UNITED STATES — The European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade halted work on ratifying the EU–US Turnberry trade agreement on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, after President Donald Trump threatened tariffs against eight European nations over opposition to his push for US ownership of Greenland.
The move froze the Parliament’s ratification track and left the July 2025 agreement unable to move forward, because it cannot enter into force without the European Parliament’s approval.
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, said the committee held an “unshakable commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark and Greenland,” and warned that “by threatening the territorial integrity and sovereignty of an E.U. member state and by using tariffs as a coercive instrument, the U.S. is undermining the stability and predictability of EU-US trade relations.”
“We are undermining the stability and predictability of EU-US trade relations.”
Trump’s tariff threats and Greenland-focused rhetoric became the immediate political trigger for the suspension, tightening a dispute that mixed trade policy with sovereignty and security questions in the Arctic.
The Turnberry deal, struck in July 2025, aimed to eliminate many EU duties on US imports and preserve zero duties on certain US exports, including lobster, as part of a wider push to deepen EU–US economic ties.
Instead, lawmakers indefinitely postponed a scheduled vote on the agreement, putting the trade deal in limbo as tensions rose over the tariff threats and Greenland.
Trump announced days earlier that he would impose 10% tariffs starting February 1, 2026, escalating to 25% on June 1, 2026, tying the trade penalties to European opposition to his renewed calls for US control of Greenland.
The tariff threats targeted eight European nations, naming Denmark, France, Germany and the UK, and referring to four others that were not named.
Trump aired the Greenland push during the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, 2026, framing the issue in strategic and security terms while presenting tariffs as leverage against European countries resisting his approach.
He ruled out military force in remarks on Greenland, saying, “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that.”
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that.”
EU lawmakers interpreted the tariff messaging as coercive and incompatible with the basis for trade cooperation, arguing that the stability expected from a negotiated trade deal cannot coexist with threats tied to territorial rhetoric.
European Union leaders defended Danish and Greenland sovereignty and rejected coercion, warning that the dispute risked harming transatlantic relations and could escalate into wider retaliation.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that actions perceived as coercion would harm transatlantic relations and risk a “downward spiral” between longstanding allies.
Von der Leyen had earlier hailed the July 2025 deal for creating “certainty in uncertain times,” but the INTA suspension left ratification paused indefinitely and cast doubt over the agreement’s immediate future.
The widening dispute also triggered early discussion in Europe of counter-moves and policy levers beyond the trade track, including investment in Arctic security and potential retaliatory measures if tariffs were imposed.
Those discussions unfolded alongside broader debate in European capitals about how to respond to US pressure tactics while protecting EU member states’ territorial integrity and maintaining alliance coordination.
Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory, became the flashpoint as EU officials stressed that sovereignty and territorial integrity are not bargaining chips in a trade dispute.
Greenlanders themselves expressed skepticism and outright rejection of any proposal suggesting US control or ownership, emphasizing that Greenland belongs to its own people and Denmark, not another nation.
Trump’s Greenland comments in Davos also intersected with NATO and Arctic security narratives, as he linked the dispute to broader geopolitical concerns and alliance cooperation.
After the initial tariff threat announcements, Trump shifted his position within a day, moving the dispute from tariff escalation toward a different diplomatic framing.
By January 22, 2026, Trump reversed course and scrapped the tariff threats entirely after discussions with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, announcing a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland focused on countering Russia and China without force or coercion.
“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said.
“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
The reversal offered relief to Danish officials who had increased security on the island, even as the political damage in Brussels remained visible in the ratification freeze.
The European Parliament committee’s action left the trade deal’s procedural path blocked, because the agreement cannot advance without the Parliament’s ratification track resuming.
The suspension also underlined the fragility of trade diplomacy when tariff threats enter disputes tied to sovereignty, especially among allies that describe their relationship as strategic as well as economic.
Markets reacted sharply as the standoff grew, reflecting investor sensitivity to the risk of new barriers between major economies and uncertainty over the direction of transatlantic trade policy.
