Donald Trump’s Dream: Taking Over Panama, Canada and Greenland Is Nonsense

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points and Summary: President-elect Donald Trump has sparked controversy with expansionist aspirations, targeting Panama, Greenland, and even Canada for potential U.S. acquisition.

-Trump’s rhetoric highlights concerns over the Panama Canal’s control, Greenland’s strategic resources, and Canada’s economic integration.

-While these ambitions reflect his “America First” approach, they raise questions about feasibility, sovereignty, and public consent.

-Critics argue that the U.S. should focus on addressing internal divisions rather than expanding borders. As Trump prepares to assume office, his territorial vision underscores his unconventional approach to redefining America’s role on the global stage.

Why Donald Trump Wants to Acquire Greenland, Canada, and Panama

With Joe Biden the forgotten man, rarely seen or heard, President-elect Donald Trump has effectively taken over.

In contrast to 2016, the latter was prepared for victory. He intends to impose his will on the international system.

No surprise, some of his sentiments are stirring controversy. For instance, Trump has suggested an expansionist agenda extending to Panama, Greenland, and Canada.

He wrote on Truth Social:

“The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security. … it was solely for Panama to manage, not China, or anyone else. It was likewise not given for Panama to charge the United States, its Navy, and corporations, doing business within our Country, exorbitant prices and rates of passage. … This complete ‘rip-off’ of our Country will immediately stop.”

Trump sounded a bit like Don Corleone in the Godfather, prepared to make Panama an offer it can’t refuse. “If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question.” To Panama’s response that the canal was part of Panama, he tossed back: “We’ll see about that!”

Trump also suggested acquiring Canada as America’s 51st state. Canadian premier Justin Trudeau visited Mar-a-Lago to protest Trump’s threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on trade. The president-elect cited Canada’s failure to stop the flow of drugs and people and suggested that Canada become a state, with Trudeau as governor. Apparently, there was laughter all around, but Trump might have been doing more than trolling the hapless Trudeau, who, facing a Liberal Party rebellion and likely defeat in next year’s election, just announced his resignation.

Finally, Trump reiterated his interest, expressed in his first term, in purchasing Greenland. Shortly before Christmas, he announced Ken Lowery as ambassador to Denmark, which oversees the autonomous territory. Trump wrote: “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” He apparently desires the island’s abundant natural resources and fears the possibility of Chinese or Russian control over it.

Greenland Prime Minister Mute Bourup Egede responded: “We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our years-long struggle for freedom.” Inuit Maya Sialuk observed: “We are still trying to recover from a colonization period of almost 300 years. Then there is this white dude in the States who’s talking about purchasing us.” Denmark’s defense minister detailed plans to spend about $1.5 billion to upgrade Greenland’s security—officially to take a “stronger presence” in the Arctic, not to deter America.

Donald Trump’s Dreams of Empire? 

Trump’s desire for expansion illustrates his Jacksonian instincts. Acknowledged the New York Times: “the president-elect’s statements—and the not-so-subtle threats behind them—were another reminder that his version of ‘America First’ is not an isolationist creed. … And it reflects the instincts of a real estate developer who suddenly has the power of the world’s largest military to back up his negotiating strategy.”

Tempting as it might be to use Washington’s undoubted hard power to acquire more territory, Making America Great Again would be better achieved by shrinking rather than expanding the nation’s borders. When it comes to countries, bigger is not always better. The US already is too large for genuine republican government. And the ability to meddle overseas has led America into an increasing number of reckless military interventions, such as in Iraq.

There are legitimate security issues at play in Panama, Canada, and Greenland, but none require US control. The Panama Canal functioned even during the Noreiga dictatorship. Today the country is democratic and stable. Contra Trump’s apparent belief, Chinese soldiers are not operating the waterway. Diplomatic suasion and economic aid should be enough to avoid future hostile management of the facility (by a Chinese firm, presumably). And the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page affirms that “Trump’s claim that Panama is gouging Americans is unfounded.” Manhandling the country to regain control would be a propaganda gift to China and Russia. Better to reserve the threat of military action for something more compelling than a complaint over price.

