Starmer calls Trump tariffs wrong, defends Greenland (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: British Prime Minister Akir Starmer is getting ready to hold a news conference. This comes after Starmer told President Trump on Sunday he's wrong for targeting Britain and fellow NATO allies with tariffs. Let's listen together.

[00:00:11] Speaker 2: 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. So let me begin with the United States. The UK and the US are close allies and close partners. That relationship matters profoundly, not just to our security, but to the prosperity and the stability that people here depend upon. Under President Trump, as under previous presidents, we're determined to keep that relationship strong, constructive and focused on results. And that approach is delivering. Through sustained engagement, we've seen significant US investment into the UK economy, running into hundreds of billions of pounds, supporting growth, skills and jobs right across the country. 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. We've secured good trading terms in key sectors, including cars, steel, aerospace and life sciences, protecting British jobs and manufacturers. That is why we take the approach that we do. Because it delivers concrete outcomes in the national interest. I talk regularly to President Trump. My team is in daily contact with all the key figures in his administration. These relationships matter. They deliver concrete outcomes in the national interest. Mature alliances are not about pretending differences don't exist. They are about addressing them directly, respectfully and with a focus on results. On Greenland, the right way to approach an issue of this seriousness is through calm discussion between allies. And let's be clear, the security of Greenland matters. And it will matter more as climate change reshapes the Arctic, as sea routes open and strategic competition intensifies. The High North will require greater attention, greater investment and stronger collective defence. The United States will be central to that effort. And the UK stands ready to contribute fully alongside our allies through NATO. But there is a principle here that cannot be set aside. Because it goes to the heart of how stable and trusted international cooperation works. And so any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. That right is fundamental and we support it. Denmark is a close ally of the United Kingdom and of the United States. A proud NATO member that has stood shoulder to shoulder with us, including at real human cost in recent decades. Alliances endure because they're built on respect and partnership, not pressure. That is why I said the use of tariffs against allies is completely wrong. 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 a justification for economic pressure.

[00:04:34] Speaker 1: We've just been listening to British Prime Minister there Keir Starmer. He spoke for a little bit more than 30 minutes or so from Downing Street. Just a few takeaways from his comments there. He said mature alliances are not about pretending differences don't exist. They're about addressing them respectfully. He later said any discussion about Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and Denmark. Alliances endure because they're built on respect and partnerships, not pressure. He said Britain is a pragmatic country. We look for agreement, but being pragmatic doesn't mean being passive. However, when asked repeatedly, I would say the majority of questions from the press were about the potential for retaliatory tariffs after President Trump's threats. He sort of really shied away from that. I want to continue the conversation now and bring into the discussion live from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Josh Lipsky, who's Senior Director of the Atlantic Council's Geoeconomic Center. Josh, great to have you this morning. Before we talk about what Keir Starmer just said, I actually want to play for our audience some reporting from Reuters. This is apparently President Trump telling the Norwegian Prime Minister that he no longer feels, quote, an obligation to think about an obligation to think about purely a peace after he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Josh, your reaction to that?

[00:05:50] Speaker 3: Well, we are in a crisis right now, a transatlantic crisis, and I think it's important to understand why the President's social media output over the weekend set off a series of events, which you saw the Prime Minister just react to. There is division within Europe over how to respond. You saw the EU leaders convening yesterday to think about what kind of retaliatory measures, if any, they will threaten. You just heard from the UK, they don't want to put retaliatory measures on the table. The UK and the EU are trying not to escalate, but they're finding increasingly hard to do so. They don't see the areas right now of off-ramps from the US side, and there's no deal space right now. It's unclear what the US wants outside of getting Greenland for the US. That's a non-starter, as we understand completely from the UK and the EU perspective, certainly from Denmark's perspective. This is where we are, a disagreement unlike any we've seen in the first Trump term with him using his favorite economic tool, tariffs, just like he did in the first year of the second term.

[00:06:51] Speaker 1: Josh, if tariffs or retaliatory tariffs appear to be off the table, at least from Starmer's comments, what options does Europe have now?

[00:07:01] Speaker 3: Well, I think Europe is going to have to have a strong and unified response. We've heard that the EU is preparing a 93 billion euro package. Obviously, that will be not met well at the White House if Berlin and Boeing and others become right into the possibility of what is threatened right there. But I think what's important to understand from that perspective is that in this situation, Europe has tried the de-escalatory path that hasn't worked so far, and they thought they had a deal, both the UK and the EU, only to wake up Saturday and be threatened with tariffs. And so I think you're going to see a much stronger response than you saw any time in the first year of Trump's second term.

[00:07:41] Speaker 1: And Josh, we can appreciate that. It's a very bustling scene behind you there in Davos. So we appreciate you trying to get to us and speak to us about this important issue. Let me ask, on the Supreme Court, we are expecting a decision. We've been waiting for it for weeks now about the legality of President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. Depending on what happens and what comes out of the Supreme Court, how does that impact these new threats of tariffs?

[00:08:11] Speaker 3: Well, the president's key economic leverage here could be undercut as soon as Tuesday. He's expected here Wednesday in Davos. So think of the dynamic and the volatility. We could get the Supreme Court decision Tuesday. We don't know for sure. They could overrule his authority to use AIPA. That's the threat, the authority he used this weekend. So all that is potentially undercut. Now, that doesn't mean the White House doesn't have backup plan upon backup plan. You heard the prime minister just say, we don't want to wait on the Supreme Court. There's other tariffs the U.S. could try to implement. But make no mistake, if this Supreme Court rules against the president, it will be increasingly destabilizing to a situation that's already volatile right now. And I think the president seeing that, and if he sees Europe escalate, could threaten even more than we've already seen, the 10 percent. It reminds me of the tit-for-tat we got into with China in the spring, if you remember that, in the trade wars last year. And right now we're on that course. That doesn't mean we can't find off-ramps, but they're increasingly hard to see at the moment.

[00:09:10] Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you know, Josh, I saw over the weekend some comments from Republican lawmakers who sort of downplayed these threats from Trump and said, look, this is art of the deal. This is the beginning of a negotiation. I'm curious if you see it that way, too.

[00:09:27] Speaker 3: I don't, because the question I have is, what's the deal? In the trade situations last year, you really understood that Trump was threatening tariffs. He would lower tariffs, for example, on the U.K., in return for them dropping tariffs and investments in the U.S. Same with the E.U. These were the deals that were struck all over the world. But what is the deal with Greenland? Denmark and Europe are not giving away Greenland. They have been completely clear on that point. The president, on the other hand, has been completely clear he wants it, no questions asked. So this, to me, is why it's different and much harder to say this is just Trump negotiating. I don't see the space between them. Now, it may be created. We may find it, perhaps this week in Davos, where many of them will be here in person meeting. But it's a different kind of crisis than the ones we've experienced so far in the second Trump administration.

[00:10:13] Speaker 1: I mean, is Keir Starmer the person who might be able to find it? I mean, he has had success with Trump in the past, diplomatically. He seems to think that he might be able to reach some sort of agreement here.

[00:10:26] Speaker 3: Well, I think you could see in that press conference he was trying to position himself between the U.S. and the E.U. as the person who could broker this deal. But I also noted from him a sense of uncertainty of what that deal would look like. He said he spoke to the president. He said he didn't think there would be military action. He said he didn't want to threaten U.K. tariffs. But I didn't hear what the offer would be. I think he wants to play that role, but it also requires the president wanting him to play that role. And that's a very open question in my mind right now.