The European Parliament's international trade committee suspended work on the U.S.-EU trade agreement Tuesday, marking the most concrete European economic response to Donald Trump's escalating territorial demands over Greenland.
The decision halts formal approval and implementation of the Turnberry Agreement reached in July 2025, which had capped U.S. tariffs on most EU imports at 15 percent—among the lowest rates for any American trading partner.
"Given the continued and escalating threats, including tariff threats, against Greenland, our sovereignty and territorial integrity are at stake," said Bernd Lange, chairman of the trade committee, in a statement to NBC News. "This makes business as usual impossible."
The suspension comes after Trump threatened Saturday to impose 10 percent tariffs starting February 1 on seven EU nations plus the United Kingdom unless they permit U.S. control of Greenland—a self-governing territory of Denmark. The president warned those tariffs could escalate to 25 percent by June 1.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The Turnberry pact represented a rare moment of transatlantic cooperation following years of trade tensions under Trump's first administration. That agreement removed tariffs entirely on generic pharmaceuticals and established frameworks for resolving disputes through consultation rather than retaliation.
Now, barely six months after its signing, the deal sits frozen—a victim of the same unilateral approach that made it necessary in the first place.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, addressed the breakdown obliquely at Davos on Monday. "In politics as in business, a deal is a deal," she said, according to NBC News. "When friends shake hands, it must mean something meaningful."
European leaders plan to meet Thursday to discuss retaliation options. Under consideration are $110 billion in countervailing tariffs affecting Boeing, soybeans, and bourbon—traditional targets in transatlantic trade disputes. More significantly, officials are weighing deployment of the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument, a trade enforcement mechanism never before used that European diplomats have dubbed their "bazooka."
The instrument, adopted in 2023, allows Brussels to impose sweeping restrictions on third countries that use economic leverage for political ends. Its deployment would represent a fundamental shift in how Europe responds to American pressure.
This is not the first time Greenland has complicated transatlantic relations. In 2019, during Trump's previous term, Denmark rejected his initial overtures to purchase the Arctic territory, prompting the then-president to cancel a state visit to Copenhagen. But the current crisis differs in scope and severity.
Greenland, population 57,000, sits astride vital Arctic shipping routes and possesses significant deposits of rare earth minerals essential to modern electronics and defense systems. Thule Air Base, operated by the U.S. Air Force since 1951, provides early warning radar coverage of ballistic missile approaches from Russia.
Yet strategic importance does not equal sovereignty claims. Greenland's autonomous government has repeatedly affirmed it is not for sale, while Denmark has described American territorial ambitions as a threat to European security.
"We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength," Mark Carney, Canada's prime minister, told the World Economic Forum in Davos on Monday, in a speech that received a standing ovation. "When middle powers only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered."
Carney's remarks, which criticized the collapse of the rules-based international order without naming the United States directly, captured the growing European sentiment that accommodation invites further pressure.
The trade committee's suspension represents a test of that principle. Whether Europe follows through with retaliation—or whether the suspension proves merely symbolic—will determine if this moment marks a genuine rupture in transatlantic economic relations or simply another chapter in their perpetual renegotiation.
