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.
President-elect Donald Trump raised eyebrows on Tuesday with his bold remarks about potentially using U.S. military power to reclaim the Panama Canal and assert control over Greenland. He even went so far as to suggest pressuring 40 million Canadians into accepting their country as a part of the United States. Among his colorful commentary, he proposed renaming The Gulf of Mexico to The Gulf of America and urged NATO allies to allocate 5% of their economies to defense, a significant increase from the current 2% guideline that lacks binding authority.
In the realm of Trump’s imagination, this audacious approach to international relations might seem plausible. It’s as if he’s viewing the world map as a Monopoly board meant to be conquered. While his claims may lack substance, the international community cannot dismiss his statements as mere whims.
Each of these statements, when considered individually, would be enough to cause concern among U.S. allies. However, taken together, they signal a need for a complete reassessment of how to engage with the upcoming Trump administration. It is clear that the foundations of global partnerships are being tested, and Trump seems to take pleasure in challenging their resilience.
During a press event at his Florida club, Trump expressed confidence in his influence, even claiming credit for Meta’s recent decision to stop fact-checking posts — a change he suggested was a response to his earlier threats against the company and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
Consider Trump’s comments regarding the Panama Canal, an essential shipping route that the U.S. opened in 1914 and fully handed over to Panama in 1999. “Jimmy Carter gave it away for a dollar, and they were supposed to treat us well. I thought that was a terrible mistake,” Trump stated, just hours before the late President Carter’s body was set to arrive in Washington for his funeral.
While typically vague, Trump expressed a desire to regain control of the canal, and when asked if he would rule out military action, he declined to commit. “I’m not going to say that,” he remarked. “It may come to that. The Panama Canal is crucial for our nation.” (Interestingly, Panama does not possess a standing army.)
His expansionist sentiments extended to Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark that Trump previously attempted to acquire during his first term. On Tuesday, he threatened to impose high tariffs on Denmark unless it relinquished Greenland to the U.S. While Greenland has its own Prime Minister and parliament, its national defense is overseen by Denmark. The Danish Embassy in Washington represents Greenland’s interests.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated on Tuesday that Greenland is not for sale. This statement coincided with Donald Trump Jr. and incoming White House personnel chief Sergio Gor’s visit to Greenland, which some might interpret as a provocative stunt.
Canada, too, has felt the brunt of Trump’s rhetoric. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his departure as party leader and left 24 Sussex Drive shortly thereafter. Trump has long poked fun at the Canadian prime minister and suggested that residents of Canada might welcome the idea of joining the U.S. as a 51st state. On Tuesday, he even endorsed hockey legend Wayne Gretzky as a potential leader for Canadians — not necessarily as Prime Minister, but as their Governor.
Such displays of American might are typical from Trump’s camp. In a seemingly unrelated comment, Trump declared his intention to rename the body of water bordering Texas, Florida, Mexico, and Cuba as The Gulf of America. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a staunch Trump supporter, quickly announced plans to draft legislation to reflect the President-elect’s wishes.
Lastly, Trump proposed doubling NATO’s defense spending requirement from 2% to 5% of each member country’s GDP. He has long misunderstood the 2% guideline, believing it to be a dues-based requirement for the 32 NATO members. Currently, no nation meets the 5% threshold; Poland leads with 3.9%, while the U.S. stands at about 3.5%. Trump’s ongoing concern regarding perceived freeloading by alliance members was a recurring theme during his first presidency, and he appears set to continue pressuring allies to contribute more to the alliance formed in the aftermath of World War II to counter Soviet — and now Russian — aggression. (If Trump proceeds with military action, it raises questions about NATO’s obligations to defend Denmark, a member country.)
This brings us to the uncomfortable truth: Trump’s targets are not just random U.S. allies. The United States and Denmark have a longstanding partnership, collaborating in various conflicts, including those in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Panama plays a pivotal role in U.S. trade, with American vessels accounting for approximately 75% of the canal’s traffic; around 40% of all U.S. container ships navigate this vital 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 headway in pushing NATO allies to increase their spending, yet his continued haranguing of allies raises concerns about the efficacy of these partnerships.
Therefore, witnessing the incoming President engage in such self-defeating confrontations with allies is both bewildering and concerning. Supporters of Trump argue that this bravado is part of his persona and assert that he acts more pragmatically when the cameras are off. However, the signals emanating from Florida on Tuesday were loud and clear, making it irresponsible for foreign ministries to ignore them. For some, the recent actions by Meta may illustrate a strategy of appeasement: give in to the bully and hope he targets someone else next.
The United States — and in this case, Trump embodies the country in foreign relations — can effectively coerce many nations. This approach has a history of causing unintended consequences and strained relations, but it can yield results, at least temporarily. While it tarnishes America’s image as a benevolent global leader, sometimes such overt displays of power seem necessary. Typically, a simple phone call suffices among allies, but Trump seems intent on making a public spectacle of strength.
Yet, Trump’s focus is not on smaller nations with limited stakes. He is targeting some of the U.S.’s most crucial and dependable allies. While Trump may view Greenland as an undervalued asset with abundant natural resources, strategic analysts within the National Security Council see it as a critical defense stronghold. A U.S. base in Greenland is positioned as the northernmost outpost, serving as a missile defense monitor between Moscow and New York. Similarly, both Panama and Canada are vital players in the U.S. trade network. NATO remains a key factor in countering Vladimir Putin’s ambitions to reinstate the Russian Empire.
Unlike his initial presidency in 2017, Trump now possesses a clearer understanding of his power and how to wield it. The manner in which he is choosing to utilize this power, just weeks away from returning to the White House, is both revealing and frustrating. With numerous pressing issues on his agenda, engaging in conflicts with allies may soon become a tiresome diversion. In the meantime, he risks damaging relationships with partners he expects to simply acquiesce to his demands.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
