President-elect Donald Trump ignited widespread controversy among Western officials and international observers on January 7, 2024, following the U.S. Congress' certification of his presidential election victory. Trump openly discussed utilizing U.S. military force to reclaim the Panama Canal and expressed his desire to acquire Greenland, citing both as critical to U.S. national security.

In a series of provocative statements, Trump threatened to employ economic pressure to compel Canada's 40 million citizens to accept their country's downgrade to a U.S. state. Furthermore, he proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" and suggested that NATO member states allocate 5% of their economies to defense spending—a significant increase from the current 2% non-binding guideline.

Outraged Reactions

Trump's controversial remarks sparked global debate and fierce backlash, especially since he left open the possibility of using military force to seize the territories in question. His justification centered on strengthening U.S. national security and boosting the economy. The international community responded with varying degrees of concern and condemnation:

1. Denmark's support for Greenland's local population

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen echoed the sentiments of Greenland's Prime Minister, Mute Egede, who recently affirmed that Greenland was not for sale. Frederiksen emphasized, "Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland. Our future and fight for independence is our business."

2. Canada's rejection of Trump's remarks

3. Mexico's criticism of Trump

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum launched a scathing attack on Trump, declaring, "He lives in the past." She stated that the Gulf of Mexico is internationally recognized and implied that Trump's statements stem from misinformation. During a press conference, Sheinbaum showcased a map highlighting Mexico's former territories, now part of the United States. She provocatively suggested renaming North America to "Mexican America," citing an 1814 foundational document that predates Mexico's constitution. 

4. The U.S. democratic administration's disavowing Trump’s remarks

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken firmly rejected Trump's comments about seizing Greenland. "The idea expressed about Greenland is not a good one, it's not going to happen, and it's not one we should waste time talking about," Blinken told reporters during his final foreign trip to Paris before leaving office. He emphasized that the United States is "stronger" and "more effective" when collaborating with allies rather than "saying and doing things that alienate them."

5. European anger and condemnation

Motives Behind Trump’s Interest in Annexation

Donald Trump's pursuit of control over Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada arises from several key motivations:

1. Greenland's Strategic Value

Over the past two centuries, the United States has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, a strategic territory belonging to Denmark. Washington's desire to purchase the island dates back to 1867, with subsequent offers made in 1910 and 1946. Recently, under the administration of President Donald Trump, this interest resurfaced, leading to a significant diplomatic incident between the United States and Denmark.

In 2019, Trump's proposal to buy Greenland caused a severe diplomatic crisis between Washington and Copenhagen, ultimately resulting in the cancellation of his official visit to Denmark. The situation intensified when Donald Trump Jr. visited Nuuk, Greenland's capital, coinciding with his father's remarks about purchasing the island. Although officially declared a tourist trip without political significance, the visit sparked media frenzy and debate over the Trump administration's true intentions.

Speculation about the nature of Trump Jr.'s visit grew, with some viewing it as an exploratory mission to assess the situation for the new U.S. administration. These concerns were further fueled by a video circulated prior to the trip, featuring a man in a MAGA hat urging Trump to acquire Greenland and "liberate" it from what he termed "Danish colonial rule."

Trump's motives for controlling Greenland include:

a- Exploiting the Island’s calls for independence:

Greenland's Indigenous population, despite the island's official self-rule status from Denmark since 2009, aspires to achieve full independence from the Kingdom of Denmark. This ambition has sparked a pivotal debate within Greenland's internal politics regarding the island's future sovereignty. Prime Minister Múte Egede, in his New Year's address, underscored the necessity of taking "significant steps toward an independent state." With a new parliament set to be elected by April 2025, pro-independence advocates anticipate gaining further momentum, particularly as this parliament will be tasked with initiating the drafting of a constitution. Against this backdrop, Trump seeks to capitalize on these nationalist aspirations to advance his own geo-economic expansionist objectives.

b- Military and geo-strategic significance: 

Trump recognizes Greenland's geopolitical importance due to its strategic location between Moscow and New York. Control by any major power could transform the island into a potential launch point, posing a threat to U.S. national security. Greenland's position along the shortest route from Europe to North America has long made it a key military site, hosting the U.S. Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as Thule Air Base). The base plays a crucial role in early warning systems, U.S. missile defense, and space surveillance operations.

