Why does Trump want Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal
The newly elected U.S. President, Donald Trump, has sparked global concern with his bold ambitions, which some warn could open a Pandora’s box of unpredictable consequences. According to a Kazinform News Agency correspondent, his unconventional ideas challenge global norms and may trigger shifts in the balance of power and the role of U.S. leadership.
Trump’s foreign policy ego
Donald Trump has not yet assumed the presidency, but he has already caused the world to question how literally he intends to implement his slogan, “Make America Great Again”. His frequent statements about annexing Greenland and Canada, as well as regaining control over the Panama Canal, go far beyond efforts to enhance the nation’s competitiveness. These ideas echo expansionist policies from the 19th century, raising concerns about a potential return to an era where power dictated rights, and national interests were pursued unilaterally. Such a move could metaphorically open Pandora’s box, with unpredictable consequences for the global order.
On January 7, during a press conference at his Florida residence, Trump declined to rule out the use of military or economic pressure to establish control over Greenland and the Panama Canal. He also mentioned the potential use of economic pressure in connection with annexing Canada.
Notably, Trump frequently highlighted U.S. military interests. He asserted that the Panama Canal was originally built to serve U.S. military needs and argued that Greenland is strategically vital for monitoring naval activity from Russia and China. This perspective reflects historical reasoning: the Panama Canal was constructed in part to facilitate the movement of military ships between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, while Greenland played a crucial role during World War II in countering German submarines. During the Cold War, Greenland’s bases were instrumental in tracking Soviet submarines.
Thus, while Trump might appear isolationist in some respects, his approach is distinctly militant. He views America as a fortress that must be fortified, even if that necessitates external expansion. This perspective resembles a modern reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. In 1823, President James Monroe declared the Americas a U.S. sphere of interest, warning European powers against interference in Latin America. Throughout the 19th century, the U.S. frequently intervened in Latin American affairs, annexing 55% of Mexico’s territory after the 1846–1848 war—land that today includes California, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. Subsequent U.S. military interventions in countries like Cuba and the Dominican Republic further solidified this approach, commonly referred to as “gunboat diplomacy”.
A historical perspective on Canada
Interestingly, the U.S. also attempted to take over Canada in the past. This ambition contributed to the Anglo-American War of 1812. President Thomas Jefferson advocated “liberating Canadians from British rule”. His successor, James Madison, declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812. While the U.S. failed to conquer Canada, American forces burned York (modern-day Toronto), prompting British troops to retaliate by burning Washington, D.C.
Even earlier, during the American War of Independence, many American politicians believed it was logical for Canada to join the United States. Some targeted English settlers, while others focused on French Canadians, who had recently been conquered by Britain. However, in both the 1770s–1780s and the War of 1812, Canadians resisted annexation.
Trump’s geopolitical gambit?
Why Trump has resurrected ideas from the Jefferson and Madison eras remains one of the greatest puzzles of his complex political outlook. While sending troops to Panama might mimic the 1989 operation to oust President Manuel Noriega and purchasing Greenland could be plausible, annexing Canada is far more challenging.
Theoretically, Trump might attempt to “buy out” Greenland’s population of just 57,000 people. Offering $100,000 per resident would cost $5.7 billion—a sum that wealthy American oligarchs like Elon Musk could afford. However, Canada is among the world’s most developed nations, a G7 member, and part of NATO. Its social policies are more advanced than those in the U.S., and Canadian identity—especially Franco-Canadian identity—is deeply rooted. Franco-Canadians, in particular, have fought hard to strengthen their position within Canada and would be unlikely to risk it by joining predominantly English-speaking America.
Economic pressure alone is unlikely to sway Canadians toward abandoning independence. While Trump frequently discusses imposing a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, he primarily ties this to illegal immigration and drug trafficking—issues more relevant to Mexico than Canada. Nevertheless, his rhetoric about annexing Canada raises suspicions.
A strategy of bold declarations
Trump’s strategy of making bold statements may be a deliberate tactic to raise the stakes in the geopolitical game he plans to initiate after his inauguration. By projecting himself as an unpredictable and decisive leader, he could gain leverage in negotiations on critical issues such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Middle East (particularly Iran), and relations with China. While his rhetoric about Greenland may not intimidate all global counterparts, it is likely to provoke unease and draw attention.
Trump’s statements increasingly include military themes. For instance, he has proposed that NATO members allocate 5% of their GDP to defense, a significant increase from the 2% target he previously advocated. While most European nations have met the 2% benchmark, raising it to 5% would require a substantial shift, akin to the economic restructuring of the Cold War era. For socially-oriented European economies, this adjustment would be both challenging and disruptive, potentially triggering a wave of reindustrialization to support increased defense spending.
Trump’s approach resembles the speed and intensity of a metaphorical 19th-century cavalry charge. This style forces foreign leaders into difficult positions, as it deviates sharply from the more predictable, process-driven diplomacy of previous liberal U.S. administrations. The former reliance on procedures, compromises, and consideration of mutual interests has been replaced by a new, more aggressive tone. Even if these bold moves remain rhetorical, they have already heightened global political tensions.
Recently, it was reported that the President-elect of the United States suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America”. In response, the President of Mexico remarked, “We could call the U.S. Mexican America”.
