When Donald Trump campaigned with a promise to bring America back to its “America First” foreign policy, he promised one thing: No new wars. The idea was clear: The U.S. could no longer afford to act as the world’s police officer.
But fast forward to today, and things have taken a dramatic turn. Trump, the president-elect, is now proposing bold moves that sound more like an imperialistic agenda. From threatening to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland to pressuring Canada to become the 51st state, his approach has raised eyebrows around the world.
Imagine this: The United States joining forces with Canada, removing the “artificial” line between them, and making the world’s longest border a shared, unified front. In Trump’s eyes, this would make the two countries stronger and more secure. “It would also be much better for national security,” he says.
But such talk—especially of using military force against NATO allies like Denmark or Canada—is a significant departure from the norms of modern diplomacy. It could send the wrong message to the world, especially to adversaries like Russia and China. After all, when powerful leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping hear talk like this, they might think, “The U.S. is okay with using force to redraw borders.” That’s a risky game in an already unstable world.
As John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, puts it: “If I’m Putin or Xi Jinping, this is music to my ears.”
Trump’s strong rhetoric echoes a 19th-century colonial mindset, reminiscent of the days when European powers ruled much of the world. And it’s clear that his ambitions have only grown since his first term. Gerald Butts, former adviser to Canada’s prime minister, pointed out that Trump seems more confident than ever—perhaps even a little reckless. There’s no holding back now; it’s “maximum Trump.”
Trump’s bold statements about reclaiming Greenland, one of Denmark’s territories, are part of a wider vision for an “America Dreaming Again”—one where the U.S. reasserts its power on the world stage, not as a passive observer, but as a dominant force. His allies, like Charlie Kirk, even see controlling Greenland as part of a larger mission to bring back “masculine American energy.”
But let’s stop and think. Does this kind of brash rhetoric really serve U.S. interests? Some analysts think it doesn’t. Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, argues that the U.S. is best protected by its allies, not by antagonizing them. “Allies are our superpower,” McFaul says. “We’re better off with the Canadians and Danes on our side, not against us.”
Canada, Denmark, and even Panama have pushed back fiercely. They’re not amused by Trump’s provocative talk. Canada’s Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc has made it clear: “The joke is over.” These countries are standing firm, defending their sovereignty.
Even Mexico chimed in humorously, mocking Trump’s idea of renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum quipped, “Why not rename North America ‘Mexican America’?”
So, what’s really going on here? Is this a negotiating tactic, or is it a dangerous path toward escalating tensions? Trump’s team insists that his focus is on national security and economic concerns, especially when it comes to Panama, Greenland, and Canada. But many experts warn that pushing too hard could lead to disastrous consequences.
Trump’s style—his sharp words and big promises—has always been part of his charm for his supporters. But when it comes to international relations, is this the right approach? At a time when the world is already facing major threats, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s pressure on Taiwan, some argue that Trump should be focusing on real dangers rather than inventing new ones.
In the end, while Trump’s bold ideas may sound enticing to some, the real question is: Are they worth the risk?
