Trump’s Expansionist Agenda threatening both friends and foes: Greenland, Panama Canal, and Gaza Proposals Spark Global Backlash

In the wake of his 2024 reelection, President Donald Trump has reignited the United States’ long-standing interest in territorial expansion, particularly targeting Gaza, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. Trump has consistently framed these efforts as essential for national security, arguing that control over these key regions would strengthen U.S.’s global standing and military presence.

The Gaza Proposal: A New Frontier

In an even more controversial development, Trump has proposed that the U.S. take control of Gaza, a territory that has been the focal point of ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The suggestion, made in a private discussion early in 2025, was initially met with shock and disbelief. Trump argued that controlling Gaza would help bring stability to the region and protect U.S. interests in the Middle East. However, critics, including international human rights organizations and many world leaders, immediately condemned the proposal, viewing it as an attempt to undermine Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty. Trump’s Gaza proposal has further strained U.S. relations with several Middle Eastern countries, as well as the broader international community, which has long supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United Nations has called the proposal “dangerous” and “counterproductive,” warning that it could escalate tensions in an already volatile region. Both Palestinian and Israeli authorities have rejected the notion, with many viewing it as an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty and a destabilizing move in an already complex geopolitical landscape. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, has become the focal point of his expansionist ambitions.

Trump’s administration first pursued the idea of purchasing the island in 2019, only to face diplomatic resistance from Denmark. Now, after his 2024 victory, Trump’s administration is revisiting the notion, with the former president describing ownership of Greenland as “an absolute necessity.” Additionally, Trump has called for the U.S. to regain control of the Panama Canal, a vital maritime chokepoint. His reasoning: the excessive rates charged for American passage, which he argues undermine U.S. economic interests. Both proposals have sparked diplomatic tensions, with critics accusing Trump of pursuing a neo-imperialist agenda. Nevertheless, his determination to secure these regions highlights the continued importance of territorial expansion in American foreign policy.

The Roots of US Expansionism

While President Trump’s proposals represent the latest chapter in U.S. expansionism, the nation’s history of territorial growth stretches back to the early 19th century. The concept of Manifest Destiny—the belief that Americans were destined to expand across the continent—guided much of the United States’ territorial acquisitions. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which saw the U.S. acquire vast tracts of land from France, was a cornerstone of this expansion, more than doubling the country’s size and opening up opportunities for westward growth. The annexation of Texas in 1845 and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853 were also pivotal moments, as the U.S. expanded its borders to the southwest, eventually culminating in the Mexican-American War. With each acquisition, the U.S. asserted its dominance over more land, and its leaders were often willing to go to war to secure new territories. This desire for expansion was not limited to North America but extended overseas, such as with the acquisition of Alaska from Russia in 1867.

Strategic Acquisitions and Interventions

The U.S. also sought to expand its influence through military and economic means. The annexation of Hawaii in 1898 and the acquisition of territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines following the Spanish-American War marked the U.S.’s growing imperial ambitions in the Pacific. The U.S. gained control of the Panama Canal Zone in 1904, further asserting its strategic dominance in the Western Hemisphere. These moves were part of a broader strategy to establish American influence globally, ensuring access to key resources, markets, and strategic military outposts. This geopolitical mindset shaped U.S. foreign policy for much of the 20th century and continues to influence decisions in the 21st century.

Modern Efforts

Trump’s renewed focus on Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal signals that expansionism remains at the forefront of American foreign policy. Greenland, with its vast natural resources and strategic location in the Arctic, has long been of interest to the United States. The Trump administration’s offer to purchase the island in 2019 was met with resistance from Denmark, and Greenlandic authorities reaffirmed their right to self-determination. However, Trump’s push to reassert American influence over Greenland underscores his belief that securing the island is critical to national security, particularly in the face of growing competition in the Arctic region. In a similar vein, Trump’s calls for reclaiming control of the Panama Canal reflect his desire to assert U.S. dominance over critical infrastructure. Since the canal was handed over to Panama in 1999, the U.S. has maintained significant interests in the region.

The region, and Trump’s proposal to take control of the canal once again emphasizes his administration’s focus on ensuring the free flow of goods and resources.

Canada the 51st state?

President Trump has repeatedly said Canada should be the 51st U.S. state and called Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “Governor” of the 51st state. Canada at first reacted as though Trump must be joking, and Trudeau responded, “Not a snowball’s chance in hell.” Trudeau more recently suggested behind closed doors that Trump’s sustained annexation calls may not be just light talk and appear to be “a real thing.”

Congress has to approve accepting a new state.

