Prime Minister Keir Starmer has warned that the use of trade tariffs against allied nations is “completely wrong”, after US President Donald Trump said he would impose sweeping import taxes on countries opposing his proposal for the United States to acquire Greenland, according to Downing Street.
President Trump has said the United States requires the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland for security reasons, with the White House stating that the territory is essential to both American and global security. On Saturday, he announced plans to introduce a 10 percent tariff on imports from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland by 1 February, rising to 25 percent by 1 June.
Addressing the nation, Starmer sought to balance continued engagement with Washington alongside a firm defence of allied sovereignty and international norms. He said that while circumstances change, the values guiding UK foreign policy do not.
“What matters most is being clear about the values and the interests that guide us even as circumstances change,” he said. “Our values were not improvised. They were built patiently over time, and while we are pragmatic in how we pursue our interests, we are resolute in defending those values when it matters.”
The prime minister underlined the depth of the UK–US relationship, describing it as central to national security, economic stability and prosperity. He said that under President Trump, as with previous administrations, the government remained determined to keep the relationship constructive and focused on tangible outcomes.
“We have seen significant US investment into the UK economy running into hundreds of billions of pounds supporting growth, skills and jobs right across the country,” Starmer said. “Our cooperation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment.”
He added that sustained diplomatic engagement had already delivered results in key industrial sectors.
“We have secured good trading terms in cars, steel, aerospace and life sciences, protecting British jobs and manufacturers,” he said, stressing that regular direct contact with the White House and senior US officials remained essential.
Turning to Greenland, Starmer acknowledged the growing strategic importance of the Arctic as climate change reshapes global geography and competition intensifies in the High North. He said this would require increased investment and stronger collective defence through NATO, with the United States playing a central role.
“The security of Greenland matters, and it will matter more as sea routes open and strategic competition intensifies,” he said. “The high north will require greater attention, greater investment and stronger collective defence.”
However, the prime minister drew a clear line on sovereignty, stating that decisions over Greenland’s future could not be imposed externally.
“Any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone,” he said. “That right is fundamental, and we support it.”
Starmer described Denmark as a close NATO ally that has repeatedly stood alongside the UK, including at significant human cost in recent conflicts, and said alliances endure through respect and partnership rather than coercion.
“That is why I said the use of tariffs against allies is completely wrong,” he said. “It is not the right way to resolve differences within an alliance, nor is it helpful to frame efforts to strengthen Greenland’s security as justification for economic pressure.” He warned that such measures would directly harm working people in the UK. “Such measures hurt British workers, British businesses and the British economy,” Starmer said, adding that a trade war would serve no nation’s interests.
The prime minister confirmed that he had spoken with President Trump, European leaders and the NATO Secretary General in an effort to pursue a solution grounded in dialogue.
“My job is always to act in the UK’s national interest,” he said. “That is why I spoke yesterday to President Trump, to European leaders and to the Secretary General of NATO to find a solution rooted in partnership, facts and mutual respect.”
Starmer also addressed wider international crises, saying the government strongly supported efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and remained open to constructive engagement on Ukraine. He said the UK recognised President Trump’s role in pushing diplomatic processes forward and would continue working with allies to apply pressure on Russia. “We will work closely with the United States, Ukraine and our other allies to apply pressure where it belongs, on Putin,” he said. Linking global events to domestic impacts, Starmer argued that geopolitics directly affects everyday life in the UK, shaping energy prices, food costs and job security.
“Geopolitics is not something that happens somewhere else,” he said. “When war drives up fuel prices, it’s households who feel it first. When supply chains fracture, it’s small businesses and working people who absorb the shock.” He said the government’s approach was rooted in active engagement at home and abroad, combining economic stability with strong alliances and adherence to international law.
“Being pragmatic does not mean being passive. A partnership does not mean abandoning principle,” Starmer said.
Concluding his address, the prime minister called for national unity and rejected what he described as performative politics, arguing that gestures and slogans do little to protect jobs or security. “We will work with our allies in Europe, across NATO and with the United States,” he said. “We will keep dialogue open, defend international law, and use the full strength of government to protect the security, living standards and future of the British people.”











