NextFin News - On January 17-18, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans to impose additional import tariffs on Finland and seven other European countries, citing disputes related to Greenland. The tariffs, initially set at 15 percent last year, are threatened to increase by 10 percent in February and potentially escalate to 25 percent by June, with speculation of reaching 40 percent in the summer. This development was publicly discussed by Finnish economic experts including Lasse Corin, chief economist at Aktia, and Timo Vuori, head of international trade at the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK), who expressed concerns over the economic ramifications for Finland. The tariffs are part of a broader geopolitical maneuver linked to U.S. interests in Greenland and have been met with surprise and skepticism by Finnish financial strategists such as Tanja Wennonen-Kärnä of S-Bank. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to soon rule on the legality of these tariffs, which could alter the trajectory of this trade conflict.
The tariffs target Finland alongside Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France, countries that have supported Greenland and Denmark in international forums and military cooperation. The imposition of these tariffs threatens to disrupt Finland's export sector, which heavily relies on the U.S. market. Vuori emphasized that the near doubling of import duties would adversely affect Finnish export industries and overall economic growth. The uncertainty generated by these tariff threats is already impacting corporate decision-making and investment confidence.
From a trade policy perspective, the situation reveals the fragility of transatlantic economic relations under U.S. President Trump's administration, where economic tools are increasingly used as leverage in geopolitical disputes. The potential for tariffs to be applied selectively to individual EU member states challenges the integrity of the EU customs union, raising concerns about the precedent it sets for future trade conflicts. While some experts like Wennonen-Kärnä doubt the feasibility of targeting individual countries within the EU, others like Corin believe the U.S. may proceed regardless, potentially escalating tensions.
Economically, the tariff escalation risks increasing production costs for Finnish exporters, squeezing profit margins, and potentially leading to higher prices for consumers. This could suppress domestic consumption, which Finnish strategists had hoped would recover in 2026. The uncertainty may also delay capital expenditures and hiring, further slowing economic momentum. The Finnish government, including figures like former President Alexander Stubb and Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, advocates for diplomatic negotiations to resolve the dispute, warning against retaliatory measures that could spiral into a trade war.
In response, the European Union is considering countermeasures, including targeted tariffs on products from U.S. states supportive of President Trump or tariffs on American digital services. However, experts caution that such responses could exacerbate tensions and harm broader economic interests. The situation also highlights the strategic importance of diversifying trade partnerships beyond the U.S. and Europe. Vuori pointed to the recently signed Mercosur trade agreement as a critical step for Europe and Finland to strengthen ties with Latin America amid strained U.S.-Europe relations and the complex dynamics involving China.
Looking forward, the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the tariffs' legality will be pivotal. Should the court invalidate the tariffs, it may de-escalate the immediate threat, but experts warn that alternative legal justifications for tariffs could emerge. The broader trend suggests a continuation of trade policy as a tool of geopolitical strategy under U.S. President Trump's administration, necessitating vigilance and adaptability from Finnish policymakers and businesses.
In conclusion, the proposed tariffs by U.S. President Trump represent a significant source of economic uncertainty for Finland, with potential to disrupt export industries, dampen consumption, and strain transatlantic relations. The situation underscores the need for Finland to accelerate diversification of its trade partnerships and for the EU to carefully balance diplomatic engagement with strategic economic responses to safeguard its economic interests in an increasingly complex global trade environment.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.