Greenland tariffs may be easier to defuse after USA President Donald Trump told UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer that he may have been misinformed about why European military personnel were deployed to Greenland, according to Sky News. The apparent concession followed a phone call on Sunday 18 January 2026, after Trump threatened tariffs on several European allies, arguing that the troop deployments were “for reasons unknown” and therefore a provocation.
A phone call to clarify why European troops are in Greenland
Sky News reported that, during the Sunday call, Trump conceded he might have received inaccurate information about the motivation for the European troop deployment in Greenland. Starmer’s message, according to the same reporting and later official summaries, was that the deployments are tied to Arctic security and NATO’s collective defence priorities, not to “counter” the USA.
A brief Downing Street readout published on 18 January said Starmer reiterated that security in the High North is a priority for all NATO allies and that using tariffs against allies for pursuing collective security is “wrong”.
What Trump said publicly about the troop deployment
The concession matters because it appears to address a specific trigger behind Trump’s tariff threat. In his public statements, Trump framed the troop deployments as suspicious and unexplained, and presented tariffs as retaliation against the countries involved.
Reuters has reported that Trump has repeatedly insisted he will settle for nothing less than ownership of Greenland, and that he has linked the dispute to broader claims about Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. Danish and Greenlandic leaders have rejected the idea that the island is for sale.
Starmer’s approach: de-escalation without conceding on Greenland
Starmer has tried to combine a firm position with a de-escalatory tone. In public remarks, he has said that tariffs between allies would harm both sides and that the future of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark.
In practice, the British government’s line has been to treat the Greenland row primarily as a security issue inside NATO, and to keep the focus on dialogue, even as European governments prepare possible trade responses.
Why the admission could open an “off ramp”
If Trump’s tariff threat was partly driven by a misunderstanding of the deployment, acknowledging that he may have been misinformed creates space for a narrower diplomatic fix: clarifying the purpose, scale and command structure of the mission, and reaffirming that it is framed around shared Arctic security.
This does not resolve the underlying political dispute over Greenland’s sovereignty. But it could reduce the immediate risk of a tariff escalation if the White House accepts that European troops are not being sent as a hostile signal to the USA.
What remains unresolved: tariffs and the use-of-force question
Even after the reported concession to Starmer, Trump has not clearly withdrawn the tariff threat. Separate reporting has also noted that he has refused to rule out the use of military force to take Greenland, responding “no comment” when asked directly.
For European leaders, that combination — tariffs used as leverage alongside ambiguous language on force — keeps the crisis in a volatile state, even if the specific dispute over the troop deployment can be clarified.
