Norwegian security at risk after failed US negotiations
The government has not concluded a new trade agreement with the US within the deadline. This has greater consequences for Norway than the government suggests, and puts Norway's security at risk
August 2, 2025
Minister of Trade Cecilie Myrseth. Photo: NFD / David Berg Tvetene
Trade negotiations and democracy
The deadline for concluding a trade agreement with the Trump administration expired on 31 July. Norway was originally assigned a tariff rate of 15%, to take effect from 7 August. The 15% refers to a tariff ceiling on the sum of the new general tariff and the existing ordinary tariff (MFN). The general tariff rate is 10%. Minister of Trade and Industry Cecilie Myrseth states that the negotiations are continuing.
Both the trade minister and Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store are playing down the consequences for Norway of the government's failure to secure an agreement. In addition to the serious situation this places Norway in, the government's lack of communication is a threat to democracy's principles of transparency and influence. There is a parliamentary election on 8 September, and the most important issue for Norwegian welfare and sovereignty is being shielded from public debate.
Consequences for the economy and defence security
The tariff has consequences for Norwegian industry. Even though trade with the US accounts for only around 3.7%, it hits individual sectors hard. But more serious for Norway is that the government is thereby failing to facilitate growth in trade with the US. That has two negative effects: Norway signals to the US that it is not interested as a trading partner, and Norwegian business is locked even more tightly to the EU.
Locking such a large share (87%) of Norwegian trade to a single trading partner, as the government is doing here with the EU, constitutes a risk in itself. In addition, the government has itself warned that Norway could end up in a tariff conflict with the EU, something it refers to as a triple squeeze. Only a few days ago the EU notified Norway of tariffs on ferroalloys, despite this being contrary to the EEA Agreement. It may appear that the government wants to create a triple squeeze scenario in order to construct arguments for EU membership.
While Norway initially held an advantage over the EU, since the tariff imposed by the US was 15% against the EU's 20%, the situation now is that the EU has negotiated its way down to a tariff ceiling of 15%, while Norway is in a worse position after failing in the negotiations – Norway has no tariff ceiling.
Military security
Norway is heavily involved economically and strategically in the war in Ukraine; Russia considers everyone contributing on Ukraine's side to be a party to the war. NATO is in a fragile state, and the American president has made it clear that trade agreements and bilateral relations are decisive for defense cooperation. It is therefore deeply worrying that the Norwegian government is deprioritizing the relationship with the only ally that has sufficient military strength to come to Norway's rescue if Russia attacks.
Critical minerals are the heart of the dispute
Stable access to critical minerals is decisive for industry, but more important still is that they are essential for the weapons industry. There are not enough mineral resources on the European continent for the EU to defend either itself, Ukraine, Norway or the Barents Sea without an allied partner. Deposits exist, but they are not being extracted, and it takes many years to establish mining operations.
Russia has sufficient access to minerals through its alliance with China. The US is entering into mineral partnerships across the world and investing in mining projects on its own continent. Best known is the agreement with Ukraine, concluded after substantial pressure from American President Donald Trump on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The pressure consisted, among other things, of Trump cultivating the relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who for his part offered the US minerals from both Russia and the occupied areas of Ukraine.
When the US secured first rights to Ukrainian minerals through the minerals agreement, the situation for the EU's defence capability became further strained. This explains why the EU accepted a tariff ceiling of 15% while at the same time concluding a major arms deal with the US; the agreement was reached at Turnberry in Scotland earlier this week, before the deadline expired. At the same time, it remains unclear whether the 15% tariff ceiling also applies to semiconductors containing critical minerals from China.
Minerals are central to the tariff negotiations between Norway and the US
Norway has the largest deposit of critical minerals on the European continent; the find at the Fen Field in Telemark became known last year. It is important to point out that Norwegian resources are not sufficient to cover the acute European mineral shortage, and that it will take many years before a mine is in operation. The EU wants to secure the right to Norwegian minerals, and the government plans to implement the EU regulation CRMA; this was published in a press release on 28 March this year. The CRMA has mechanisms that give the EU control over Norwegian minerals. The electricity directive ACER is by comparison a drop in the ocean.
Trump wants Norwegian minerals to strengthen the US position in the Arctic, the same reason he wants Greenland. Furthermore, Trump probably intends to block the EU's access to mineral resources so that NATO's member states become directly dependent on the US. The president may appear both erratic and unpredictable, but Trump has a strategic plan and is in the process of outmaneuvering one head of state after another. To believe that Store, Stoltenberg and Myrseth can match Trump is naive at best, something confirmed by their failure to secure the tariff agreement within the deadline.
Over the past week the situation has sharpened, and Trump has moved nuclear submarines closer to Russia following statements from Dmitry Medvedev. It is highly likely that Norway could become Putin's next target.
By concluding a trade and minerals agreement with the US, Norway would have defense security independent of both the EU and NATO. That would mean Norway cannot implement the EU's minerals regulation, the CRMA, as the government has planned. We face a parliamentary election, and Norway needs a new government that will either veto the minerals regulation or decide the matter through a referendum.
Get more information in the Mineral Petition.
RELATED ARTICLES
SOURCES
E24
The US tariff on Norway: Serious for the sectors affectedReuters
Trump orders nuclear submarines moved after Russian 'provocative statements'The Norwegian Government
Press release on the incorporation of the CRMAEuropean Commission
Critical Raw Materials Act CRMA
Content on Society and Politics is based on reliable sources and actual events, providing a news-oriented perspective intented for further debate. To access the article’s author and the related debate, membership on Hudd is required.