Moreover, Greenland serves as a gateway to the Arctic and its maritime routes. Controlling the island would enable the deployment of radar systems to monitor the waters between Greenland, Iceland, and Britain. Such control would also facilitate tracking of Russian and Chinese naval vessels and submarines.

c- Economic significance:

Greenland boasts a wealth of oil, natural gas, and minerals, including rare earth metals crucial for battery manufacturing and high-tech industries. A 2023 survey revealed that 25 out of 34 minerals deemed "critical raw materials" by the European Commission were present in Greenland. The island's small population, primarily engaged in the fishing sector, coupled with strict Danish laws regulating mining activities to protect its rich environmental diversity, makes it an attractive target for nations with expansionist ambitions.

Climate change further amplifies Greenland's appeal, as melting ice sheets render resource extraction increasingly feasible. According to The Times, Trump perceives Greenland as an underutilized real estate asset, harboring a treasure trove of rare natural resources beneath its thawing ice.

d- Countering Chinese and Russian influence:

Trump's argument regarding Greenland stems from his concerns about China and Russia's growing influence in the Arctic region. He is not alone in raising alarms about these two powers' expansion. Recently, Canada, Denmark, and Norway have highlighted the risks posed by increasing Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic, particularly amid heightened joint military exercises between the two nations in the area.

The United States has expressed mounting concerns about China's expanding investments in Greenland and its efforts to extend influence in recent years. Beijing's unveiling of its Arctic strategy in 2017, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," emphasized Greenland's importance as a new global crossroads and a source of raw materials. American anxieties intensified in 2019 when warnings surfaced about China's plans to build airports in Greenland and potentially purchase an old U.S. naval base there.

2. Control Over the Panama Canal

In the early 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt made the completion of the Panama Canal a top priority. His administration supported the Panamanian Revolution, which successfully gained independence from Colombia in 1903. Subsequently, the United States signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty with Panama, securing a 10-mile wide strip of land for the canal's construction.

The United States completed the canal in 1914, cementing its status as a global powerhouse in engineering and technology. Despite this remarkable achievement, the project exacted a tremendous human toll, with estimates suggesting approximately 5,600 lives lost during construction under U.S. oversight.

World War II demonstrated the canal's geostrategic importance as it served as a critical passage for Allied war efforts between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. However, the canal's presence also led to intermittent diplomatic tensions between the United States and Panama. These tensions reached their peak in January 1964 when anti-American riots resulted in several deaths in the canal zone and a brief severance of diplomatic relations.

A positive shift in relations occurred during President Jimmy Carter's tenure. Carter, more inclined to transfer control of the canal to the people of Panama, successfully negotiated a fairer agreement. Under this new arrangement, the canal was declared neutral and open to all vessels. The agreement established a period of joint U.S.-Panamanian control over the Canal Zone until the end of 1999, at which point full control would be transferred to Panama. As planned, Panama assumed complete ownership of the canal in 2000.

When shipping volumes surpassed the waterway's capacity, a massive expansion project commenced in 2007, reaching completion nearly a decade later. The development thrust the Panama Canal into the global spotlight due to its influence over international maritime traffic, including its impact on U.S. shipping. Consequently, Trump increasingly emphasized the significance of U.S. control over the Panama Canal, framing it as a historical entitlement.

