In the days leading up to his presidency, Donald Trump has stirred global attention with his signature blend of sensationalism, sparing neither allies nor rivals. Labelling India a “tariff king,” proposing to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal—by force, if necessary—referring to Canada as the “51st state,” and renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” Trump’s vision of “Make America Great Again” seems to embrace an unusual expansionist rhetoric. Unsurprisingly, these remarks have been rebuked by allies such as Denmark, France, Germany, Canada, and Panama.
Adding to the turmoil, Trump recently released an alleged old video of a conversation with economist Jeffrey Sachs, known for his criticism of US foreign policy in outside wars. In the footage, Sachs uses harsh language to deride Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “war monger,” despite Israel’s status as a key ally of the United States. This move by Trump raises questions, especially as the US is expected to strengthen its stance against Iran after he takes office. Why such mixed signals now?
Era of Trumpian trolling
Whether such tactics translate into real power for the US remains uncertain. America’s global dominance stems not only from its economic and military strength but also from the robustness of its alliances. However, President-elect Donald Trump’s repeated alienation, intimidation, and coercion of allies highlight a self-inflicted crisis within the American-led order, even though it seems aimed at immediate benefits for the US.
Trump’s contentious statements and actions must be understood in context, as their motivations differ. For instance, his approach toward Canada and Mexico reflects economic coercion. As the largest trading partner for both nations, the US faces significant trade deficits with them—an issue Trump has long targeted. Now, as president-elect, he has announced plans to impose additional tariffs on these countries.
The Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), also known as the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 2.0, is up for a joint review in 2026, and Trump’s tactics appear to be aimed at exerting pressure. Canada, in particular, is vulnerable due to domestic political turmoil following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation. The trade deficit with Canada stems primarily from the import of “heavy” crude oil required by US refineries, which accounts for a significant proportion of imported oil in the Midwest. Alongside tariffs, Trump has suggested ending subsidies to Canada and Mexico under CUSMA, claiming the 2018 agreement could not address address trade imbalances as expected.
Trump’s audacious remarks about acquiring Greenland are equally striking. His interest in Greenland dates back to his first presidency, though the island’s strategic importance was recognised long before him. During the Second World War, President Harry Truman proposed purchasing Greenland, but Denmark rejected the offer. Recent constitutional amendments have granted Greenland autonomy and the right to hold a referendum on independence. Trump is leveraging this, knowing Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede supports the cause of independence from Denmark.
Trump’s motivations for acquiring Greenland are both strategic and economic. While security concerns seem less convincing—Greenland is part of NATO and hosts a permanent US base—Trump’s economic ambitions are evident. The island’s vast untapped resources, including rare earth minerals, gain significance as Arctic ice melts, opening new shipping routes. However, Greenland currently prohibits oil extraction and rare earth mining, complicating economic exploitation.
What has alarmed allies is Trump’s assertion that he might use military force to acquire Greenland. Dismissing these remarks as bluster became difficult when he made similar comments about the Panama Canal, a strategic maritime route through which 40 per cent of US container traffic flows—to which I will turn shortly.
This approach reflects Trump’s signature style of exploiting vulnerabilities to secure favourable deals. He employs psychological tactics, presenting himself as an alpha-male dealmaker who thrives on high-stakes brinkmanship. His timing—pressuring others when they are weakest—is deliberate, aimed at forcing concessions when negotiations occur.
Critics argue Trump is retreating from Europe, yet his renewed interest in Greenland suggests otherwise. Greenland is home to the US’ northernmost military outpost in Europe, the Pituffik Space Base, which plays a crucial role in ballistic missile early warning systems. Its strategic position as the shortest route between Europe and North America enhances its significance, especially as Arctic ice melts, making new shipping lanes viable. The Arctic’s growing importance amid US tensions with Russia and China further contradicts claims of America disengaging from Europe.
Trump’s insistence on Greenland also taps into the island’s growing independence movement. Denmark has committed to spending approximately $1 billion annually on Greenland and has consistently rejected selling it or allowing forcible acquisition. However, Copenhagen may have to respect Greenlanders’ wishes if they choose independence or US affiliation. Danish leaders emphasise that Greenland’s future should be determined by its people, not external coercion—a stance Trump seeks to exploit.
