President-elect Donald Trump has reignited interest in U.S. ownership of Greenland, proclaiming it necessary for national security. Echoing sentiments from his previous term, Trump asserted on his Truth Social platform, "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity." This statement announced the nomination of Ken Howery, PayPal's co-founder, as the U.S. ambassador to Denmark.
Trump's revived focus on Greenland coincides with his recent demands for Panama to return control of the Panama Canal, which he argues is being mishandled by Panama's government. This bold call to reclaim historical U.S. oversight came after Trump accused Panama of imposing exorbitant fees on U.S. shipping interests.
During his previous term, Trump showed interest in purchasing Greenland, primarily for its vast natural resources and strategic location. Such territorial ambitions, paired with criticism of how other countries manage sites significant to U.S. national interests, spotlight Trump's aggressive approach to international diplomacy.
The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, firmly rejected Trump's earlier proposal, stating, "Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope this is not meant seriously." This retort came during her visit to Greenland back in 2019, reflecting Denmark's firm stance on its autonomous territories.
Denmark maintains autonomy over Greenland, which means any U.S. claims are not only challenged by local sentiment but face the backdrop of international law and diplomatic norms. Trump's insistence on ownership places him at odds with longstanding alliances, particularly as Greenland is seen as integral to both Arctic and broader strategic interests.
Trump's recent comments were layered with national security rhetoric, advocating control of Greenland as foundational for U.S. safety and strategic positioning amid increasing rivalries, particularly with nations like China and Russia, who are vying for influence in the Arctic. "Greenland is very important for our national security," Trump has tied its ownership to broader themes of American dominance and defense capability.
Turning to the Panama Canal, Trump's assertions highlight his dissatisfaction with the existing management of transit fees, declarations on laying claim to the waterway he argues belongs to the U.S. Historically, the canal was controlled by the U.S. until its handover to Panama was formalized under the 1977 treaty signed by then-President Jimmy Carter.
After Trump described the fees charged by Panama as "ridiculous," Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino published strong rebukes. He litigated the principle of sovereignty, stressing his country's independence by declaring, "Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belongs to Panama and will continue to be so," rejecting any notion of U.S. reclamation.
Trump suggested this reality is negotiable if the existing arrangement doesn't change, threatening future U.S. action. He underscored the point with, "We would and will NEVER let it fall to the wrong hands!" This assertion marks another chapter of Trump’s political narrative, tapping deeply nationalist themes, framing it as necessary to protect U.S. interests overseas.
Without direct military action—highly contentious and fraught with consequences—Trump's pathway to reclaiming control over the Panama Canal poses questions about how he plans to assert U.S. dominance without inciting international tensions. Both Greenland and the Panama Canal embody Trump's broader geopolitical strategy of American expansionism, pushing boundaries internationally without restraint.
Trump's nominations and prospective policy directions indicate his readiness to confront global treaties and historical agreements. The reaction from world leaders signals their unwillingness to compromise on sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Whether Trump will succeed or face substantial pushback remains to be seen. Nonetheless, as he prepares to potentially reoccupy the Oval Office, these declarations signal how contentious U.S.-international relations could become under his administration, especially for allied nations directly impacted by his aspirations.