Four key factors drove Trump's stance on Panama:

a- Panama’s Geo-economic importance for the United States:

The Panama Canal's strategic significance cannot be overstated. Generating approximately $4 billion in annual revenue, it facilitates around 6% of global maritime trade. As the canal's largest user, the United States relies heavily on this crucial waterway, with nearly 40% of its container traffic passing through annually. In 2021, an overwhelming 73% of all ships transiting the canal were either heading to or departing from U.S. ports.

Trump's rhetoric extends beyond mere criticism of the historic canal handover. He consistently advocates for the U.S. to regain full control over this vital asset. Such demands align seamlessly with his broader agenda of safeguarding American interests and reasserting U.S. regional and global dominance.

b- A hardline republican backdrop:

The 1977 Torrijos–Carter Treaties regarding the Panama Canal faced significant opposition from many Americans and segments of the U.S. political elite. Opinion polls at the time revealed that nearly half of the American population opposed the decision to transfer control of the canal to Panama, making the agreement highly controversial domestically.

Republicans within the American political establishment were particularly vocal in their opposition. They accused the Democratic Carter administration of recklessly surrendering ownership of the canal. President Ronald Reagan famously echoed this sentiment during his presidential campaign, declaring, "The people of the United States are the rightful owners of the canal." He rallied crowds with the statement, "We built it, we paid for it, it's ours, and ... we are going to keep it!" Trump appears to align with this historical opposition to the treaty. On one occasion, he criticized the Carter agreement, claiming it "foolishly gave the canal away" to the Panamanians. 

c- Eliminating tariffs:

The drought affecting the canal over the past two years has caused water levels to drop, hindering its ability to operate normally. As a result, restrictions on traffic and higher transit fees for ships passing through the canal have been implemented. Trump has repeatedly characterized these fees as a threat to U.S. economic security, describing them as "ridiculous and extremely unfair, especially given the exceptional generosity extended to Panama."

In light of these circumstances, observers believe that Trump's direct criticism of Panama for imposing "exorbitant prices" on U.S. shipping vessels is a strategic maneuver. His aim appears to be securing a special agreement with Panama and the canal's administration. Such a deal would favor Washington by ensuring reduced or eliminated tariffs for American ships transiting the canal.

d- Countering China in Panama:

Donald Trump has made allegations regarding China's intentions to gain greater control over Panama and its canal region. In December 2024, he falsely claimed that Panama had permitted Chinese military personnel to take control of the crucial shipping route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In response to these accusations, the Panamanian president firmly stated, "The canal is not under direct or indirect control, neither by China nor by the European community, by the United States or by any other power."

Trump's rhetoric aligns with the positions of certain elite circles and segments of American society, driven by four key factors. The U.S. Southern Command has previously voiced concerns about growing Chinese investments in Panama. During a Senate committee hearing, General Laura Richardson emphasized that these investments potentially threaten U.S. interests, particularly due to China's control over ports at both ends of the canal through the Hong Kong-based Hutchison Ports Holdings. With strong ties to Beijing, this company could enhance China's influence over critical logistics operations ensuring the canal's efficiency.

Trump's emphasis on countering Chinese influence in Panama echoes these concerns, reflecting a broader anxiety about Beijing's expanding role in strategic global infrastructure. His stance has inspired Republican members of Congress to propose legislation allowing the federal government to take steps toward repurchasing the Panama Canal.

On January 7, 2025, Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene announced plans to introduce a bill aimed at renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America." In a similar vein, Republican Representative Dusty Johnson introduced a two-page bill on January 9, 2025, titled the "Panama Canal Repurchase Act." This legislation would empower the U.S. President and Secretary of State to initiate negotiations with appropriate Panamanian counterparts regarding the reacquisition of the canal.

3. Annexing Canada through economic pressure

Trump made a controversial claim, stating that "many Canadians like the idea of becoming the 51st state of America." He suggested using "economic power" to pressure Canada into merging with the United States. However, analysts believe Trump's comments about annexing Canada are less about genuine intent and more about being "provocative" to pressure Ottawa into accepting future plans addressing trade imbalances between the two nations.

