The future of a landmark trade agreement between Brussels and Washington is hanging by a thread following renewed threats from the Trump administration to buy or annex Greenland.
Bernd Lange, the influential chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, warned on Thursday that the geopolitical landscape has shifted so dramatically that the deal reached last summer may no longer be viable. The agreement, brokered between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump, was intended to stabilize relations but is now being viewed through a lens of “coercive pressure.”
“The whole situation has changed,” Lange told reporters, citing a breakdown in trust. Under the proposed terms, the EU would slash tariffs on American industrial goods to 0%, while European exports would continue to face a 15% “baseline” tariff in the United States. Many MEPs already viewed this as a lopsided arrangement, but the recent rhetoric regarding Danish territory has pushed many over the edge.
The escalating friction follows a controversial U.S. military raid on Caracas earlier this month. In the wake of that operation, White House officials—including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller—doubled down on the “need” for the U.S. to control Greenland for national security reasons. The suggestion that a NATO ally’s territory could be forcibly acquired has sparked outrage across European capitals.
Danish MEP Per Clausen is now leading a cross-party effort to formally “freeze” the trade deal. A letter circulating within the Parliament urges leadership to halt all legislative progress on the agreement as long as threats against Greenland persist. Clausen argued that approving the deal now would be “nothing short of grotesque,” claiming it would reward “disrespect for international law.”
Beyond the Greenland dispute, structural issues continue to plague the partnership. Despite the summer deal, the U.S. recently expanded its 50% tariffs on European steel and aluminum to include over 400 derivative products. Lange described these ongoing levies as a “breach of the deal,” signaling that the Parliament is unlikely to approve any tariff cuts for the U.S. unless Washington retreats from its aggressive trade and territorial stances.
The trade committee is scheduled to conduct a formal assessment of the situation at the end of January. With a plenary vote originally slated for February, the sudden surge in hostility suggests that the “stability and predictability” promised by the deal has vanished, replaced by the specter of a renewed trade war.
