The European Parliament is considering whether to pause work on legislation implementing parts of an EU–US tariff agreement after President Donald Trump threatened to seize Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory.
The debate has emerged ahead of planned votes in the Parliament’s trade committee on 26–27 January, which could now be postponed.
According to officials familiar with the discussions, leading members of the trade committee met this week to assess whether the parliamentary timetable should be altered. No decision was taken and the group is expected to return to the issue next week.
The immediate trigger is Greenland. Trump has reiterated that the United States “must” acquire the Arctic territory, framing the issue in terms of national security and competition with Russia and China. Greenland’s government and political parties have publicly rejected any change in sovereignty. In a recent statement, Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the territory “chooses Denmark”, while also underlining its ties to NATO and the EU.
In Brussels, a group of 23 MEPs from several political families has urged the Parliament’s president, Roberta Metsola, to halt work on the trade file while the threats continue. The signatories include lawmakers from the Left, the Socialists and Democrats, and the Greens, arguing that proceeding with trade concessions while a member state’s territory is being targeted would send the wrong political signal.
The trade package at the centre of the dispute is not a single, comprehensive free-trade treaty but a set of EU regulations designed to implement tariff commitments set out in an EU–US “framework” announced in 2025. The Council of the EU has already agreed negotiating mandates on two draft regulations: one to eliminate remaining EU customs duties on US industrial goods and to grant tariff-rate quotas or reduced tariffs for certain US seafood and non-sensitive agricultural products; and a second to extend the EU’s suspension of customs duties on specified lobster products, expanded to cover processed lobster.
The lobster element has roots in an earlier, more limited transatlantic tariff arrangement. The Council notes that EU duties on certain live and frozen US lobster products were eliminated in December 2020 for a five-year period, which expired in July 2025, and the new proposal would continue the non-application of duties and broaden the scope.
The wider 2025 framework reflects a trade-off in which the EU commits to removing tariffs on industrial imports from the US that were not already duty-free, while the US commits to a tariff structure described as a ceiling of 15 per cent in certain sectors affected by Section 232 measures, alongside provisions affecting autos and other products. The joint statement published by the European Commission’s trade service sets out the US intention that the combined tariff rate applied to EU-origin goods subject to Section 232 actions on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and lumber “does not exceed 15%”, and links some US steps to the EU introducing the necessary legislative proposals.
Criticism inside the Parliament has focused on leverage and symmetry. Reuters reported that opponents describe the package as imbalanced because it would reduce many EU import duties while the US maintains a broad 15 per cent rate on EU exports. Supporters argue that completing the measures would provide predictability for businesses and reduce the risk of further tariff escalation.
The Greenland issue has also widened the political frame beyond trade. On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron warned that any threat to the sovereignty of a European ally would have “unprecedented” knock-on effects, and said France stood in full solidarity with Denmark. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also signalled EU backing for Greenlanders, ahead of planned diplomatic contacts in Washington involving Danish and Greenlandic ministers and senior US officials.
For the Parliament, delaying the committee vote would not terminate the tariff package but would slow the legislative process at a moment when the Council is preparing to enter trilogue negotiations. It could also complicate the EU’s broader approach to managing transatlantic trade frictions, particularly if the US administration treats a freeze as grounds for retaliation. Reuters reported concerns in Brussels that the White House could respond with higher tariffs and has ruled out certain concessions until the EU legislation is in place.
The decision now rests on whether a cross-party majority in the trade committee and the Parliament’s leadership concludes that the Greenland dispute has altered the political conditions for approving trade concessions.
