In a recent analysis for TIME, Philip Wang outlines five potential strategies European leaders are considering to counter President Trump’s renewed demands to acquire Greenland and his threat of a 10% tariff on nations that oppose the move.

Philip Wang: These are the five ways Europe could respond to Trump’s Greenland threat https://t.co/OIWE4ijgNz

— TIME (@TIME) January 21, 2026

In a recent analysis for TIME, Philip Wang outlines five potential strategies European leaders are considering to counter President Trump’s renewed demands to acquire Greenland and his threat of a 10% tariff on nations that oppose the move.

The five primary responses detailed by Wang include:

Retaliatory Tariffs: The EU could implement a pre-prepared "hit list" of approximately 4,800 U.S. exports. This list, totaling roughly $108 billion, targets politically sensitive goods such as whiskey, soybeans, planes, and cars. These tariffs are set to go into effect on February 7 unless the European Parliament votes to freeze them.

Activating the "Trade Bazooka": Formally known as the Anti-Coercion Instrument, this tool was adopted in late 2023 specifically to deter economic blackmail. It is more powerful than standard tariffs, allowing the EU to restrict imports/exports via licenses, limit access to direct investment in EU financial markets, or even suspend intellectual property rights.

Dumping U.S. Assets: European nations hold trillions in U.S. bonds and stocks. Selling these on a massive scale could spike U.S. borrowing costs and destabilize American financial markets. However, Wang notes this is a "nuclear option" that is difficult to execute because most assets are privately held and a sudden sale could cause a spike in the Euro that hurts European exports.

Military Reinforcement (The "Arctic Shield"): While a military conflict remains unlikely, Denmark (supported by NATO allies) has already begun increasing its military presence in and around Greenland to assert sovereignty and signal that the territory is not for sale.

Challenging the Move via International Law: European leaders are looking to the UN Charter and other international frameworks to argue that the demand for a sovereign territory violates modern self-determination principles. Some leaders have suggested that endorsing such a "territorial acquisition" would undermine the West's stance on other global conflicts (such as in Ukraine).