The Greenland Gambit: A new turn in tariff turbulence
Tariff threats have entered the Greenland chat. Over the weekend, President Trump announced that the US will impose a 10% tariff on eight European countries starting 1 February, ramping up to 25% by 1 June—unless a deal is struck for the “complete and total purchase of Greenland”.
Markets are feeling tremors, but it’s far from doom and gloom. As of 12pm GMT, the Hang Seng led Asian losses, down 1.1% to close out its day. In Europe, the Euro Stoxx 50 is off 1.7%, with Germany’s DAX trailing at -1.5% and FTSE 100 at -0.5%. US markets are closed for Martin Luther King Jr Day, but futures are in the red: S&P 500 -1.1%, Nasdaq 100 -1.6%. US bond futures are also edging lower. Gold is at record highs.
Here’s what happened, what could be next, and what to watch.
The punchline: Escalation, not panic
Overall, these events mark a clear escalation in the combativeness and uncertainty on trade. While a path to de-escalation exists, the next few days will be critical. So far, these developments do not alter our views; although further escalation may drag on sentiment and weigh on euro area growth, direct market exposure to the threatened tariffs is limited. More broadly, this underscores the shift towards global fragmentation and the need for resilient portfolios—highlighting our focus on security as a theme, gold for a potential hedge, hedge funds for the possibility of uncorrelated returns, bonds for downside mitigation, and, as always, the critical importance of diversification.
What happened: Tariffs as an opening gambit
On Saturday, President Trump announced the US will impose a 10% tariff on eight European countries—Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark—starting 1 February. The rate will jump to 25% on 1 June, unless a deal is reached for the “complete and total purchase of Greenland”. The move purportedly comes in response to these nations recently deploying military personnel to Greenland. For what it’s worth, Trump also signalled the US is “immediately open to negotiation” with Denmark and the other European countries.
The bigger picture: A fragmented world
From last year’s surge in protectionism to a bolder foreign policy, the US is seeking to assert a more assertive foreign policy stance, especially close to home. Recent moves in Venezuela and broader Latin America show a pattern: it’s about leverage.
To that end, Greenland is seen as a strategic asset—hosting key US surveillance systems amid Russia’s Arctic militarisation, while the ongoing ice melt is opening new sea lanes and unlocking access to critical minerals that could help reduce reliance on China-dominated rare earth supply chains. For President Trump, it’s also a legacy-defining real estate play, channelling the ambition of America’s biggest land grabs.
What might be next: Diplomacy remains the likely path
Much remains uncertain, and the outcome will depend on how events unfold. The JPMorganChase Center for Geopolitics has identified four potential scenarios ahead, with a diplomatic or sovereign solution as the base case:
- Scenario 1 (55%): Diplomatic agreement with Denmark and Greenland
- Scenario 2 (25%): The US pursues a direct purchase of Greenland
- Scenario 3 (15%): The US supports Greenlandic independence and forms a special relationship
- Scenario 4 (5%): US military seizure or occupation
The coming days—including possible meetings in Davos and President Trump’s scheduled speech—will be critical for gauging the potential for de-escalation. Looking forward, we’re closely watching developments around the following questions:
- How will the tariffs be applied? Details remain unclear. The White House hasn’t specified the legal authority for these new tariffs, but the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) seems to be the most likely route. Reminder: IEEPA has been used to justify and implement the so-called “reciprocal tariffs”—allowing the president to impose trade restrictions in response to perceived threats or unfair practices. It’s uncertain if these will be added on top of existing tariffs (currently 15% for most EU goods, 10% for UK goods), but the messaging nonetheless suggests escalation.
- Can the tariffs survive legal challenges? Complicating matters, the Supreme Court is set to rule any day now on the IEEPA tariffs. As of writing, betting markets (Polymarket) put the odds of those tariffs being struck down around 70%. If the Court rules against IEEPA, the new Greenland-related tariffs may face legal challenges too. At the same time, the White House could pivot to other options, like Section 122 (which could impose up to a 15% total tariff rate) or sector-specific actions (Sections 232/301). In sum, even if the tariffs go into effect, we could see legal wrangling.
3. How will Europe respond? EU ambassadors held an emergency meeting on Sunday, with more talks expected. So far, policymakers are eyeing tariffs on a €93bn list of US imports—measures approved last year but shelved after the US-EU trade deal. Now, the latest US tariff threats could throw those deals into doubt, including agreements with the UK. Some in the European Parliament want to stall ratification of the current US-EU deal. President Macron and others are also pushing to trigger the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), giving the bloc wider-ranging powers to hit back at US services and intellectual property—though implementation could take months. The UK and Norway, outside the EU framework, will have to chart their own course for retaliation.
4. What are the implications for NATO? Greenland is Danish territory, and Denmark is a NATO ally, putting strain on the US-European-NATO alliance. Notably, there’s growing pushback from both European leaders and US senators.
5. Is there US political support? The level of opposition in the US itself may also matter, especially with US midterm elections expected to focus on cost of living and affordability, while the hefty $700bn price tag cited for Greenland highlights America’s fiscal vulnerabilities. As one barometer, a Reuters/Ipsos poll last week signalled only 17% support for acquiring Greenland, with 47% opposed. Just 4% approved of using military force, and only 8% of Republican voters agreed. At the same time, criticism from policymakers has come from both sides of the aisle.
