The Tamesis
Tariff threats from the United States – which appear to have been dropped as quickly as proposals – are now commonplace for global fashion and luxury brands, which need to adapt to the fact that trade terms are now used as blunt negotiating leverage.
Over the weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose sweeping tariffs on eight European countries – Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland – and tied trade penalties to special demands for a “total and complete purchase of Greenland.” Trump said in a “Truth Social” post that unless an agreement is reached, imported products from the above-mentioned countries will face a 10% tariff starting from February 1, which will rise to 25% on June 1.
However, on Wednesday, after delivering a critical speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump once again announced in the Truth Society magazine that the tariff threat had been abandoned due to a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. “We have developed a framework for a future agreement on Greenland,” Trump wrote. “Based on that understanding, I will not impose the tariffs that were scheduled to take effect on February 1.”
U.S. stocks rose on Wednesday after the news, after plunging earlier in the week as threats of new tariffs emerged. For an industry already weathering a long period of tariff volatility, the news is less a shock than confirmation that uncertainty is becoming a permanent operating condition.
Helen Brocklebank, chief executive of Walpole, which represents the British luxury goods industry, said: “Our first reaction is concern, but not surprise.” She noted that luxury brands are operating in an increasingly politicized trading environment in which announcements can be made quickly and with limited consultation.
The United States remains an important market for European fashion and luxury goods exports, and even the threat of speculative tariffs can create friction in pricing, purchasing and investment decisions. However, after a year of near-constant trade disruption, brands appear less willing to panic and more focused on preparation.
familiar roller coaster
To many executives and advisers, threats related to Greenland feel like an escalation of a trend that began last year.
“The initial reaction was one of desperation as this represents an escalation of the trade disruptions that began in 2025,” said Neil Saunders, managing director of retail at GlobalData. “While no one expects tariffs to go away, there is hope that this year will be more stable, adjusting to tariff changes rather than having to react to new changes. This is clearly not the case as tariffs are now being used for political purposes, which means uncertainty remains.”
The informal nature of the announcement exacerbates this uncertainty. Angela Santos, a partner at ArentFox Schiff, noted that threats were taken down through social media rather than official trade channels after they emerged.
“My first thought was, here we go again,” she said.
Still, brands have learned the hard way that ignoring early signals can be risky. Santos said the past year has shown that “Truth Society” posts can become viable developments or fade into political discourse. Regardless, even speculative announcements can create real uncertainty for businesses that rely on predictable tax rates and the inability to shift production quickly.
Operational fatigue and legal uncertainty
Brockbank said most luxury goods companies are resisting knee-jerk decisions in response to the threat of tariffs. Acting too early can be just as damaging as acting too late, especially in industries where pricing, perception, and long-term brand equity are all important. It’s not the speed that changes, it’s the preparation.