Canada is no worry. Given its geographic position, it already is “militarily protected like no other Country anywhere in the World,” which Trump offered as a benefit of statehood. That’s why Ottawa famously skimps on military outlays. Nor is the Arctic an inviting invasion route. The main danger is Russian and Chinese missiles flying over the pole, but that wouldn’t change if Canada was an American state rather than a foreign nation. Indeed, as the latter Washington is more likely to do only what is necessary, rather than surrender to parochial concerns and treat military outlays as pork, as it so often does in the US.

Greenland is similar. Author James Freeman suggests that Copenhagen may regret not having collected a big check for Greenland if Egede is successful in promoting independence. However, his people would not likely then choose a far more overbearing master close by. No matter. Washington need not occupy the island. It already hosts America’s northernmost military facility, Pituffik Space Base. Neither a Chinese nor a Russian invasion is likely, and most threats can be confronted from afar. In 2018 Washington was concerned over a plan for China to construct three airports on the island, but worked with Denmark and Greenland to generate alternative financing. Even without ownership, proximity gives the US a major advantage in dealing with Greenland.

If not security, is there any other reason to try to acquire these lands or parts thereof? There is none for disconnected Panama. Canada and Greenland have natural resources, but the US can buy them in the open marketplace. The two lands also would augment America’s population, but that already ranks third in the world. And what of people’s consent? When Trump first suggested acquiring Greenland, the Washington Examiner insisted that “this isn’t just about American interests. Greenland’s small population also has everything to gain from a massive influx of American investment. The surge in tourism alone would surely offer a vast untapped potential.” However, trade, investment, and, if desired, immigration, could be promoted through bilateral agreements.

The bigger question is, do these people want to join “our national family,” meaning place themselves under the authority of the imperial city of Washington, D.C. Annexation would be like the mass immigration that Trump detests, only these migrants likely would oppose being swallowed by the behemoth to the south. They sport different cultures and are long used to governing themselves.

Moreover, the US has been growing steadily less free. At the same time US finances are dramatically deteriorating. Equally problematic, Washington’s foreign policy elite has taken the country into the era of “endless wars,” sacrificing thousands of Americans and killing hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians in dubious international crusades. Compare that to Denmark, which fields an army of just 8,000. Copenhagen can’t do much around the world, including in (or to!) Greenland.

However, even if the people of Canada and Greenland wanted to join America, that’s no reason to annex these lands. Although the US has demonstrated that a multi-ethnic Republic can work, the task has become ever more difficult, and the challenges remain many. America’s sharpest internal divide may be politics, not race, religion, or ethnicity. The bitterness of recent elections suggests that the US, with 345 million people, already is too big. The red/blue split has turned into a chasm, with some in the “national family” increasingly talking about a divorce.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with dissolving or restructuring political unions. We all deal with people who we would not want to live with. However, American divisions do not nicely break down by geography. There are red and blue states, but both include many dissenting communities. In every so-called swing state Trump’s majority/plurality was narrow. Even the blowout states have many dissidents. Until cities can move—the vision of ocean-borne “seasteads”—secession doesn’t look like a solution, no matter how bitter the divide.

Whatever the solution to our present divide, we should not exacerbate it. Adding the Canadian population would almost certainly push America sharply left. Moreover, Canada itself is badly fractured by Québécois nationalism. In fact, there is now renewed interest in secession. Imagine adding that controversy to today’s America!

There is a better argument for the US selling off (or making independent) some of its possessions, such as American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. They have only limited political representation in Washington and no obvious reason to remain part of the United States. Guam and the Commonwealth of Northern Marianna Islands also could go but opposition would be stronger since the looming cold war with China gives them some strategic value. Dropping territories acquired during America’s colonial-lite period would reduce federal fiscal burdens and allow friendly peoples to go their own way. (Maybe Denmark would accept America’s possessions!)

Donald Trump was reelected by challenging an ever-aggrandizing Washington elite which views bigger government as always better government. He shouldn’t fall into a similar trap of wanting the US to ever expand. Many Americans feel alienated from Washington, stuck in “flyover country,” or its equivalent, and ignored by those who believe they are entitled to rule.

Rather than adding to America’s discontented, Trump should focus on cutting Washington down to size, in both domestic and foreign affairs. Egede spoke in terms Americans should understand: “Our country will always be ours.” As it should be in the US too.

About the Author: Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.