[This post launched before complete because reasons. Please return at 7:30 AM EST for a final version]
As Richard Nixon always said, let’s be absolutely clear about one thing: What you really mean is that the leaders of shabby Europe can muster the backbone and organization to confront Trump. But it remains important to counter the expressed view that the United States is too strong to contest the robbery of Greenland, which President Trump clearly aspires to do. So far, President Trump’s big weapons are threats of additional tariffs, in addition to threats of invasion.
We look at some of the measures that European countries may introduce, but the biggest ones have already begun to take effect, surprising investors who are pulling out of U.S. investments, especially riskier investments such as stocks. As foreign investors reduce their exposure and U.S. stocks and the dollar plummet, remember that tariff maniac Trump has retreated significantly after the shock and awe of Emancipation Day.
As we have discussed, before we get to the fact that the Fed can directly monetize the federal deficit, please note that the media noise about Europeans flexing their muscles by dumping US debt is wrong. For operational purposes, there is no need to issue government bonds. It’s a political holdover from the days of the gold standard. The belief that debunks this tweet is so prevalent that there is also a link to it.
Rumors first broke last month that Europe and Britain had threatened to liquidate US debt as a “nuclear option” if President Trump struck a deal with President Putin to end the Ukraine war against European interests. This rumor has resurfaced as a potential retaliation for the invasion of Greenland.
If it’s true… https://t.co/ouNUeAZwSH
— Kathleen Tyson (@Kathleen_Tyson_) January 19, 2026
Bloomberg’s US landing page shows investors are already spooked.
Front page of the Financial Times. Don’t miss the subheadings of the top articles. Investors aren’t reassured by President Trump’s latest updates:
The Wall Street Journal, which has joined the Pink papers, also has a live blog.
The fact that Europe’s leaders are not making any more noise (although this would make Mr. Market even more of an uproar) is further evidence of the excesses of their lack of unity, resolve and ability to plan their way out of the paper bag. They’re running to Davos to try to convince Trump. This shows how out of line they are with President Trump’s very clear belief that he can successfully bully them, as was the case with Maria Colina Machado, who is hot on the peace prize. Didn’t they understand that every time they went to him thinking they could get him on board with more money and weapons and security guarantees and the Ukraine project and so on, they heard at best some supportive voices and it went to waste?
But that said, the fact that Zelenskiy, who is supposed to be a vassal, has remained in his post past his original appointment deadline shows that even weaker parties can use fairly effective delaying tactics against Trump. Remember when Scott Bessent showed up in Kiev and demanded that Zelenskiy immediately sign the “Primitive Earth” agreement? President Zelenskiy refused, and succeeded in prolonging the negotiations to the point where he could only get a moderately bad deal, rather than an absolutely bad one. One strategy for European countries would be to at least press forward with negotiations. That’s because the Customs Administration that President Trump relies on to impose across-the-board tariffs is likely to be abolished or significantly reduced by the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court could deal a blow to President Trump’s plan to seize Greenland as soon as Tuesday, Fortune magazine confirms this possibility in a new article.
The U.S. Supreme Court could rule Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are illegal, posing a major hurdle to his plans to acquire Greenland.
Late last night, President Trump posted his latest threat to take over Greenland on Truth Social: “The time is now and it will end!!!”
Earlier on Saturday, he threatened to impose 10% tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland “until there is an agreement on the full and complete purchase of Greenland,” rising to 25% on June 1.
But analysts this morning pointed out that the court is expected to issue its ruling on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. Wall Street expects the court to rule that the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs on regular international trade under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That could render President Trump’s threats meaningless, at least in the short term.
“Threatened U.S. tariffs…may be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court,” UBS advised clients in a note this morning.
At ING, Kirsten Brzeski and Bart Collin wrote, “If the Supreme Court rules that all previous IEEPA tariffs are invalid, President Trump’s latest announcement… [about Greenland] This tariff will be invalidated and another tariff will have to be found. Something that takes more time. ”
My impression is that this decision was not expected to be made earlier this year, but Wall Street analysts are paid a lot of money to stay on top of issues like this, so perhaps they have a more accurate reading on the timing. But it’s not just a matter of “finding another tariff.” Alternative measures are sector-specific, require Commerce Department review before imposition, or are much more limited in time and amount.
Jeff Rich insists the Europeans have other cards to play. Note that he has one error in that he recommends scrapping the 2025 trade deal with the United States. In fact, the bill has not been ratified by the EU parliament, and the action has been put on hold due to threats from Greenland.
Europe has three possible responses to U.S. pressure: economic, diplomatic, and security. But both require European Union countries to decide to stop accepting subordination to American unilateralism.
First, retaliatory tariff measures remain available. The EU’s anti-coercion instruments could be used to implement the measures proposed by President Macron. Europe could even abandon a mandatory and unfavorable trade deal in 2025. Moreover, Europe needs to remember that tariffs are an ineffective tool of economic warfare. President Trump’s Liberation Day campaign proved unsuccessful due to a combination of international cooperation and the strong resilience of China and India in particular. The tariffs ultimately represented American self-inflicted harm and demonstrated the limits of economic coercion. Will you get in the way when your enemy makes a mistake?
