Which European embassies in Washington issued statements after the Greenland/tariff controversy in January 2026?
Executive summary
The reporting assembled documents a rapid, public backlash from European capitals and EU institutions to President Trump’s January 2026 tariff threats over Greenland, naming the eight countries targeted and showing EU diplomats convening crisis talks, but none of the provided sources record or list specific European embassies in Washington that issued statements in the immediate aftermath [1] [2] [3]. This analysis explains what the sources do report, and is explicit about the reporting gap on embassy-level statements in Washington.
1. What the sources say about European responses — governments and EU, not embassies
European heads of government and foreign ministers publicly condemned the tariff threats, with leaders such as Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and ministers including the Dutch foreign minister calling the move “blackmail,” and the European Commission and member-state capitals weighing retaliation and invoking a rarely used anti-coercion instrument [3] [4] [5]. EU ambassadors and national capitals scrambled to coordinate, with EU ambassadors said to have reached broad agreement to intensify diplomatic efforts to dissuade the U.S. and prepare retaliatory measures should tariffs be imposed [1] [2].
2. Which countries were named as targets — the list reported across outlets
Reporting consistently lists eight countries that President Trump threatened to hit with escalating tariffs: Denmark and Greenland’s defenders plus Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, the United Kingdom and Norway — a grouping repeated across Reuters, The Guardian and other outlets [1] [6] [7]. That list is key because those national governments, not necessarily their Washington embassies, were the actors publicly coordinating Europe’s rebuttal in the sources provided [1] [2].
3. What the sources show about where statements came from — capitals, EU institutions, and ministers
The public-facing responses documented in the coverage come from national leaders, foreign ministers and EU institutions: for example, the EU considered using its anti-coercion law and senior diplomats held crisis talks, while French, Dutch and other leaders publicly criticized the U.S. posture [3] [2] [4]. Media liveblogs and wire stories record protests in Nuuk and statements from national foreign ministries and party leaders, rather than attributing an immediate wave of named statements to specific embassy missions in Washington [6] [4].
4. The reporting gap — no source here lists European embassies in Washington issuing statements
None of the supplied sources explicitly reports that specific European embassies in Washington issued statements after the tariff controversy; the items cite national leaders, ministers, EU ambassadors and home‑capital diplomacy but do not catalogue embassy statements in Washington, D.C. [1] [2] [3]. Because the primary materials do not contain that detail, it cannot be asserted which European embassies in Washington issued statements based on the provided reporting.
5. How to settle the question (where reporting is silent)
To answer definitively would require direct checks of embassy press pages and social channels and State Department or White House press logs — sources not included in the set provided here — or follow‑ups from wire services that focus on embassy releases; the present reporting does not supply that granular, mission‑level attribution [1] [2]. Meanwhile, the available coverage makes clear that national capitals and the EU were the visible actors coordinating Europe’s diplomatic response and exploring counter‑measures [3] [4].