If Greenland gains independence, joining NATO appears likely, following Iceland’s precedent after separating from Denmark. Yet Trump’s rhetoric about using force has deeply unsettled European allies already grappling with existential threats on their eastern borders. This has further strained US-Europe relations, raising questions about America’s long-term global strategy under Trump’s leadership.
The situation in Panama is particularly intricate, as Trump has expressed concerns over China’s growing influence in the region. Few are aware that around 5 per cent of Panama’s population is of Chinese descent, originally brought to the country as labourers. The Panama Canal, a vital maritime route linking the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, is managed by the Panama Canal Authority. Built by the US and opened for commerce in 1914, the canal was handed over to Panama under the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties, remaining under Panamanian control since.
China’s increasing involvement in Panama, however, has drawn US attention. Since 2017, Chinese investments in Panama have grown significantly, including the management of two out of the five operational ports near the canal’s entrances by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings and funding a $1 billion bridge construction . Despite Trump’s claims that China controls the canal, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has reaffirmed that the canal remains solely under Panama’s authority.
Trump’s concerns were likely fueled by General Laura Richardson’s 2024 congressional testimony warning of the strategic risks posed by China’s presence in Panama. His threats of force, though sensational, are not without legal basis. The neutrality treaty of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties allows the US to use its military to protect the canal’s neutrality against external threats, though it does not authorise seizing control of the canal.
Once again, Trump employs a mix of legalities, half-truths, and provocative rhetoric, leaving allies and rivals in uncertainty. Something that is fast becoming the hallmark of his “Make America Great Again” strategy. One does marvel at the audacity of its efficacy and intent.
Also read: H-1Battle for America is Trump’s first challenge
Beyond sensationalism
Key observations emerge from Trump’s recent sensationalist statements. These remarks, even when pared down to their factual basis, challenge the widespread notion that Trump’s US will focus either inwardly or exclusively on the Indo-Pacific. Instead, they reveal his recognition of the destabilising roles of China and Russia in the Arctic and China’s growing influence in Latin America and the Caribbean. This contrasts sharply with the views held by American national security professional Elbridge Colby and political scientist John Mearshimer to focus solely on the Indo-Pacific.
Upon closer evaluation, Trump, the “grumpy granddad” of geopolitics, demonstrates a keener understanding of limits—knowing what he can push and when to pull back. His approach, unpredictable as it is, signals a readiness to confront both rivals and allies who, according to him, have exploited the US’ global dominance. However, the US can’t tackle Russia or China without the support of European and Indo-Pacific allies. This balancing act could yield short-term gains but risks undermining American leadership if overplayed.
Efforts to manage Trumpian unpredictability are evident: India’s foreign minister S Jaishankar recently met US officials to strengthen strategic ties, while Joe Biden’s administration accelerated aid to Ukraine and pushed rare earth supply chain diversification in Africa.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric, his actions and appointments suggest he is more of a pragmatist than he appears, signalling continued US engagement in global security and economic arenas, even as he tests the boundaries of America’s alliances.
However, it is difficult to argue that declining trust among allies will not hasten the collective West’s decline—shifting the distribution of power away to other stakeholders in time.
Swasti Rao is Consulting Editor, ThePrint and a foreign policy expert. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Insightful conclusion. Whether the United States and the West are in decline could be a matter of debate. However, wealth and power are dispersing more widely, which is also in India’s interest.
How are Russia and China destabilizing the Artic? They aren’t the ones threatening to annex allied sovereign nations for economic benefits.
As for Trump he is probably the most clear headed. He realizes the US needs more resources to secure its future, and hence will take try to Greenland. Psyops are already underway with the US media playing out hypothetical invasions of Greenland.
Canada will give immense access to the Artic, resources and population boost and most young Canadians would be happy unifying with the US considering Canada’s poor future economic outlook.
India will still be India. Dreaming of greatness but never actually achieving it.
This will be the era of 3 great powers or 3 Kingdoms. The US, Russia and China. So much for the end of history.