The U.S. Constitution’s Admissions Clause, Article IV, Section 3, states: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Any measure approving a new state that clears Congress would also have to be signed into law by the president. In the case of Canada, Trump has made it clear he would be eager to do so.

While Trump’s proposals have been met with strong opposition, both domestically and internationally, they are part of a broader pattern of American expansionism that has been shaped by a long history of territorial acquisitions and military interventions. Critics argue that such policies are outdated and may fuel tensions with other nations. Greenland, for example, has rejected any suggestion of selling its land to the U.S., with many Greenlanders advocating for greater independence from Denmark. Despite the controversies, Trump’s push for territorial gains is part of a legacy that dates back to the 19th century, when the U.S. aggressively pursued new lands to strengthen its position in the world. While modern expansionism may no longer take the form of large-scale annexations, the U.S. continues to exert its influence globally through economic power, military presence, and strategic negotiations.

Looking Ahead

As President Trump looks to secure his vision for a more expansive America, the future of U.S. territorial ambitions remains uncertain. The discussions over Greenland and the Panama Canal may evolve into a broader debate about the U.S.’s role in the world and the ethical implications of expansionist policies in the 21st century. Whether these efforts succeed or fail, they

Concerns Over Sovereignty and Self-Determination

Many countries, particularly Denmark and Greenland, have rejected Trump’s proposals due to concerns about sovereignty and the right to self-determination. Greenland, as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has consistently asserted that it is not for sale. The UN has long championed the rights of people to self-determination, and such a sale would be seen as a violation of this principle. The potential for a foreign power to buy territory with such a significant strategic location is seen as undermining the authority and sovereignty of both Denmark and Greenland.

Similarly, the idea of reclaiming the Panama Canal is viewed by Panama and other international stakeholders as a breach of the sovereignty of a sovereign nation. The 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which led to the transfer of control over the Canal to Panama in 1999, have been lauded internationally as a significant example of peaceful cooperation and respect for sovereignty. Trump’s calls to return the Canal to U.S. control are considered a challenge to these established international agreements. International law, as established by the UN Charter, emphasizes the importance of respecting territorial integrity and the sovereignty of all nations.

The UN has consistently condemned any actions that could be seen as violating these principles, especially through military force or coercive diplomacy. Trump’s rhetoric about using force to take control of territories, such as Gaza, Greenland, or the Panama Canal, has raised alarms about the potential for destabilization in the international order. Such rhetoric is seen as contrary to the peaceful conflict resolution and diplomatic engagement that the UN promotes.

Implications for U.S.-Denmark Relations and NATO

While the United States has strong diplomatic ties with Denmark, Trump’s repeated offers to purchase Greenland have strained relations. Denmark’s firm rejection of the idea in 2019 led to a brief diplomatic fallout when Trump canceled a planned state visit. From an international perspective, Trump’s actions could be seen as undermining the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect that typically underpins diplomatic relations between countries, particularly within alliances such as NATO, of which both the U.S. and Denmark are members. Trump’s push for territorial acquisition may be seen as a challenge to multilateralism, a core principle of both NATO and the UN.

Global Reactions

The reaction to Trump’s expansionist ambitions has been largely critical in the global media and diplomatic circles. Many international observers view his proposals as outdated and reminiscent of imperialistic policies from the 19th and early 20th centuries. The idea of territorial acquisition through economic pressure or political maneuvering is viewed as a step backward in terms of modern international relations, which prioritize diplomacy, mutual respect, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Some nations have voiced concerns about the potential for a new “Cold War” dynamic if such expansionist policies were to gain traction. Countries with competing strategic interests, particularly Russia, China, and European Union members, are likely to view U.S. moves to control critical geographical chokepoints or resource-rich areas with skepticism. The pursuit could provoke tensions in regions already dealing with geopolitical instability.

A view of the voting (on the screens) of the Ukraine-drafted resolution titled “ Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine” during the 20th plenary meeting of the resumed General Assembly Eleventh Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly on Ukraine. The resolution was adopted with 93 votes in favour, 18 against and 65 abstentions. Francisco José Da Cruz (left at dais), Vice-President of the seventy-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Angola to the United Nations, chairs the meeting.

UN Photo/Manuel Elías

The UN’s Commitment to Peace and Diplomacy

The UN, as the global body responsible for maintaining peace and security, has consistently advocated for dialogue and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Any move by the U.S. to unilaterally annex or exert control over foreign territory could spark tensions, especially in a world where territorial disputes are typically resolved through negotiations or international law rather than unilateral claims. The UN would likely view such policies as a challenge to its mandate to prevent aggressive actions and promote diplomacy. In the case of Greenland, the international community is also mindful of China’s growing interest in the Arctic region, which includes its own economic investments in Greenland’s mining industries. Some critics argue that Trump’s attempts to purchase Greenland may stem from concerns over China’s expanding influence, and they fear that U.S. actions could escalate tensions in the Arctic region. The UN, as well as countries like Russia, have voiced concerns about the militarization of the Arctic, and Trump’s continued pursuit of Greenland could be seen as exacerbating such tensions.

