the norms of international diplomacy. As he told The New York Times this month, he has little use for diplomacy and no “need for international law.” This approach fundamentally clashes with Europe’s collaborative, rules-based system of international relations.

“In Trump’s first term, Europe didn’t know what to expect and tried to deal with him by using the old rules of diplomacy, with the expectation that, if they kept talking to him in measured terms, that he would change his behavior and move into the club,” explained Mark Shanahan, associate professor of political engagement at the University of Surrey.

The president’s Greenland demands came at a politically vulnerable moment for Trump domestically. With congressional elections approaching in November amid declining stock market performance and weakening approval ratings, European leaders appeared to recognize an opportunity to stand firm.

Trump responded to the European resistance with a threat to impose a 10% import tax on goods from eight European nations – Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland. He warned the rate would climb to 25% by June if no deal was reached for “the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”

This economic threat further galvanized European resistance. Canada’s Mark Carney, without directly naming Trump, urged Europe to reject the “coercion” and “exploitation” from a “bully” and to recognize that a “rupture” in the transatlantic alliance had occurred.

Duncan Snidal, professor emeritus of international relations at Oxford University and the University of Chicago, observed that “Trump was in a fairly weak position because he has a lot of other looming problems going on,” including an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on his tariff authority and domestic political challenges.

Facing this united front of opposition in Davos, Trump began to moderate his position. He walked back his threat to use “force” to acquire Greenland and later announced a vague “framework” that would make his tariff threats unnecessary, claiming “we’re going to have total access to Greenland.”

Frederiksen remained unmoved by this apparent compromise, responding firmly: “We cannot negotiate on our sovereignty.”

The standoff illustrates a significant evolution in how European leaders manage relations with Trump – speaking with one voice, being willing to say “no” when fundamental principles are at stake, rejecting power politics that disadvantage smaller nations, and exercising caution when navigating the president’s rapidly shifting positions.

The long-term implications for transatlantic relations remain uncertain, but European leaders appear to have found a more effective strategy for defending their interests while maintaining the possibility of cooperation on issues of mutual concern.