Imagine a world where a former U.S. president's audacious plan to acquire an entire country is derailed by a single court ruling. That’s the scenario playing out this week as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to deliver a decision that could upend Donald Trump’s controversial bid to purchase Greenland. But here's where it gets controversial: the Court’s ruling on Tuesday could declare Trump’s trade tariffs—a key tool in his Greenland strategy—unconstitutional, effectively slamming the brakes on his ambitious plan.
Trump’s latest move came late last night in a fiery post on Truth Social: “Now it is time, and it will be done!!!” This followed his earlier threat to slap tariffs of 10%, escalating to 25% by June 1, on major European nations including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland. His ultimatum? Agree to the “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland” or face economic consequences. But is this just bluster, or a legitimate geopolitical maneuver?
Wall Street analysts are watching closely, as the Supreme Court is expected to rule that Trump lacks the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on routine international trade. If this happens, Trump’s threats could lose their teeth—at least temporarily. UBS warned clients this morning, “Threatened U.S. tariffs … may be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.” ING economists Carsten Brzeski and Bert Colijn added, “If the Supreme Court rules against all earlier IEEPA tariffs, Trump’s latest announcement [about Greenland] would be void, and he would have to find other levers. A process that would take more time.”
The ruling, initially expected earlier this month, has been delayed, sparking speculation. During oral arguments, the Court seemed skeptical of the White House’s position, but some now wonder if the justices are leaning toward the Trump Administration. History shows the Court often takes longer with its most consequential decisions. Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid noted, “While additional opinions are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, our economists believe the ruling may not come until later this year, possibly as late as June.”
But here’s the part most people miss: Even if the Court rules against Trump, it doesn’t necessarily kill his Greenland dream. It simply forces him to rethink his strategy. And this raises a bigger question: Should a single leader have the power to pursue such a bold—and potentially destabilizing—geopolitical move?
As we navigate this high-stakes drama, join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit on May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The future of work is being redefined by AI, humanity, and strategy, and this event will bring together the world’s most innovative leaders to explore what’s next. Register now and be part of the conversation.
About the Author
Jim Edwards, Fortune’s executive editor for global news, brings a wealth of experience to this story. Formerly the editor-in-chief of Business Insider’s news division and the founding editor of Business Insider UK, his investigative work has reshaped laws in two U.S. federal districts and two states. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court cited his reporting on the death penalty in its concurrence to Baze v. Rees. He’s also a Neal Award winner for exposing corruption in the advertising industry. Full bio
