Why did Trump try to seize Greenland? Besent: Because Europe is "weak"

According to a CCTV News report, on January 17 local time, U.S. President Trump announced that starting February 1, the U.S. will impose a 10% tariff on all goods exported to the United States from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland, until an agreement to "fully and completely purchase Greenland" is reached.

This move quickly received public support from U.S. Treasury Secretary Bassent. In an interview with the media on January 18 local time, he claimed that the European continent is too "weak" to guarantee Greenland’s security, and therefore the island must be included under the U.S. "umbrella of protection."

He pointed out that, in the context of intensified global Arctic competition, the U.S. plans to establish a "Golden Dome" missile defense system, and Greenland is an indispensable part of this strategy.

"Europeans project weakness, America projects strength... The president believes that unless Greenland becomes part of the United States, it is impossible to achieve strengthened security guarantees."

In response to the EU's threat to suspend the tariff agreement reached with Trump last year, Bassent appeared unconcerned. He stressed that the trade deal has not yet been finalized and noted that Trump is using his "emergency powers" to achieve his goals. In his view, European leaders will eventually "change their minds," because they need to be under America's security "umbrella."

Responses from European Countries: Unacceptable

According to CCTV News, the U.S. imposed tariffs on eight European countries over the Greenland issue. Subsequently, several countries issued statements in response.

Swedish Prime Minister Kristersson issued a written statement that day, stating "We will not be blackmailed. Only Denmark and Greenland can decide matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."

British Prime Minister Starmer issued a statement the same day, saying that the U.S. threatened tariff increases against several European countries is "completely wrong". Danish Foreign Minister Rasmussen called the tariff policy "unexpected," while Defense Minister Poulsen stressed that the U.S. threat is "completely unacceptable."

French President Macron stated on social media that day that the U.S. President Trump's tariff threats following France’s support for Greenland are "unacceptable." He said: "If these threats are confirmed, European countries will respond in solidarity and coordination. We will defend Europe’s sovereignty."

Key Republican Senator: "Stop Threats, Start Diplomacy"

Although the Trump administration’s top officials are showing a tough stance externally, Washington is not entirely united on this issue. Lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties have expressed concerns about this strategy.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen issued a joint statement urging the Trump administration to “stop threats, start diplomacy.”

Meanwhile, libertarian Republican Senator Rand Paul, who often clashes with Trump over policy, said on NBC that the idea is “absurd” and asserted “there is no emergency in Greenland.” He criticized: “You can’t achieve a peaceful purchase by berating the seller and telling them you will take it by force.”

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen accused Trump on ABC’s program of “land grabs,” aiming to seize Greenland’s mineral resources.

However, beyond the heated rhetoric, White House chief economic advisor Hassett gave a more moderate signal in an interview with Fox News, suggesting Trump is still prepared to reach some kind of deal.

“Now is really a good time for cooler heads to prevail,” Hassett said, “We should ignore the rhetoric, come back to the negotiating table, and see if we can formulate an agreement that is best for all parties.”

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market has risks, and investment needs to be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the special investment objectives, financial status, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investment on this basis is at your own risk.