Second, diplomatic options include identifying the US threat as another blatant violation of the UN Charter that demands consequences. Europe may support BRICS countries in championing improved global governance and end pandering to decades of US violations of international law.
Rich’s second proposal, sadly, would likely require a brain transplant or a change in in-body therapy, which won’t happen fast enough. Look at how long it took for Putin to get the message that Europe was not his friend and turn east. Indeed, Canada’s Mark Carney is now moving in that direction with his newly announced sweeping economic deal with China, which many commentators saw as a rejection of the United States.
From the second half of Rich’s discussion:
Third, reorienting security offers possibilities. This does not require direct military conflict on Greenland’s land and waters, but rather a reshaping of European defense and foreign policy. Critics who scoff at the small European military force sent to protect Greenland are missing the point. The United States’ weakness is its dependence on European real estate for its global offensive military operations. On some important issues, the United States, like other colonial powers, requires the consent of the occupying power.
Another widely held view is that the United States has significant influence over Europe because of the information it provides. Malcolm Nance, a former intelligence officer who took an extended trip to Greenland, including meetings with local officials, after President Trump intensified his campaign to conquer Greenland, argues that the United States also relies on intelligence provided by Europe. He further argues that the logistics of annexation are not that simple. Considering the attack on Venezuela, I wonder about the latter.
Readings of Nance are mixed: he too thinks dumping US debt will work, doesn’t understand how weak NATO Article 5 obligations are, and exhibits Putin/Russia derangement syndrome. However, given his background and recent fact-finding assignments, we have excerpted sections from recent presentations that we feel are based on more specific knowledge and recent fact-finding.
That being said, last year I spent a lot of time on land and at sea in Greenland for over three weeks. I went to all the major airports, crossed into the Arctic Circle to Ilulissat, and took a ferry down the coast of Greenland just as the first ferry from north to south was about to break up in ice currents. The purpose was to get a feel for the small fishing villages and ports where the ferry stopped. Ferries are the only means of transportation in Greenland that most average Greenlanders can afford during the summer. Airplanes are very expensive…
There are no connecting roads to major cities across the country. none. That means you have to get there by boat, by plane, or by short-haul helicopter. That being said, the reason I went to Greenland as a good intelligence analyst is, one, you can’t discuss a country’s topography, its history, its culture, its people, its language unless you’ve been there once and investigated it on the ground or at least studied those factors…I went there to meet people in government and in Congress, but I spent most of my time around average Greenlanders…
Having said that, the only way someone could invade a country during the winter, if you think about it, is to actually fly into one of its airports and either forcefully occupy them or drop in paratroopers. But your soldiers will find themselves in a barren, icy mountain region with people who won’t admit it…
Nance argues that Denmark simply invoking Article 4 (the preliminary clause of Article 5, which has precedent as Tolkien did against Greece over Cyprus) would have a bigger impact than many realize.
The problem is that if Denmark were to invoke NATO Article 4, there would be consequences that we would all feel. First, triggering it would mean that Denmark felt there was a very high probability of conflict, so insurance premiums around the world would skyrocket. This is not done on a whim. So many people, businesses, and the world will be looking to limit exposure, especially onboard commercial ships.
That’s because Denmark operates the world’s largest merchant fleet. Denmark itself could do what it is currently doing. That is, if Donald Trump loses his mind and orders U.S. special operations and paratroopers to enter Greenland, it could lead to very painful deaths of U.S. service members, so he is calling for more exercises and intentionally moving more troops into Greenland.
One of the things that people tend to forget is, what can I say, the United States is not like that. You can’t magically move forces, right? Physics, space, time, distance are all factors. Although it is theoretically possible to fly directly from Washington DC to Nuuk, Greenland. Well, we might find out in five hours, or we might find out in five or six hours that we could fly directly over Canada, which is a NATO member, and we’d be locked out of it.
Therefore, Denmark may move troops there to provide deterrence to the US, and other NATO countries may go there ahead of any real threat. But Malcolm, it all falls apart. The US deployed special forces and paratroopers and began occupying Nuuk Kangarsiwak and Kakortok airports. This means the US has access to the top three bases. Malcolm, why don’t they send troops to Patu’s space base? Because that base is 1,000 miles away from the capital Nook. That’s how big Greenland is. So getting troops to a U.S. military base adjacent to Canadian airspace would actually require a cross-purpose flight, and that’s not a good place to start.
____
1 In addition to the direct effect of exiting a US position, there is also a potential secondary effect of US companies’ exposure to European sales, which could be on the order of 10% to 15% of S%P 500’s profits. European boycotts have begun against high-profile American brands like Coca-Cola, but by contrast, a divorce with Microsoft will be a tall order for most users.
