DUBLIN –
Ireland’s Tánaiste warned it would be “foolish” to assume Donald Trump will not revive tariff threats against Europe, after what he described as an “extraordinarily close” brush with an economic shock triggered by U.S. pressure over Greenland.
Simon Harris said Europe narrowly avoided a rupture this week when the U.S. president threatened tariffs on six EU countries, the UK and Norway “from next month,” linking the move to European opposition to Washington “taking over Greenland.” He said Mr Trump withdrew the threat after announcing a framework deal on Arctic security at Davos on Wednesday night but cautioned that “fundamental issues of concern” remain and called the episode a “wake-up call” for Europe.
He told reporters he had instructed Ireland’s Department of Finance to conduct economic “scenario planning” and urged the EU to “really accelerate actions to become more self-reliant” on defence and the economy. “It would be a brave person to try to predict the president of the United States’ mind in relation to this,” he said at Government Buildings in Dublin after a trade forum attended by industry figures.
“I think it would be foolish to presume and depend on this never happening again.”
Mr Harris argued Europe had “seen on two occasions now where the United States engaged in a degree of adventurism around tariffs,” adding that markets had previously forced a 90‑day pause and that this week’s threats-“indeed, of potential annexation of European territory”-were also walked back. He said European leaders “maintained [their] nerve,” avoided a “knee‑jerk” response and made clear that “if those tariffs were levied, we would respond in an unflinching manner.”
He also rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Davos remark that “Europe looks lost,” insisting that the bloc “st[uck] together” and that U.S. threats were “condemned” and met with warnings of “very significant economic responses.”
A tariff threat tied to sovereignty
Mr Harris said the week’s escalation was notable for “the conflation of trade tariffs with sovereignty and with territory.” The linkage touched a core principle of international law: under the UN Charter, states must refrain from the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” a prohibition widely understood to bar annexation. The Security Council, not ad‑hoc coalitions, holds primary responsibility for international peace and security, a point Irish officials say is directly engaged when trade instruments are deployed to coerce changes in territorial status.
Greenland’s status is clear in law and history. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark that left the European Economic Community in 1985 and maintains extensive self‑rule; repeated U.S. expressions of interest in acquiring Greenland-most famously in 2019-were rebuffed by Copenhagen and Nuuk as “absurd,” with sovereignty not for sale. The longstanding U.S. military presence on the island-established under the 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement and centered on Thule (now Pituffik) Space Base-operates within arrangements that recognize Danish sovereignty and require host‑nation consent for any change in posture.
What Brussels can do if tariffs return
Officials in Dublin stressed that Europe’s response, if Trump revives the measures, would be driven from Brussels. Trade policy is an exclusive EU competence under Articles 3 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, allowing the bloc to act collectively, including retaliatory measures if needed. The EU used that authority in 2018 to “rebalance” after U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and has since equipped itself with a dedicated Anti‑Coercion Instrument (ACI), in force since December 2023, enabling proportionate countermeasures when a third country applies or threatens trade measures to force EU policy changes.
Beyond defensive tools, the EU’s Economic Security Strategy (June 2023) and follow‑on initiatives aim to reduce strategic dependencies, safeguard critical technologies and shore up supply chains, reflecting the “de‑risking” agenda European leaders say is essential in an era of weaponized interdependence. Irish officials argue that this week’s episode strengthens the case for accelerating that agenda, particularly in sectors-such as critical minerals and advanced manufacturing-where transatlantic frictions are most likely to surface.
Washington’s tariff levers
Successive U.S. administrations have relied on domestic trade statutes to impose or threaten tariffs. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the president to restrict imports deemed harmful to national security-used in 2018 for metals-while Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 underpins retaliatory tariffs for unfair trade practices. Such authorities provide the legal plumbing for swift U.S. action, even as allies dispute their use and, in the EU’s case, challenge them at the World Trade Organization. Irish officials note that the speed with which the White House can pivot on tariffs underlines the need for EU contingency planning rather than assumptions of restraint.
Ireland’s diplomatic calculus
Foreign Affairs Minister Helen McEntee called the EU’s ties with Washington “the most important relationship it has,” while acknowledging they have been “certainly tested.” She said Ireland will continue diversifying trade, citing India, China and Australia, and argued the Irish premier should still travel to the White House for St Patrick’s Day. The shamrock presentation-now a staple of transatlantic diplomacy-dates to the early 1950s and has evolved into an annual leader‑level engagement that successive Irish governments have used to advance economic and security priorities, from investment and tax policy to cooperation on Ukraine and the Middle East.
“It’s about expanding our footprint in many economies,” Ms McEntee said, adding that Washington is “a really important visit … and certainly something that we’re not going to pull back from.” Dublin, she suggested, sees value in maintaining access in Washington even as it backs a firmer, rules‑based EU line on coercive trade measures.
‘Board of Peace’ raises institutional alarms
Mr Harris and Ms McEntee said the government remains aligned on whether to join Mr Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” a body the UN reportedly approved in November to oversee a Middle East ceasefire but which appears to be broadening its remit. Dublin has sought clarity on a reported $1 billion joining cost and insisted any new mechanism must complement, not supplant, UN structures. “We cannot join a structure that essentially will try to mimic or undermine the UN Security Council,” Ms McEntee said, invoking the Council’s chartered primacy over peace and security and warning that parallel bodies risk fragmenting international decision‑making.
As of January 23, 2026, the immediate U.S. tariff threat has been withdrawn; the EU’s Anti‑Coercion Instrument remains in force as the bloc’s principal legal shield against economic pressure; and the 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement governing U.S. operations in Greenland remains operative. For Dublin, the episode has reinforced a dual message: Europe must harden its economic and legal defences, even as it keeps lines open to a U.S. administration whose Arctic ambitions are unlikely to recede.
