Now, she said, foreign policy is more prominent in voters’ minds: “Things have definitely shifted.”

Iceland is heading towards a referendum as soon as this summer on whether to plunge into exploratory talks with the European Union about membership. The process could take years, but the fact that there is a big debate signals a real change.

A mutual flirtation

Of course, the bloc does not accept just anyone. Iceland would be an attractive get.

It sits way out in the North Atlantic at the gateway to the Arctic. It would offer the European Union an important foothold in a region where superpowers are vying for dominance.

It is also a wealthy country that almost outpaces the bloc on metrics like gender equality and life expectancy.

For Icelanders, the appeal of the European Union is mostly about stability.

Many Icelanders gasped as Trump confused their country with Greenland and seethed at reports that Billy Long, the pick to be the new US ambassador to Reykjavik, had joked that Iceland could become the 52nd state. Long quickly apologised.

Few think Trump would threaten them directly. But Iceland is the only Nato country without a military and has relied on the alliance, and specifically America, for its defence.

Now that the United States has become a less reliable ally, some Icelanders feel they need insurance. Even though the European Union is not a military force, it does have a little-known clause in its charter that could be used for mutual defence. In March, the bloc and Iceland signed a defence partnership.

“People feel that they might be forced to pick a side,” said Eirikur Bergmann, a politics professor at Bifrost University in Iceland. “And then there is really only one side to pick.”

Fish, fish, fish

It may come down to fish.

Helgi Haraldsson lives an hour south of Reykjavik in Sandgerdi, a small coastal community where most mornings small boats set out for cod. I joined him on a recent day, launching just after 2am, on a 10m boat, the Margret GK-33.

The waves grew, and soon I turned green. “It wasn’t supposed to be like this,” said Haraldsson, the captain, wincing as I heaved.

In a calmer moment, he explained to me that he leans toward voting no on the EU talks because he is worried about his bottom line.

“We need to protect this fishing industry,” he said.

In recent years, Icelanders have watched with alarm as Ireland, an EU member, has endured cuts to fishing quotas that have devastated its coastal communities. In Iceland, fishing is a much bigger part of the economy.

Some Icelanders are heartened by signs that the European Union may be willing to compromise on fishing quotas, if it means bringing Iceland into the bloc.

Still, Haraldsson knows that a negotiation means giving something up.

“If we allow them to come and fish in our restricted areas, it will go terribly wrong,” he said, as dawn broke orange around him.

“There is just a certain amount of fish in the sea.”

‘See what’s in the package’

There could be upsides.

Iceland’s currency, the krona, has long been volatile, while the euro is stable. Inflation is so high that some people have even started complaining about the price of a beloved staple, hot dogs.

Robert Imsland, a teacher with three children, shook his head after buying two on a recent morning. “Even though they are cheap,” he said, “it is really expensive.”

So is just about everything else. (Inflation is currently about 5.2%, close to double that of the European Union.) Groceries can be expensive, experts said, in part because of taxes on products imported from the bloc.

That makes the European Union and the euro seem like a better bet. “I will be able to buy cheaper groceries,” Imsland said.

It all depends on how the talks on joining the bloc shake out. Early polls have indicated that a referendum on starting them would be close.

The debate remains uncharacteristically divisive, said Magnus Tryggvason, a swim coach who lives about an hour east of Reykjavik.

“It will dominate the landscape of Icelandic politics in the next months,” he sighed.

He said he would vote yes. After all, he said, the talks are non-binding – there is no real downside.

“See what’s in the package,” he said. “Then people can decide.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Written by: Amelia Nierenberg

Photographs by: Sergey Ponomarev

©2026 THE NEW YORK TIMES