Trump’s aggressive stance towards Greenland, Canada, and Panama illustrates his expansionist strategy

Donald Trump’s ambitions regarding Greenland, Canada, and Panama often resemble the thoughts of a real estate mogul who views foreign and trade policy as opportunities for new ventures.

However, there is a rationale behind his expansionist approach. Trump is addressing national security challenges that the United States must confront in a world increasingly influenced by China’s ascent, the disparities created by globalization, the melting of polar ice, and the instability among great powers.

His perspective also reflects the “America First” doctrine, which emphasizes leveraging U.S. power to aggressively pursue specific national interests, even at the expense of smaller allied nations.

Trump’s comments about potentially ending the Panama Canal Treaty particularly highlight the current administration’s concerns regarding foreign influence in the Western Hemisphere. This issue is not new; it has been a recurring theme in American history, originating with the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s when European colonialism posed a threat. This concern persisted through the Cold War’s communist anxieties. Today, the perceived challengers are China, Russia, and Iran.

Moreover, Trump’s conviction that the United States should maintain dominance within its sphere of influence offers insight into how he may approach critical global issues, such as the conflict in Ukraine and the situation in Taiwan.

His approach to 21st-century neocolonialism poses significant risks and is likely to clash with international law. Furthermore, Trump could undermine America’s influence by damaging long-established alliances and distancing the nation from its allies.

Trump maintains the option of military action

On Tuesday, Trump heightened global tensions as he responded to a reporter’s inquiry about the possibility of using force to reclaim the Panama Canal or to assert control over strategically vital Greenland.

“I’m not going to commit to that, no,” Trump stated at Mar-a-Lago. “It might be that you’ll have to do something.”

Canadians expressed relief upon hearing that the president-elect would not deploy the 82nd Airborne across the border. Instead, he indicated a preference for economic measures to annex the proud sovereign nation to the north, envisioning it as the 51st state.

As is often the case with Trump, his remarks blended a sense of threat with a touch of humor. The situation took on a comical tone when his son, Donald Jr., flew the family’s Boeing to Greenland, with a bobblehead of Trump positioned on the cockpit control panel. “Make Greenland Great Again!” the president-elect posted on his Truth Social platform shortly before his son’s arrival.

It seems improbable that Trump will achieve his objectives regarding Canada, Panama, or Greenland. His strategy may instead focus on negotiating more favorable terms for the U.S.—potentially securing reduced fees for American ships navigating the crucial waterway between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, enhanced access to rare earth minerals in Greenland, and new trade agreements with Canada that could benefit U.S. manufacturers. Trump would likely frame any such outcomes as significant victories that only he could have accomplished, even if they ultimately prove to be superficial, similar to his first-term US-Mexico-Canada agreement.

Trump’s threats highlight a key aspect of his foreign policy: the belief that nations should pursue their interests independently, which tends to favor powerful, wealthy countries like the United States.

“As president, I have turned away from the unsuccessful strategies of the past, and I am proudly prioritizing America, just as you should prioritize your own nations. That’s perfectly acceptable — that’s what you ought to be doing,” Trump stated at the United Nations General Assembly in 2020.

This perspective is rooted in Trump’s long-standing approach of being the most assertive individual in any situation, seeking victories over less formidable adversaries. This mindset is reflected in his suggestion that Denmark should cede Greenland, a self-governing territory within its realm, due to its significance for U.S. security. He further threatened, “I would impose high tariffs on Denmark” if they did not comply.

Additionally, Trump criticized the U.S. decision to transfer control of the Panama Canal in 1999, under a treaty negotiated by Jimmy Carter, labeling it a mistake that wasted American power. He inaccurately claimed that U.S. vessels faced discrimination in transit fees and suggested that China, rather than Panama, was managing the canal. “We handed the Panama Canal to Panama. We didn’t hand it to China, and they’ve taken advantage of it,” Trump remarked just before Carter’s remains were brought to Washington for his state funeral.

Trump’s assertive demeanor also accounts for his perception of minimal differences between US allies and adversaries. For instance, he expressed dissatisfaction on Tuesday regarding Canada, which he considers America’s closest geographical ally, claiming it is taking advantage of the US defense system and should therefore be a state rather than an independent nation. This perspective undermines the US-led liberal order, which views alliances as strategic investments that enhance American influence and safeguard democracy and freedom.