Trumpton is fast becoming a Pariah State and If It continues down this path, will soon tear Itself apart.
I’m confused by Trump going on about the Russian threat to Greenland and the Arctic, whilst over in Ukraine, he says Russia and his best friend forever Putin is a lovely cuddly misunderstood peace-loving poor little victim and deserves at least half of Ukraine. So is Russia his friend or his foe?
He is a russian asset. He is doing putin a favour by breaking up NATO whilst at the same time eyeing up his own wealth from minerals found in Greenland. A 2 for the price of 1 in trumps tiny mind. This has got nothing at all to do with defence of Greenland.
The US has a base in Greenland and is free to reinforce it. The whole Russia /china threat is just a smoke screen to play on MAGA supporters. It’s all about the rare earth minerals.
Hopefully after a few more super sized big mac meals this will all be over.
JD Vance is next in line, a sobering thought. Hopefully the midterm elections will tip the balance of power, but November seems a long way off.
Well you see, the US government is in the Kremlins Pocket. So if the US invades Greenland Russia will gain control of Greenland, so the US has to invade Greenland to prevent Russia getting control of Greenland. It’s simple!
We need a red line on any dependence on US kit or support as well. Starting with how to maintain a truly independent nuclear deterrant. That is the the biggest contribution we could make to European defence.
The US is done and should never be trusted again. Their constitution is weak and leaves them wide open to a lone lunatic having to much power.
I agree, Trump is likely the start not the end of the process that will see the US political class transformed back to a pre 1941 state. That pre 1941 state was neither a friend nor much of an ally. JD Vance has already made a play to remove UK nuclear weapons.
The UK should take development of a completely independent deterrent as the number one national priority.
That means an initial development of a tactical nuclear cruise missile based on storm shadow. The rapid development of a nuclear capable MMRB based on Night fall and the longer term development an SLBM to replace trident D5.
We can probably use the new Astraea warhead for a cruise missile, MRBM and SLBM as it’s fairly light weight and provides a dial-able yield between 90kt and 500kt and we can probably keep our current Chevaline warheads longer instead of disposing of them as we build the Astraea warheads allowing us to move up to 500 warheads by the middle of the next decade.
If France follows suit then ENATO can have 1000 deployed warheads which is a very respectable amount compared to Russia, China and the USA.
Beyond that we need to deploy two infrared tracking satellites in a highly elliptical orbit like the French have. SSTL have already deployed infra red satellites like this just not in HEO orbit so we can do this quickly and cheaply as part of ISTARI. This allows us to determine a ICBM lunch location and it’s the main early warning aspect we rely on the USA for at present in a nuclear exchange. (Which is why France has its own)
ENATO has massive conventional forces and there is almost nothing the UK can do at scale on land to add much to that. What ENATO desperately needs is a power that can in part replace the US nuclear capability. The UK is the only country that can do that without ripping up the NPT or turning the EU into a nuclear state. We need to expand tactical nuclear sharing to Poland and Sweden to stop them going nuclear.
Surely their legislators are looking at the events of the past year and considering future bills to curtail the President’s power? It just seems crazy what he can do unilaterally. There is a complete lack of accountability.
Any pivot away from our existing CASD will take a very long time, certainly far longer than this administration lasts. The most likely option is air launched, perhaps on Tempest, but even that would be 15 years away. It would take a significant increase in budget too.
What on gods earth will it take Starmer to;
1. Significantly increase the size of RN, RAF, Army
2. Order another 150 Typhoons
3. Quadruple GBAD
How many red flags does he need
Maintaining the nuclear deterrant without US support needs to be the priority, that is the one area where Russia has a dominance over Europe, if our deterrant falls apart the French alone will not be sufficient to deter Russia. In conventional terms Europe can hold its own.
