Trump’s New Acquisition Bid, Canada, Panama Canal And Greenland To Be US Territory. Can The US Army Actually Attack And Will A New War Front Open?

In a bold move, Donald Trump has stirred international headlines by laying claim to three territories—Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal—marking a seismic shift in US foreign policy. The announcement, made just weeks before his return to the Oval Office on January 20, has left the global community questioning about its implications, feasibility, and potential consequences.

Trump’s latest declarations go beyond rhetoric, reviving territorial ambitions not seen since the United States acquired new lands post-World War II. From citing national security concerns to threatening military and economic coercion, Trump’s statements have sent shockwaves across the world.

Leaving Old Treaties Behind

Trump’s audacious plans have also reignited debates about the sanctity of treaties and the international order. His proposal to use military force to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal belittles decades of diplomatic agreements and alliances. Canada and Denmark, NATO member states, are particularly significant in this context. NATO’s charter, which binds members to mutual defense, has never been tested by an intra-alliance conflict.

For Panama, the situation evokes memories of the US’s colonial history in the region. The Panama Canal was returned to Panama’s control in 1999 under the leadership of former President Jimmy Carter, who passed away recently. Trump’s stance risks reopening old wounds and destabilizing US relations in Latin America.

Canada. Trump’s Controversial Annexation Remarks

In a fiery press conference at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of criticisms against Canada, alleging that the United States unfairly subsidizes its northern neighbor to the tune of $200 billion annually. Trump suggested that annexing Canada could solve the perceived imbalance, claiming it would be better for both economic and national security.

“We are not treated well by Canada,” Trump said. “They don’t essentially have a military. They rely on ours. It’s fine, but they’ve got to pay for that. It’s very unfair.” While ruling out military force to annex Canada, Trump was quick to suggest “economic force” as a viable option.

A Case for Annexation?

Trump’s grievances centered on what he called an “artificially drawn line” separating the two countries. “Get rid of that artificially drawn line and take a look at what that looks like,” he said, painting a picture of a unified North America. Trump accused Canada of exploiting U.S. generosity, citing trade deficits and listing items the U.S. imports from Canada but, in his view, should produce domestically—such as cars, lumber, and dairy products.

“We don’t need anything from Canada. So why are we losing $200 billion a year and more to protect them?” Trump asked rhetorically, framing his argument as a question of fairness and economic logic.

A Dinner Joke Turned Policy Proposal?

The annexation rhetoric reportedly began as a joke during a Mar-a-Lago dinner in late November when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Trump. According to Trump, he teased Trudeau by referring to him as “governor” and asking, “What would happen if we didn’t subsidize you?” Trump claims Trudeau responded, “Canada would dissolve. Canada wouldn’t be able to function.”

Trump used the anecdote to justify his stance. “We’re doing it out of habit, but we can’t do it forever,” he said. “If you’re a state, fine, but if you’re another country, we don’t want to have it.”

Since the meeting, Trump has taken to Truth Social to repeatedly refer to Trudeau as a governor and Canada as America’s “51st state.” However, Tuesday’s press conference marked the first time he laid out a detailed argument for annexation.

Canadian Pushback. “Not a Snowball’s Chance”

Trump’s remarks drew immediate and bipartisan condemnation in Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dismissed the idea outright, posting on X (formerly Twitter), “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States. Workers and communities in both our countries benefit from being each other’s biggest trading and security partner.”

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre also rejected Trump’s proposal, vowing to defend Canada’s sovereignty. “Canada will never be the 51st state. Period,” Poilievre said. He narrated Canada’s contributions to U.S. security, including its role in post-9/11 operations, and pledged to rebuild Canada’s military to strengthen its independence.

“We supply the U.S. with billions of dollars of high-quality and totally reliable energy well below market prices. We buy hundreds of billions of dollars of American goods. I will fight for Canada,” Poilievre declared.

A Shift in U.S.-Canada Relations?

Trump’s comments come at a time of political upheaval in Canada, with Trudeau announcing his intent to resign as Prime Minister. While the remarks may align with Trump’s characteristic brinkmanship and penchant for dramatic proposals, they have strained an otherwise amicable relationship between the two nations.

For now, Canada’s political leadership remains united in its rejection of  Trump’s annexation rhetoric. Whether this is a negotiating tactic or a genuine policy shift remains unclear, but Trump’s remarks have already opened a contentious chapter in U.S.-Canada relations.