Trump's motives for making these controversial statements about annexing Canada are linked to his desire to achieve the following:

a- Securing media attention:

Donald Trump has attempted to capitalize on the media attention surrounding Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's resignation announcement by insulting the Canadian government. Repeatedly, Trump has referred to Trudeau as a "governor," a title typically reserved for leaders of U.S. states. Analysts believe Trump's statements are strategically aimed at exploiting the situation to secure more favorable trade conditions from Canada.

b- Changing trade relations with Canada:

Donald Trump has vowed to impose a 25% tariff on Canada on his first day in office unless Ottawa addresses his concerns about the flow of illegal drugs across the border. He declared that the tariffs "will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this invasion of our Country."

Trump contends that the United States spends billions of dollars protecting Canada and can no longer tolerate the massive trade deficit and subsidies that keep Canada afloat. He envisions his potential second term resulting in a new arrangement regarding the security and trade relationship between Washington and Ottawa.

Observers argue that Trump's idea of Canada joining the United States is unfeasible. An analysis by Politico highlighted that the Republican Party would be the biggest loser in such a scenario. Democrats would gain significantly, as Canada would likely become a massive "blue state"—comparable to California—potentially securing dozens of seats in the House of Representatives and creating a substantial Democratic advantage in the Electoral College. Moreover, all opinion polls in Canada reflect the Canadian public's alignment with the principles of the Democratic Party.

Implications of Trump's Messages

Trump's statements embody his dedication to the "America First" philosophy and demonstrate his sincere effort to address national security challenges facing the United States. These challenges emerge in a global landscape transformed by China's ascendancy and the disparities resulting from globalization. Viewed through this lens, Trump's remarks suggest the following:

1. Reaffirming global leadership

Donald Trump's remarks unveil his plan to initiate his second term with a sequence of measures aimed at bolstering the United States' global position. The nation's international standing has reportedly diminished over the last ten years, attributed to a policy of withdrawal from specific regions.

2. Securing better deals

Trump's statements likely exemplify his maximum pressure strategy. While he may not genuinely seek to annex Greenland, Panama, or Canada, his true aim appears to be securing more favorable deals that benefit American interests. Preferring bilateral agreements over international alliances, Trump maneuvers individually with each government. His goal is to negotiate advantageous agreements, such as reduced tariffs for U.S. ships transiting the Panama Canal, guaranteed access to Greenland's rare minerals and newly accessible Arctic sea routes, or a new trade deal with Canada that favors U.S. manufacturers.

3. Strengthening American presence in its backyard

Trump's revival of the Monroe Doctrine, a strategy first introduced by President James Monroe in 1823, signals his determination to treat the Western Hemisphere as a sphere of American influence. Throughout the early 20th century and during the Cold War, this doctrine profoundly shaped U.S. foreign policy. By reaffirming this principle, Trump evidently aims to prevent external powers like China from gaining influence in the region, while simultaneously addressing perceived instability in certain countries that contributes to increased migration flows to U.S. territories.

Observers argue that Trump's push for greater U.S. focus on the Americas could have profound unintended consequences. Such a stance may drive countries in the region to seek closer ties with America's rivals, including China, Russia, and Iran. Furthermore, some concerned nations in the region might withdraw from the Organization of American States (OAS), the intergovernmental body that includes most countries in North and South America and the Caribbean.

In conclusion, Donald Trump's statements reflect his commitment to prioritizing United States interests. He has resumed his characteristic blend of bold rhetoric and threats, often employed as negotiation tactics to pressure Washington's partners. This approach puts allies on the defensive, aiming to achieve American goals and secure the best deals under Trump's leadership. However, the risks associated with this strategy are more pronounced due to Trump's apparent disregard for existing American alliances. These partnerships are likely to face disruption as allies feel intimidated, potentially leading to counterproductive outcomes that may inadvertently favor Washington's adversaries.