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 made headlines with his controversial statements regarding the potential use of U.S. military force to reclaim the Panama Canal and assert American dominance over Greenland. He even suggested that it might be possible to persuade 40 million Canadians to accept the U.S. as their new home. Among his many assertions, he proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and called on NATO allies to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP, a significant jump from the current non-binding guideline of 2%.
In Trump’s view, this kind of brash approach to international relations may seem reasonable, as if he perceives the world as a game of Monopoly ready for conquest. While his comments may lack in practicality, they are far from dismissible by the international community.
Each of these declarations, when examined individually, raises eyebrows among U.S. allies. However, taking them in context suggests a pressing need for a thorough reevaluation of how to interact with the forthcoming Trump administration. His remarks indicate that the very foundations of global alliances are under scrutiny, and he appears to revel in testing their limits.
At a press event held at his Florida estate, Trump confidently claimed credit for Meta’s recent decision to halt fact-checking on posts, alleging that this change stemmed from his earlier threats against the company and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
One of Trump’s more provocative comments was about the Panama Canal, a vital shipping route that the U.S. completed in 1914 and 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 said, just hours before the late President Carter’s body was due to arrive in Washington for his funeral.
Though typically vague, Trump expressed a desire to reassert control over the canal and, when asked about the possibility of military action, he hesitated to dismiss it. “I’m not going to say that,” he replied. “It may come to that. The Panama Canal is crucial for our nation.” (It’s worth noting that Panama does not have a standing army.)
His expansionist rhetoric also included Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark that Trump had previously attempted to purchase during his first term. He went so far as to threaten Denmark with high tariffs unless it ceded Greenland to the U.S. While Greenland has its own governing body, its defense is still managed by Denmark, which represents its interests in Washington.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen affirmed on Tuesday that Greenland is not for sale, coinciding with a visit from Donald Trump Jr. and incoming White House personnel chief Sergio Gor to Greenland, which some may view as a provocative gesture.
Canada has also been a target of Trump’s remarks. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as party leader shortly after Trump’s comments. Trump has long poked fun at Trudeau and suggested that Canadians might actually appreciate the idea of becoming the 51st state. On Tuesday, he even proposed hockey legend Wayne Gretzky as a hypothetical leader for Canadians—not as Prime Minister, but perhaps as their Governor.
Such displays of American assertiveness are typical for Trump. In an unrelated remark, he declared his intention to rename the body of water that borders Texas, Florida, Mexico, and Cuba to The Gulf of America. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch Trump ally, quickly announced her plans to pursue legislation in line with the President-elect’s wishes.
Finally, Trump proposed increasing NATO’s defense spending requirement from 2% to 5% of each member country’s GDP. He has consistently misunderstood the 2% guideline, viewing it as a dues-based obligation for NATO’s 32 members. Currently, no nation meets the 5% threshold; Poland is the closest at 3.9%, while the U.S. stands at about 3.5%. Trump’s ongoing concern about what he perceives as freeloading by alliance members was a major theme of his first presidency and is likely to persist as he pressures allies to contribute more to the alliance originally formed to counter Soviet—and now Russian—aggression. (Should Trump move forward with military action, it raises significant questions about NATO’s obligations to defend Denmark, a member state.)
This leads us to an uncomfortable reality: Trump’s targets encompass not just random nations but some of the U.S.’s most reliable allies. The United States and Denmark have maintained a strong partnership, collaborating in various military conflicts, including those in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Panama is pivotal to U.S. trade, with American vessels making up about 75% of the canal’s traffic, and roughly 40% of all U.S. container ships utilize this crucial route. The U.S. shares the world’s longest border with Canada, and both countries’ economies and cultures are deeply intertwined, making the relationship between Washington and Ottawa one of the most resilient in the Western Hemisphere. While Trump has previously succeeded in urging NATO allies to bolster their spending, his ongoing criticism raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of these partnerships.
Consequently, it is both perplexing and concerning to observe the incoming President engaging in such counterproductive confrontations with allies. Supporters of Trump argue that this bravado is part of his persona and that he behaves more rationally when the cameras are off. However, the messages emerging from Florida on Tuesday were unmistakable, making it irresponsible for foreign ministries to overlook them. The recent actions by Meta might even reflect a strategy of appeasement, suggesting that yielding to the bully may lead to a temporary reprieve.
The United States—and in this case, Trump personifies the country in its foreign relations—can indeed coerce many nations. This approach has a history of yielding unintended consequences and strained relationships, yet it can produce results, at least in the short term. While it diminishes America’s reputation as a benevolent global leader, sometimes such overt displays of power seem necessary. Typically, a simple phone call suffices among allies, but Trump appears determined to publicly demonstrate strength.
However, Trump’s focus is not on smaller nations with minor stakes. He is targeting some of the U.S.’s most vital and dependable allies. While Trump may see Greenland as a hidden gem rich in natural resources, strategic analysts within the National Security Council view it as an important defense outpost. A U.S. military base in Greenland would serve as a northernmost stronghold, monitoring missile activity between Moscow and New York. Similarly, Panama and Canada are crucial players in the U.S. trade network, and NATO remains essential for countering Vladimir Putin’s ambitions to restore a Russian Empire.
Unlike during his initial presidency in 2017, Trump now possesses a clearer understanding of his authority and how to wield it. The way he chooses to exercise this power, just weeks before his return to the White House, is both enlightening and exasperating. With numerous pressing issues on his agenda, engaging in conflicts with allies could soon become a tiresome distraction. In the meantime, he risks damaging relationships with partners he expects to comply with his demands.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