“China is Running the Panama Canal,” Claims Trump

On Monday, Donald Trump turned his attention to Panama, accusing the country of mismanaging the Panama Canal and letting China dominate its operations. Trump also criticized former President Jimmy Carter, who recently passed away at 100, for what he called the “disgraceful” decision to relinquish U.S. control of the canal.

“The Panama Canal is a disgrace,” Trump declared. “Jimmy Carter gave it to them for $1, and they were supposed to treat us well… They don’t treat us fairly. They charge more for our ships than they charge for ships of other countries. They charge more for our Navy than for other navies. They laugh at us because they think we’re stupid. But we’re not stupid anymore.”

Trump alleged that Panama had violated the terms of the agreement and sought $3 billion in U.S. assistance for canal repairs. His response?

“I told them to get it from China. Because China has basically taken it over. China is at both ends of the Panama Canal. China is running the Panama Canal,” he claimed, emphasizing that the canal was gifted to Panama by the U.S., not China. “They have abused that gift. It should have never been made, by the way.”

Panama’s Rebuttal: “The Canal Belongs to Panamanians”

Panama’s President, Jose Raul Mulino, swiftly rejected Trump’s accusations. “The canal is Panamanian and belongs to Panamanians,” Mulino stated. “There’s no possibility of opening any kind of conversation around this reality, which has cost the country blood, sweat, and tears.”

He also denied any Chinese control or military presence in the canal. “There is absolutely no Chinese interference or participation in anything to do with the Panama Canal. There are no Chinese soldiers in the canal, for the love of God.”

Greenland: “We Need Greenland for National Security”

Trump didn’t stop at Panama. He also reignited his controversial interest in Greenland, framing it as a matter of U.S. national security. “We need Greenland for national security purposes,” Trump declared. “You have approximately 45,000 people there. People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for the free world.”

Linking Greenland to China, Trump claimed, “You don’t even need binoculars. You look outside, you have Chinese ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We are not letting that happen.” He further speculated that Greenland’s residents might vote for independence or to join the United States.

The MAGA Greenland Tour

Adding to the spectacle, Trump’s son, Don Jr., accompanied by Trump loyalist Charlie Kirk and Sergio Gor, visited Greenland on the same day. The trip, announced by Trump himself, was presented as a goodwill mission to engage with Greenlanders. “I am hearing that the people of Greenland are ‘MAGA,” Trump said. “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Throughout the day, Don Jr. shared photos and videos from Greenland, including a call from Trump to locals at a café. The posts painted a picture of Greenland as receptive to the idea of joining the U.S.

Denmark’s Firm Rejection

Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, was quick to dismiss Trump’s ambitions, reiterating that Greenland is not for sale. Frederiksen cited Greenland’s Prime Minister, Múte Egede, who declared, “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”

Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark and part of the European Union, has consistently affirmed its sovereignty. As Egede put it, “We are not for sale, and we will never be for sale.”

The Western Hemisphere Focus

Trump’s remarks on Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal reflect a broader emphasis on what could be a Western Hemisphere-centric foreign policy in his administration. His focus on immigration—spanning both the southern and northern borders—signals that his core priorities may involve reshaping relations with Mexico, Central American nations, and Canada.

Key appointments in his administration reinforce this regional focus. Marco Rubio, Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, is not only a Cuban-American but also deeply knowledgeable about the region, having advised Trump on Western Hemisphere issues during his first term.

Similarly, Christopher Landau, the designated Deputy Secretary of State, is fluent in Spanish, studied in Paraguay, and served as the U.S. ambassador to Mexico under Trump.

Providing context for Trump’s comments, Alexander Gray, a former national security official from Trump’s first term, explained to The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday-

“What [Trump] is trying to do is reinvigorate this focus on what are the outer boundaries of the Western Hemisphere and defending them against great power competitors. There is this idea that our number one priority is the defense of the hemisphere, and that China and Russia are coming into our backyard. You have to see Greenland and Panama in that context.”

The central question here is whether the U.S. military could actually enforce Trump’s territorial ambitions over Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal, and if this rhetoric signals the opening of a new war front.

