President Trump has now put numbers on the tariffs he is proposing to impose on certain countries for not going along with his Greenland “plan.”

From his Truth Social post:

Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.

So much for “affordability,” so much for allies, so much for national sovereignty.

Ultimately, the only people who will decide whether Greenland should be sold, and to whom, are the Greenlanders. If they want to be a part of the U.S., that would be great, but that is something they should decide in a referendum (with, of course, a secret ballot: peer pressure is a thing, especially in small societies). But Trump’s antics are making it less likely that the U.S. will ever get to that point or even a very good second best, such as a compact of association akin to the agreements the U.S. has with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.

Currently, Greenland is an autonomous part of Denmark. Are Danish exporters to be punished because their government wishes to keep the Danish kingdom in one piece? Really?

And then let’s look at the other objects of Trump’s wrath: Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland, none of which have any formal role to play in this matter. In effect, these sovereign nations are being threatened with a “fine” for sending a (very) small number of their troops to an ally’s territory — and with the agreement of that ally. Trump writes that this force has been sent to Greenland (a “sacred piece of Land”), “for purposes unknown,” a melodramatic turn of phrase. Is Perfidious Albion, eager to avenge past humiliation in North America, planning to use the one officer it is sending to Greenland as the first wave of a British North American Reconquista?

In reality, this tiny presence is designed to act as a symbolic tripwire to deter a forcible U.S. annexation of Greenland. For NATO allies to exchange blows over this matter would risk tearing the alliance apart, and so this is a tripwire that should never be tripped. In the event that nothing happens, Greenland’s new visitors can train and check out the terrain. That is no bad thing. Greenland’s defenses do need toughening (the president is right about that), and a permanent NATO presence on the island beyond that maintained by the U.S. and Denmark would be worth having. But Trump exaggerates when he writes that Greenland is essentially defenseless (“they currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently”). The U.S. already has troops and an important base there. More importantly, an invasion of Greenland by Russia, China, or anyone else would trigger the collective defense provisions contained in the NATO treaty. That’s not “defenseless,” unless the president believes that Article 5 is a dead letter.

Trump writes that “the United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused.”  Well, yes and no. This has indeed been talked about in Washington since the 1860s, and on occasion, matters went a bit further than that. The only formal offer ($100 million in gold), however, was made (secretly) under Harry Truman but was rejected. Instead, Denmark signed a somewhat one-sided agreement in 1951, which gave the U.S. almost anything it wanted. With some tweaking to reflect changes since then (including an amendment in 2004) and mutual goodwill, it still could. But at this point, rebuilding mutual goodwill is going to take quite a bit of work. This is just one of the ways in which an initiative designed to strengthen the U.S.’s defenses may have weakened them.

The tariff timetable is a gamble that may well backfire, taking NATO and, for that matter, businesses on either side of the Atlantic into territory where they should not go.

Quite how Trump backs off is not clear. Maybe the Supreme Court or (this would be something) Congress could give a hand.