US stocks saw the Dow drop 870 points on January 20 before partial recovery, while Europe’s STOXX 600 dipped slightly on January 21, 2026.
The market moves came as traders weighed the prospect that new tariffs could hit supply chains and corporate planning, while also undermining expectations that the Turnberry trade deal would reduce duties and stabilize conditions for cross-Atlantic commerce.
The trade deal aimed to reduce or eliminate many EU import duties on US goods and protect continuity in duty-free treatment for select exports, including US lobster, but the pause left businesses without the clear policy trajectory the agreement sought to establish.
Trade uncertainty can move equity markets because it changes assumptions about costs, demand, and the timing of investments, and it can shift expectations about currency movements tied to economic outlook and policy risk.
For companies that had looked to the agreement for smoother transatlantic commerce, the ratification freeze created a new planning problem: the trade deal exists on paper but cannot enter into force while the Parliament’s process remains suspended.
The Greenland dispute added another layer, because it tied trade instruments to territorial and security rhetoric, raising questions in Europe about whether tariff threats could reappear in future disputes.
While Trump’s January 22, 2026 rollback removed the immediate tariff deadlines that had raised alarm, it did not automatically restore the political trust needed for lawmakers to restart the ratification process.
In Brussels, the INTA committee’s language signaled that the freeze served as a political response as well as a procedural barrier, and that restarting the process would depend on whether the wider confrontation cooled.
The committee action also placed the spotlight on institutional constraints in the EU system, where Parliament can halt the ratification track even when negotiators have reached a political agreement.
At the same time, EU leaders discussed parallel paths outside the trade framework, including Arctic and security packages designed to bolster cooperation and strengthen Europe’s posture as the Greenland issue drew attention to the region’s strategic importance.
Those parallel discussions reflected an effort to separate security cooperation from trade leverage, even as the tariff threats had fused the two in political debate.
Trump’s decision to scrap the tariffs after talks with Jens Stoltenberg shifted the public messaging from coercion toward diplomacy, though he continued to frame Greenland-related policy as tied to broader strategic interests.
The episode highlighted how quickly a tariff threat can reshape politics around a trade deal, even one that leaders had described as a source of economic stability.
It also showed how disputes over sovereignty can spill into economic policy, creating pressures that are hard to contain once domestic political institutions take formal steps, such as suspending ratification.
For now, the immediate reality remains procedural as well as political: the European Parliament postponed the ratification vote indefinitely, and the Turnberry agreement cannot enter into force unless that track resumes.
Resuming that process would require a shift in the political environment that prompted the freeze, given the committee’s explicit linkage between trade stability and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark and Greenland.
The sequence that drove the standoff unfolded quickly across three days: the Dow drop 870 points on January 20, Trump’s Davos remarks on January 21, 2026 alongside the proposed 10% tariffs starting February 1, 2026, escalating to 25% on June 1, 2026, and then the January 22, 2026 reversal that scrapped the tariff threats.
Even with the rollback, the European Parliament’s decision on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, left the Turnberry trade deal signed in July 2025 stuck in limbo, with lawmakers pointing to Greenland sovereignty and tariff coercion as incompatible with predictable EU–US trade relations.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that,” Trump said in Davos, a remark that helped trigger a political backlash that outlasted his later tariff retreat.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that.”
“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” he said a day later, as Europe weighed whether the new “framework of a future deal” on Greenland could ease tensions enough to restart a trade deal that now sits frozen.
EU Parliament Freezes U.S. Trade Vote Over Greenland, Tariffs, Trade Deal
EU lawmakers have frozen the ratification of the Turnberry trade deal after President Trump threatened tariffs to pressure European nations over Greenland’s ownership. The suspension reflects deep concerns over U.S. coercion and the infringement of Danish sovereignty. While Trump later retracted the tariff threats after NATO consultations, the political trust required for the trade agreement remains damaged, leaving the deal’s future and transatlantic economic stability highly uncertain.