So let us address these questions one by one

1. Can the U.S. Military Enforce Territorial Claims?

The short answer is no, at least not in a traditional sense. The U.S. military, despite its unparalleled power, would not likely be deployed to annex a country like Canada, Greenland, or Panama without inciting significant international conflict and possibly triggering full-scale wars.

Here’s why –

International Law & Sovereignty: Any military action to annex foreign territory would violate international law, which upholds the sovereignty of nations. The U.S. has a history of supporting the principles of self-determination and non-interference, at least in the public sphere. Openly challenging these norms would severely damage America’s global standing, erode its alliances, and risk long-term instability.

Geopolitical Fallout: A military conflict with Canada, for instance, would not only put the U.S. at odds with one of its closest allies but also with NATO, as Canada is a member. Similarly, any attempt to challenge Greenland’s status as a part of Denmark would antagonize not just Denmark, but also other EU nations, further escalating tensions.

Practicality of Military Action: While the U.S. military is the most advanced in the world, launching an invasion of any of these territories would involve significant logistical, political, and military challenges. For example, Greenland is geographically distant and harsh, making it a tough target for military operations. Even Canada, with its vast expanse and strong military, would not fall easily to a foreign military intervention.

2. Does This Mean a New War Front?

Trump’s comments about using military force are, for the most part, likely rhetorical rather than a serious military strategy. Historically, his administration has been more inclined toward economic and diplomatic pressure than direct military engagement when it comes to issues of territorial claims or economic disputes.

However, while a new war front is not a likely outcome, Trump’s rhetoric does signal a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy toward a more aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere, which could manifest in the following ways –

Economic Sanctions and Trade Wars: Instead of military conflict, Trump may lean heavily on economic pressure—like tariffs or trade restrictions—to compel countries to renegotiate deals that benefit the U.S. more. This could be the “economic force” he refers to in his comments. Trade wars, though not as deadly as military conflicts, can still have significant economic repercussions for the countries involved.

Proxy Conflicts and Influence Campaigns: If the U.S. were to pursue a more aggressive stance toward countries in the Western Hemisphere, it could involve using influence operations or supporting political movements that align with U.S. interests, much like it has in Latin America during the Cold War.

Military Posturing: While direct military conflict is unlikely, there could be increased military presence or posturing in strategic locations like the Panama Canal, Arctic waters near Greenland, or along the U.S.-Canada border. These would be less about direct confrontation and more about signaling U.S. dominance in these areas.

Hence, while the U.S. military could technically intervene in these regions, it is unlikely to do so directly. Instead, we might see heightened geopolitical tensions, economic pressures, and strategic military positioning, which could result in a new form of cold conflict rather than an open war front.

Still, the implications of Trump’s territorial claims are far-reaching. They challenge the post-World War II international order and strain relationships with key allies and partners. For Canada and Denmark, both NATO members, the prospect of military coercion by a fellow ally is unprecedented and destabilizing. For Panama, the threat of losing sovereignty over the canal jeopardizes decades of progress in Latin American self-determination.

Furthermore, Trump’s claims risk undermining America’s global standing as a proponent of a rules-based order. Critics argue that such moves erode US credibility and fuel narratives of American imperialism.

The Last Bit

Trump’s history of using extreme positions as leverage leaves room for speculation. Are these territorial ambitions genuine, or are they strategic bargaining chips? Regardless of intent, the sheer audacity of these claims has crossed a line in contemporary geopolitics, setting the stage for heightened tensions and potential conflict.

As Trump prepares to assume office, the world watches with bated breath. Whether this is the start of a new era of American expansionism or a strategic bluff to achieve broader geopolitical goals, one thing is certain—Trump’s territorial ambitions have already altered the global ecosystem.

Trump’s territorial rhetoric could stem from several motivations. It might echo James Monroe’s 1823 Monroe Doctrine, asserting American dominance in the Americas. Alternatively, it could be a strategic bargaining tool to extract better deals from Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Or perhaps it’s a genuine desire to expand U.S. territory as part of his presidential legacy.

Regardless of intent, Trump’s approach has once again disrupted traditional norms of global diplomacy, potentially setting the stage for significant and unpredictable consequences. Whether calculated or impulsive, these moves mark another instance of Trump reshaping international relations.

What do you think about Trump’s latest declarations? Are they feasible, or are we witnessing a new chapter of strategic posturing in international politics?