Here’s the off-ramp for Trump’s Greenland showdown

Military force is out. Tariffs probably won't work. Trump is not going to acquire Greenland.

Much of the world thinks President Trump is losing his marbles. That’s probably fine with him.

Trump has created another global controversy with his demand that the United States acquire Greenland, the huge frozen island that’s a territory of Denmark. This once seemed like a lark. But since Trump ordered the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in early January and essentially took over that country, he has talked about Greenland as if it’s the next target in a quest to dominate everything in the Western Hemisphere, which Greenland technically is.

Trump may actually want control of Greenland. But it’s also likely this is a ruse with other, unstated purposes. And we know Trump uses the “madman theory” to boost his leverage by making adversaries think he might do something unhinged. We also know he backs down when opponents call his bluff.

Let’s walk through the possibilities.

Trump revealed an important tell on January 21 when he said at the Davos gathering in Switzerland that he would not order the US military to take Greenland by force, as he did with Venezuela. If Trump were really plotting to acquire Greenland by any means necessary, he wouldn’t take any given option off the table. He most likely ruled out military action because he wanted to calm financial markets, which are always a powerful factor in Trump’s machinations.

We’re good, thanks …

If he won’t take Greenland by force, what other options are there? Mainly, buying it. Denmark and Greenland have both said the island is not for sale. So Trump would have to make Greenland an offer it couldn’t refuse.

His gambit is to use—what else?—tariffs as a threat to force Greenland to submit to its unwelcome suitor. Trump has threatened a new 10% tariff on Denmark and seven other European countries until “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” Should the quarry resist, the tariff would rise to 25% on June 1.

These tariffs, however, would be the emergency variety that the Supreme Court seems likely to rule illegal any week now. If the Court invalidates Trump’s emergency tariffs, as many trade experts expect, his Greenland leverage would go poof.

There are other tariffs Trump could trot out, but they’d be more limited and take longer to impose than emergency tariffs, which Trump has used extensively in his second term. Plus, Trump cannot get away with unlimited tariffs because of his political situation at home. Trump’s import taxes raise costs on American businesses and consumers, at a time when voters’ top concern is affordability. Trump has actually been paring back tariffs as his popularity wanes and Americans blame him for their economic woes.

“Domestically, the President is in a downward spiral,” Henrietta Treyz of Veda Partners wrote in a January 20 analysis. “The President is not actually in a position to raise tariffs and migrate them into new and different authorities that the American public will swallow and businesses will have to get into compliance with. The tariff cudgel is gone already.”

So why is Trump threatening new tariffs relating to Greenland? Probably because he knows this is a card he has only a limited time to play. If the Supreme Court does invalidate his emergency tariffs, the tariff threat will become a lot weaker. So he may as well give it a shot now and see if Denmark blinks.

Trump is also a master of diversion, and creating an uproar over Greenland moves the spotlight away from other unpleasant things. There may still be ugly revelations forthcoming about Trump’s association with dead sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has also stumbled through negotiations with Russia over ending its war in Ukraine, which Russia has no interest in, making a mockery of Trump’s campaign promise to end the Ukraine war in short order.

Trump may also be seeking a hostage he can trade for ransom in negotiations with Europe over trade, the future of NATO and other matters. If a few idle threats against Greenland might help Trump land other deals, why not?

European leaders wondering how to answer Trump’s quest for Greenland might want to study China’s response to Trump’s trade war last year. In April, Trump announced new tariffs on Chinese imports that exceeded 100% in some cases, amounting to a de facto embargo on Chinese products. China imposed some retaliatory measures, but also just waited for pressure to mount on Trump as his tariffs raised costs at home and punished US businesses and consumers. Trump eventually caved, with tariffs now at far lower levels that both sides seem more or less able to live with. Trump, meanwhile, has shifted his focus elsewhere.

If Greenland and Denmark hold out—as they almost certainly will—Trump’s leverage will subside and he’ll probably cut his losses at some point. There could be some sort of face-saving deal, short of a US acquisition of Greenland. Denmark might agree to some sort of phase-in process that Trump might not follow through on, or a future US president could simply undo.

A year from now, will the United States own Greenland? Fat chance. We may barely even remember the controversy, amid whatever other chaos Trump has summoned by then.