The potential impact: So far manageable, but broader risks persist
While much remains unknown, the tariff bark has been bigger than the bite over the last year. Economies and companies have proven adaptable—restructuring supply chains, leveraging strong margins, and benefiting from carve-outs and exemptions for strategic sectors. Europe has weathered recent trade tensions with resilience.
However, the broader risks are still notable: if new tariff threats undermine support for Ukraine, NATO’s future, or US-European relations, and if uncertainty stalls business and household decisions, we could see downside pressure on euro area growth.
On the equity side, direct exposure so far looks limited. Some analysts estimate that although over 70% of MSCI Europe’s weight comes from the eight targeted countries, only about 2% of the index’s revenue is directly at risk from new Greenland-related tariffs, given exemptions and the ability of sectors like defence to pass on costs.1
Our view: Focus on building durable and resilient portfolios
So far, these developments do not alter our view. Instead, they reinforce the trend towards pronounced global fragmentation—one of the three pillars in our 2026 Outlook: Promise and Pressure. The era of cost-efficiency and globalisation is giving way to a new paradigm focused on security, resilience, and capital-intensive innovation. These forces are increasingly interconnected, driving ongoing investment, resource scarcity, and higher structural costs.
Geopolitical uncertainty remains high, and as such, we advocate for leaning into strategies that can weather such circumstances and bolster resiliency in portfolios.
- Defence: Recent events reinforce the need—both in Europe and globally—for greater security and strategic autonomy, likely driving a substantial increase in defence spending over the coming years. This calls to mind our focus on “National Champions”, which include defence, power, and companies benefiting from supply chain independence.
- Gold: Despite its strong run, gold has remained a reliable safe haven. Our portfolio analytics suggest a 5% allocation to gold could be considered reasonable for suitable investors in this backdrop.
- Hedge funds: Relative value, macro, and long/short hedge funds that can be nimble in environments like this.
- Bonds: Investment grade fixed income can lend attractive risk-adjusted returns and, given elevated interest rates, serve as a counterbalance to equity positions during periods of volatility. European fixed income, in particular, stands out, with any growth headwinds likely to lower yields and European IG spreads trading wider than US counterparts.
- Currency diversification: As seen around Liberation Day, heightened uncertainty emanating from the US can dampen foreign investment in US assets during risk-off periods, putting pressure on the dollar. More broadly, this underscores the importance of maintaining global currency diversification within portfolios.
In all, this is a clear reminder of the importance of building durable, resilient portfolios—and why diversification is essential. We will continue to provide updates as events unfold. Your JPMorgan team is here to discuss how we’re navigating uncertainty.
KEY RISKS
All market and economic data as of January 2026 and sourced from Bloomberg Finance L.P. and FactSet unless otherwise stated.
We believe the information contained in this material to be reliable but do not warrant its accuracy or completeness. Opinions, estimates, and investment strategies and views expressed in this document constitute our judgment based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice.
- Past performance is not indicative of future results. You may not invest directly in an index.
- The prices and rates of return are indicative, as they may vary over time based on market conditions.
- Additional risk considerations exist for all strategies.
- The information provided herein is not intended as a recommendation of or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any investment product or service.
- Opinions expressed herein may differ from the opinions expressed by other areas of J.P. Morgan. This material should not be regarded as investment research or a J.P. Morgan investment research report.
- All companies referenced are shown for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended as a recommendation or endorsement by J.P. Morgan in this context.
- The price of equity securities may rise or fall due to the changes in the broad market or changes in a company’s financial condition, sometimes rapidly or unpredictably. Equity securities are subject to “stock market risk” meaning that stock prices in general may decline over short or extended periods of time.
- Investing in fixed income products is subject to certain risks, including interest rate, credit, inflation, call, prepayment and reinvestment risk.
- Investment in alternative investment strategies is speculative, often involves a greater degree of risk than traditional investments including limited liquidity and limited transparency, among other factors and should only be considered by sophisticated investors with the financial capability to accept the loss of all or part of the assets devoted to such strategies.
- Investments in commodities may have greater volatility than investments in traditional securities. The value of commodities may be affected by changes in overall market movements, commodity index volatility, changes in interest rates, or factors affecting a particular industry or commodity, such as drought, floods, weather, livestock disease, embargoes, tariffs and international economic, political and regulatory developments. Investing in commodities creates an opportunity for increased return but, at the same time, creates the possibility for greater loss.
Index definitions:
- DAX (Deutscher Aktienindex): The main stock market index in Germany, tracking the performance of the 40 largest companies listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
- Euro Stoxx 50: An index representing the 50 largest and most liquid blue-chip stocks in the Eurozone, covering companies from various sectors.
- FTSE 100: The Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index, which measures the performance of the 100 largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.
- Hang Seng Index: A major stock market index that tracks the performance of the largest companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
- MSCI Europe: Measures the performance of large and mid-cap companies across 15 developed European countries.
- Nasdaq 100: Tracks the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq, mainly tech-focused.
- S&P 500: The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, a widely followed benchmark of the US stock market, representing 500 of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States.
Important Information
Experience the full possibility of your wealth
We can help you navigate a complex financial landscape. Reach out today to learn how.
Contact us