Gold And Silver Soar As Trump Threatens Tariffs

On Monday, January 19, 2026, the world watched as gold and silver prices soared to unprecedented heights, a direct reflection of the diplomatic earthquake rumbling between the United States and its European allies. The catalyst? President Donald Trump’s threat to slap new tariffs on eight European nations—Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—over their opposition to his audacious proposal to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. According to BBC, gold touched a record high of $4,689.39 (£3,499) an ounce, and silver surged to $94.08 an ounce, as investors scrambled for safe havens amid the escalating crisis.

For UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the morning was anything but routine. Instead of traveling outside London to champion his government’s efforts to ease the cost of living—a trip he’d meticulously planned—he found himself preparing to address the nation from Downing Street. The reason? The extraordinary diplomatic turmoil unleashed by Trump’s Greenland gambit, which had, once again, forced domestic priorities to take a back seat to international drama.

Starmer’s response was swift and unequivocal. On Sunday, January 18, he embarked on a flurry of phone calls, first connecting with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, before speaking directly to President Trump. In each conversation, Starmer held firm: “Applying tariffs on allies for pursuing the collective security of NATO allies is wrong,” he told Trump, as reported by Reuters. He reiterated that “security in the High North is a priority for all NATO allies in order to protect Euro-Atlantic interests.”

Downing Street’s summary of the calls left no doubt about the UK’s stance. Starmer was determined to make it clear that the imposition of tariffs would be a grave mistake, one he personally spelled out to Trump by phone. “Our position on Greenland is non-negotiable. We’ve made that very clear and we’ll continue to make that clear. President Trump’s position on Greenland is different. Notwithstanding that, it is in our collective interest to work together and not to start a war of words,” said Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy in a Sky News interview, echoing the government’s resolve.

Trump’s threats were as bold as they were unprecedented. He announced plans to impose new tariffs—starting at 10% on February 1, 2026, and rising to 25% by June 1 if a deal over Greenland was not struck—targeting key US allies that had deployed troops to Greenland in response to American pressure over its future. The move sent shockwaves through both the European Union and NATO, with a joint statement from the affected countries condemning the threats as actions that “undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.”

Diplomatic observers were stunned by the scale and nature of the crisis. As one long-standing Western diplomacy expert told BBC, “This is extraordinary. We haven’t seen anything like this in 80 years. This is pure political coercion against NATO allies over the attempted seizing of a chunk of territory—it’s astonishing.”

The timing of the crisis was particularly poignant. Just days before, Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper had attended a ceremony in Westminster marking the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations—a reminder of the international norms and alliances forged in the aftermath of World War Two. Yet, as the ink dried on speeches about unity and collective security, Trump was, in the words of BBC, “shredding the international norms and conventions organisations like the UN and NATO were set up to espouse all those years ago.”

Behind the scenes, the UK government scrambled to respond. Finance Minister Rachel Reeves was set to appear alongside Starmer at Monday’s press conference, where the threat of US tariffs would be outlined in detail. Starmer’s team was keen to stress the indivisibility of international and domestic issues, arguing that being a serious player on the global stage was essential to addressing the everyday concerns of British voters. But for many in Whitehall, there was a sense of frustration, as yet another domestic agenda was derailed by the unpredictable currents of global diplomacy.

Across the political spectrum in the UK, condemnation of Trump’s tariff threats was near-universal. Even Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, typically sympathetic to the US president, joined every major party in denouncing the proposed measures. The Liberal Democrats called for an emergency Commons debate and urged the government to scrap a pharmaceutical deal with Washington, while some Labour MPs pushed for a more overtly pro-European stance. Still, Starmer resisted calls for immediate retaliatory tariffs, preferring to keep the focus on dialogue and de-escalation. “Rather than ‘shout and yell’, the aim was to have serious but private talks with the US administration,” Nandy explained on Sunday.

Despite the mounting pressure, Starmer was not expected to sever ties or escalate the row. UK officials pointed to his unexpectedly cordial relationship with Trump—cultivated through state visits and frequent conversations—as a potential asset in persuading the White House to reconsider. “UK officials insist this has brought benefits, in terms of trade arrangements with the US and also in allowing Starmer to act as a bridge between Washington and other NATO members,” reported The Guardian. Yet, there was an unspoken acknowledgment that relations with the mercurial US leader could sour at any moment.

Meanwhile, European leaders weighed their options. Some feared that countermeasures could deepen the rift with Washington and harm Europe as much, if not more, than the United States. Others hoped that a face-to-face meeting with Trump—perhaps at the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos—might offer a path to resolution. For now, Downing Street and the Foreign Office continued their diplomatic outreach, hoping to steer the crisis away from further escalation.

Throughout the weekend, Trump continued to justify his position on social media, claiming that NATO had been urging Denmark for two decades to address the Russian threat in Greenland and that “now it is time, and it will be done!!!” The rhetoric only served to heighten tensions and uncertainty, fueling market volatility and diplomatic anxiety in equal measure.

As the world awaits the next move—be it a negotiated settlement, a further escalation, or a surprise twist at Davos—the stakes remain high. The outcome of the Greenland row will not only shape the future of US-European relations but could also redefine the boundaries of international order in the twenty-first century.

For now, the only certainty is that the crisis has forced leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to confront uncomfortable questions about alliances, sovereignty, and the price of global stability.