While the US may be withdrawing from global engagements, it is intensifying its focus on its immediate region

The idea of deploying troops to seize control of the Panama Canal or Greenland may seem at odds with Trump’s campaign rhetoric advocating for avoidance of new foreign commitments. However, it illustrates the “America First” philosophy. A potential withdrawal from traditional global roles during a second Trump term could give way to a form of “continentalism” that might replace globalism, as suggested by Hal Brands, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, in an article for Foreign Affairs last May.

This approach would modernize the doctrine established by President James Monroe in 1823, which was later expanded by President Theodore Roosevelt to assert that the United States should safeguard lives and property in Latin American nations.

Although Trump’s recent comments regarding the Panama Canal have sparked international concern, he initially adopted a more assertive stance in the Western Hemisphere during his first term. “In the Western Hemisphere, we are dedicated to preserving our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers,” Trump stated at the UN General Assembly in 2018. “It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe to reject foreign interference in this hemisphere and in our domestic affairs.”

His approach marked a departure from the policies of the Obama administration, aligning with Trump’s reactionary political stance. In 2013, former Secretary of State John Kerry stated to the Organization of American States, “The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.”

The updated Monroe Doctrine of the 21st century focuses on countering the influence of China, Russia, Iran, and their alliances in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba.

Marco Rubio, an unexpected choice for Trump’s secretary of state due to his conventional foreign policy views, shares his boss’s perspective on issues concerning the hemisphere. During a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 2022, the Florida senator remarked that China was exerting economic pressure that negatively impacted regional economies and empowered cartels responsible for the trafficking of fentanyl and violence across U.S. borders. “They do this because they know that chaos in Latin America and the Caribbean would severely hurt us, destabilize us, who they view as their primary and central rival,” Rubio stated. “We simply can’t afford to let the Chinese Communist Party expand its influence and absorb Latin America and the Caribbean into its private political-economic bloc.”

The potential pitfalls of Trump’s aggressive rhetoric

Trump’s ambitious vision suggests a strong sense of confidence as he approaches his second term, which he aims to use to make a significant impact on America’s role in the world.

His embodiment of the idea that the strong prevail over the weak may also shape his stance on other international matters, particularly the conflict in Ukraine. In a notable statement on Tuesday, Trump expressed understanding for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s concerns regarding the possibility of NATO expansion into Ukraine. “Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feeling about that,” the president-elect commented.

Concerns regarding Trump’s potential acceptance of Russia’s demands have been prevalent. H.R. McMaster, his former national security adviser, noted an instance where Putin drew parallels between his unlawful claims on Ukraine and historical U.S. apprehensions about its own sphere of influence. In his book “At War with Ourselves,” McMaster stated, “Putin utilized his interactions with Trump to initiate a calculated and ongoing effort to influence him.” He further remarked that Putin attempted to create a moral equivalence between U.S. actions in Latin America and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by referencing the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.

While Trump’s brashness may resonate with his base, it is often perceived as hubristic by many international observers. An endeavor to take control of the Panama Canal would be seen as an act of geopolitical theft, and an invasion of Greenland would undermine international legal standards.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose political career has already faced significant challenges due to Trump’s tariff threats, ridiculed Trump’s ambitions regarding Canada. He stated on X, “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.”

This response illustrates the drawbacks of Trump’s tactics. His aggressive stance towards America’s allies could alienate entire populations. Some foreign policy analysts express concern that U.S. threats and pressure in Latin America might inadvertently drive these nations closer to China.

Insults suggesting that Canada would be better off as the 51st state are likely to strengthen negative sentiments among Canadians towards the incoming U.S. president, complicating future negotiations for the next prime minister.

Trump’s apparent indifference to the patriotism of other nations could jeopardize America’s longstanding alliances. It may also instill fear in entire populations. Aaja Chemnitz, a member of the Danish parliament and a resident of Greenland, expressed to CNN’s Erin Burnett, “The majority in Greenland find it quite scary and quite uncomfortable … that the U.S., in a disrespectful manner, is indicating a desire to purchase or control Greenland.”

“Greenland does not align with MAGA. Greenland will not embrace MAGA.”