Rmj, if the gulf between the US and the rest of the World continues in the longterm, the UK may ask for all US military units in the country to go as trust would be rock bottom. Europe could adopt the Canadian policy of not buying US military hardware and turning to more reliable suppliers. Sadly, that could see less F35s in the RAF’s fleet.
We would need a replacement for the F35 as the RN’s carriers represent 2/3 to Europe’s carrier strike capability and I have no doubt that Russia and China would se the break up of NATO as manner from heaven opportunity to extend their own empires… and domination of the world oceans will play a part in that effort and the Chinese navy will be the world’s most powerful in the not too distant future. It will count.
As a BBC reporter put it last night the Chinese and Russian leaders will be sitting watching this with a tub of popcorn..! Would have been funny if it wasn’t so chilling
Cheers CR
Where the money coming from? What are you suggesting we significantly cut?
Fully agree we should rearm, I just don’t see any options to do so, after the scorch earth policy the conservatives did.
Significantly cut welfare – welfare isn’t affordable or possible without defence.
Vast vast majority of people on welfare need the money. It’s only a tiny percentage that don’t, not that the likes of the daily mail ever report the true facts or full story. Just like small boat crossings is a tiny percentage of immigration and of that most successfully obtain refuge status. Cutting money for the poorest and most in need in our society is not a good solution.
Plus the majority of the welfare bill goes to the state pension and the NHS. I’ve paid more than my fair share of taxes, I don’t want my state pension cut.
Your other option is increase taxes across the higher brackets, or on corporations, but the efficacy of such a move is debatable.
One might also consider fully slashing the foreign aid budget to instead push for military spending.
Another might be to take procurement decisions out of the hands of the military and the government, and instead delegate it to some neutral third party to avoid the messy purchases of the recent times.
But, whichever way you choose, there are no good options.
Have we all been looking in the wrong direction? It’s not Putin we need to worry about, but our so-called orange friend from across the pond! Just when international markets were beginning to settle down, along came another nugget from the Oval Office in the form of threats and economic chaos. The ramifications of all this on the NATO alliance are very hard to contemplate, but it could lead to a split with Scandinavian and Baltic states forming a separate bond, yet still interwining with the big four. I think Starmer can forget about the Ukrainian peace deal if the US continue on its current direction as any American assurances won’t be worth the paper they are written on.
The USA have never been a good and reliable ally, they just haven’t. Because of their position of power, they have almost always purely acted out of self interest and the rest of the world towed the line. the dynamic needs to change. Potus has spent more time bashing and threatening his allies than actually worrying about the “Chinese threat” or Russia
I liebour thought they could get away with all defence spending would be stopped and the Armed forces scraped.
That is literally the same with every post-war government in the UK. The Conservatives tried to do that for two decades. Labour tried to run a foreign war without increasing the defence budget, and added cuts of the their own.
Where the money coming from? What are you suggesting we significantly cut?
Fully agree we should rearm, I just don’t see any options to do so, after the scorch earth policy the conservatives did.
Assuming Trump has never looked at a globe, or a map centred on the Pacific instead of the UK…..
It’s all very well Starmer talking about red lines, international law, and the international rules-based system. But in reality, rules only work if all players abide by them — try playing chess with someone who makes up the rules as they go along. You can shout “that’s not fair” or “what about the rules?” all you want, but you ultimately lose every time.
We are now in a world of global competition with strategic stakes, with Russia taking land by force, the US threatening to do so, China biding its time to join the party, and India strengthening its military and strategic position.
Then there is the EU, which could, and arguably should, be one of these big players, but it is currently an economic power block with a lot of politics that aren’t aligned, not a military one. With the war in Ukraine and the US stance on Greenland, it may well become a proper global player with its own integrated military in the future, especially if NATO were to collapse. If these crises do not push the EU to unite and integrate further, I do not know what will.
Back to Starmer and our government, it is a lot easier (and cheaper) to be virtuous on the international stage than it is to actually prepare our country for this increasingly unstable world. So for me, he needs to rein it in a bit and find the money to increase defence spending sooner rather than later. Talking a good talk, provoking all of the above, whilst not doing anything meaningful with our armed forces is ridiculous.