This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to receive stories like this directly in your inbox.
On Tuesday, President-elect Donald Trump stirred controversy with his provocative statements regarding the potential use of U.S. military force to reclaim the Panama Canal and gain control over Greenland. He even suggested the idea of persuading 40 million Canadians to consider joining the United States as its 51st state. Among his array of bold proposals, he called for renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and urged NATO member countries to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP, a significant leap from the current non-binding guideline of 2%.
Trump’s remarks may seem like fanciful musings to some, but they reflect a serious and imaginative approach to international relations. His comments suggest a view of global geopolitics akin to a game of Monopoly, where territories can be claimed at will. While the content of his statements may be questionable, they cannot be easily dismissed by global leaders.
Each of these assertions, when examined on their own, could raise alarms among U.S. allies. Collectively, they indicate a pressing need for a thorough reevaluation of how to engage with the forthcoming Trump administration. The principles of international partnerships appear to be under scrutiny, and Trump seems to revel in testing their limits.
During a press conference at his Florida resort, Trump boasted about his perceived influence, even claiming responsibility for Meta’s recent decision to halt fact-checking on posts. He suggested this shift was a direct response to his previous threats directed at the company and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
Trump’s comments regarding the Panama Canal, a vital shipping route that the U.S. constructed in 1914 and fully transferred to Panama in 1999, were particularly noteworthy. “Jimmy Carter gave it away for a dollar, and they were supposed to treat us well. I thought that was a terrible mistake,” Trump said, just hours before the late President Carter’s body was set to arrive in Washington for his funeral.
Although Trump’s language was often vague, he indicated a desire to regain control over the canal and, when pressed on the possibility of using military force, he refrained from ruling it out. “I’m not going to say that,” he replied. “It may come to that. The Panama Canal is crucial for our nation.” (Notably, Panama does not maintain a standing army.)
His expansionist rhetoric also targeted Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark that Trump had previously attempted to buy during his first term. On Tuesday, he threatened to impose high tariffs on Denmark unless it surrendered Greenland to the U.S. While Greenland operates its own government, its national defense falls under Denmark’s jurisdiction, with the Danish Embassy in Washington representing its interests.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen quickly reiterated that Greenland is not for sale. This assertion coincided with a visit to Greenland by Donald Trump Jr. and incoming White House personnel chief Sergio Gor, which some observers may interpret as a provocative gesture.
Canada, too, has been a target of Trump’s rhetoric. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as party leader and departed 24 Sussex Drive shortly after. Trump has frequently ridiculed the Canadian Prime Minister, suggesting that Canadians might be open to the notion of joining the U.S. On Tuesday, he even humorously endorsed hockey legend Wayne Gretzky as a potential leader for Canadians, not necessarily as Prime Minister but as their Governor.
Such displays of American assertiveness are characteristic of Trump’s administration. In a seemingly unrelated comment, he declared his intention to rename the body of water adjacent to Texas, Florida, Mexico, and Cuba as The Gulf of America. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a fervent supporter of Trump, quickly announced plans to draft legislation to fulfill the President-elect’s wishes.
Finally, Trump suggested increasing NATO’s defense spending requirement from 2% to 5% of each member nation’s GDP. He has long misunderstood the 2% guideline, viewing it as a mandatory fee for the 32 NATO members. Currently, no nation meets the 5% threshold; Poland leads with 3.9%, while the U.S. hovers around 3.5%. Trump’s persistent concerns about perceived freeloading by NATO allies were a recurring theme during his first term, and he appears poised to continue pressuring allies to contribute more to the alliance formed to counter Soviet — and now Russian — aggression. If military action is pursued, questions arise regarding NATO’s obligations to defend Denmark, a member state.
This brings us to an uncomfortable reality: Trump’s targets are not arbitrary. The United States and Denmark share a long-standing partnership, having collaborated in various conflicts, including those in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Panama is critical to U.S. trade, with American vessels constituting about 75% of the canal’s traffic; roughly 40% of all U.S. container ships navigate this essential route. The U.S. shares the longest border in the world with Canada, and their economies and cultures are deeply intertwined, making the Washington-Ottawa relationship one of the most resilient in the Western Hemisphere. Trump has previously made strides in urging NATO allies to increase their spending, yet his continued criticism of allies raises concerns about the future of these partnerships.
Therefore, witnessing the incoming President engage in such self-destructive confrontations with allies is both perplexing and alarming. Supporters of Trump argue that this bravado is part of his persona and claim he behaves more pragmatically when the cameras are off. Nonetheless, the signals emanating from Florida on Tuesday were unmistakable, making it reckless for foreign ministries to overlook them. For some, Meta’s recent actions may reflect a strategy of appeasement: surrender to the bully and hope he targets someone else next.
The United States — with Trump as its representative in foreign affairs — can effectively exert pressure on many nations. This approach has a history of resulting in unintended consequences and strained relations, yet it can produce results, at least in the short term. While it undermines America’s image as a benevolent global leader, such overt displays of power may sometimes feel necessary. Typically, a simple phone call suffices among allies, but Trump seems intent on making a public demonstration of strength.
However, Trump’s focus is not on smaller nations with limited stakes. He is targeting some of the U.S.’s most vital and reliable allies. While he may regard Greenland as a hidden gem filled with natural resources, strategic analysts within the National Security Council recognize it as a crucial defense outpost. A U.S. base in Greenland is positioned as the northernmost point, serving as a missile defense monitor between Moscow and New York. Similarly, both Panama and Canada are key players in the U.S. trade framework. NATO remains essential in countering Vladimir Putin’s ambitions to restore the Russian Empire.
Unlike his initial presidency in 2017, Trump now possesses a clearer understanding of his influence and how to wield it. The way he chooses to exercise this power, just weeks away from returning to the White House, is both enlightening and frustrating. With numerous pressing issues on his plate, engaging in conflicts with allies may quickly become a tiresome distraction. In the meantime, he risks alienating partners who he expects to comply with his demands.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