While Trump’s expansionist policies resonate with his “America First” agenda, the international community and the UN are likely to oppose them on the grounds of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and adherence to international law. The rejection of such policies by Denmark, Greenland, and Panama is a clear indication that the modern global order prioritizes diplomatic engagement over coercion or unilateral expansion. For many, Trump’s approach represents a significant shift away from the cooperative, multilateral frameworks that have guided international relations in recent decades. The challenge for the U.S. moving forward will be reconciling these expansionist aspirations with the global norms and principles that undergird its relationships with other nations.

Ukraine minerals

A month later, President Trump and VP J.D. Vance hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office for a highly contentious meeting. The encounter, was marked by sharp exchanges and a notably hostile atmosphere. Trump and Vance openly criticized Zelensky, accusing him of disrespect and questioning his commitment to peace efforts. At one point, the meeting became so heated that reporters witnessed a shouting match, with Trump berating Zelensky and Vance interjecting forcefully.

The primary agenda of the meeting was to finalize a deal granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s rich mineral resources, a strategic move to counter Russian influence. However, due to the escalating tensions and confrontational tone, the meeting ended abruptly without the signing of the agreement. Zelensky left the White House without securing the deal, marking a significant setback in U.S.-Ukraine relations.

Republican supporters praised Trump’s assertiveness, while Democrats condemned the treatment of Zelensky, viewing it as a departure from traditional diplomatic decorum. Internationally, allies expressed concern over the U.S.’s approach, fearing it might embolden adversaries like Russia. In the days following the meeting, the Trump administration suspended all military aid to Ukraine, citing the need for a comprehensive review to ensure that assistance aligns with promoting peace. This decision raised alarms about Ukraine’s ability to sustain its defense efforts without U.S. support. Overall, the February 28 meeting was a turning point, straining U.S.-Ukraine relations and altering the trajectory of international support for Ukraine amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia.

Oval Office meeting appears to be rooted in several key factors:

1. Disagreements on Ukraine’s Role and Strategy: Trump and Vance were reportedly frustrated with Zelensky’s demands and approach to the ongoing conflict with Russia. They felt that Ukraine was not making enough progress toward peace or taking responsibility for its own defense efforts. The tension was exacerbated by differing views on how to handle Russia and the ongoing war.
2. Military Aid Disputes: Trump had been critical of continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine, especially after questioning whether the U.S. should continue providing support. During the meeting, it seems that Zelensky sought continued support and potentially more military resources, while Trump and Vance were more focused on a more transactional relationship, possibly involving access to Ukraine’s resources in exchange for continued aid.
3. U.S. Strategic Interests: The Trump administration, under Vance’s influence as Vice President, was also pushing for a broader geopolitical strategy where U.S. interests, such as access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, took center stage. Trump and Vance wanted Ukraine to be more cooperative in terms of economic and strategic benefits, which led to tense exchanges during the meeting.
4. Internal Republican Pressure: Trump and Vance were reportedly responding to pressure from within the Republican Party, especially from those who were more skeptical of continuing U.S. support to Ukraine. The meeting, in part, reflected the broader debate within the U.S. over Ukraine’s role and how much the U.S. should be involved.

The combination of these factors led to a meeting marked by sharp criticism, lack of cooperation, and an abrupt end, leaving Zelensky without the assurance he had hoped for.

After the tense meeting, Zelensky responded diplomatically. He called for continued dialogue with the U.S., emphasizing Ukraine’s commitment to peace and a willingness to work with Trump. He proposed a peace plan for the Russia-Ukraine conflict and reassured international allies of Ukraine’s resilience. Zelensky focused on de-escalating tensions, hoping to maintain U.S. support while seeking broader international backing for Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Rasmussen: “Open hostility to transatlantic alliance”

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ex-head of NATO argues that in the face of revanchist Russia and Donald Trump’s open hostility to transatlantic alliance, Europe must come to the terms with the fact that it is seemingly alone. After 80 years of American-backed security, we Europeans must now shoulder the burden of securing peace on our own continent,” he warns. Rasmussen believes “NATO’s current defense-spending target of 2% of GDP should become a requirement of 3% immediately, and of 4% by 2028”.

About The Author

Razi Canikligil

See author's posts