In his typical fashion, President-elect Donald Trump has been making provocative claims in his speeches since his victory in the 2024 election, and of course, they are directed towards close allies of the US.
According to a Reuters article on Trump’s recent threats he made it clear how far he is willing to go for these Greenland and Panama:
“[When] asked at a press conference at his Florida resort whether he could assure the world he would not use military or economic coercion as he tries to gain control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, Trump said, ‘No, I can’t assure you on either of those two. But I can say this, we need them for economic security.’ ”
Many have questioned why Trump has been trying so hard to get Greenland so former U.S. Navy Captain Brent Sadler explained in an NPR interview:
“Geography really matters, and Greenland’s geography is extremely strategic. We don’t want a Chinese economic or military presence right there at a very critical pathway for an attack against the United States.”
Also, the same NPR article goes on to explain the reason for US fears:
“Meanwhile, China has increasingly sought joint ventures to tap into Greenland’s rich “rare-earth” minerals with exotic names such as neodymium, cerium, and lanthanum,[…] that are vital to the modern tech industry.”
Despite Trump’s apparent willingness to take military action, it is likely that it is moreso a madman strategy. The President-elect has historically been known for his unpredictability and this is his form of weaponizing that reputation. While it is obvious that a military takeover of a fellow NATO country is not worth it for the US, other world leaders cannot rule out the chance that Trump may test their limits.
Although, why would he start such controversy over Greenland? As Sadler said, geography is most important. When geography is taken into consideration the Panama Canal quickly makes sense due to its control over one of the worlds most crossed trading routes, the Panama Canal, but Greenland has entered the game because as Earth gets hotter the ice caps are beginning to melt and open new trade routes and valuable waters. Having control of Greenland after these ice caps melt will decide not just the commerce through future lucrative trade routes, but it can also act as a logistics base for ships and military operations. Furthermore, having control of that water could also act as a major point for nuclear capable submarines which would be dangerously close to the US and Canada.
Why does the US consider this a possibility? Well, the Chinese activity mentioned in the latter NPR quote has the US on its toes. Washington does not wish to have their largest adversary on the world stage have control of an island off its coast again, and China has every reason to want to be there. Greenland is a landmass the size of India, rich with resources, and has a population of only 56,000 people. If Greenland were to gain the independence it is pushing for and begin making deals with China for trade, mining, infrastructure, and military similar to China’s Silk Road initiative in nations around the world. Then the US would be competing with China in traditionally US controlled waters. However, this is a rather baseless worry from Trump because if he did not actively provoke Denmark and Greenland then they likely would not be against the stationing of more American military personnel considering Pitiffuk Space Base (formerly Thule Air Force Base) is already there. This is dangerous because these propositions are actively making all of our closest allies distrust us. It is a foolish plan simply because the plan is getting in its own way because the alliance was previously extremely tight knit until Trump began dismantling it, and it is impressive our allies have tolerated this erratic behavior for so long already.
Next, according to an AP news article about Trump’s statements on Canada:
“The U.S. president-elect has threatened to impose a 25% tax on all products entering the U.S. from Canada and Mexico unless they stem the flow of migrants and drugs. […] U.S. customs agents seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border last fiscal year, compared with 21,100 pounds at the Mexican border.[…] On immigration, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 1.53 million encounters with irregular migrants at the southwest border with Mexico between October 2023 and September 2024. That compares to 23,721 encounters at the Canadian border during that time.”
Furthermore, Trump has continued his previous rhetoric of increased defense spending from NATO:
“ ‘I think NATO should have 5%,” he said. “They can all afford it, but they should be at 5%, not 2%.’ ”
There is no sense in forcing Canada to pay tariffs under the pretext of a problem that exists at the southern border. Canada can do nothing about the trade that is coming through Mexico, and they are still a significant trading partner for the US considering the natural gas and oil they sell to the US among other exports. If the price of Canadian oil, natural gas, and steel go up, then the downstream effects on the economy would be the opposite of the platform Trump has campaigned on.
Tariffs on Canada would increase prices for the American consumer, but if Trump were to meet the 5% goal he recently chose to arbitrarily set he would have to increase taxes, which is again the opposite of the campaign platform. Also, the goal appears unfounded and even unachievable for the States. Defense spending has already been controversial, but it has gotten drowned out by other topics in the press. However, raising the spending from the current 3.38% to 5% would be raising spending by roughly $480 billion and would certainly catch the eyes of many Americans especially as they wonder who is paying for that while the national debt continues to grow. Furthermore, by percentage of GDP spent on defense, the US is only in third with Poland in first and Estonia in second. Trump has no right to be making this proposition, and he cannot possibly put it into action while lowering prices as he said he would.
Trump’s initiatives with Greenland and Panama seem indicative of a trade war, and based on that information it is important to consider whether he knows more than we do and is preparing for someone else to start one or does he intend to use these positions to start his own trade war. However, it seems from his attitude towards Denmark, Canada, and Mexico that Trump is looking to go on the aggressive with these trade routes. Also, it seems that he is only using Mexico and the borders as a pretext to tariff Canada industries which he wants to move back to the US. It is my belief that he would use rising prices to open oil pipelines and start drilling more domestic oil so that the country can be energy self-sufficient, which has been a goal for Trump since his last presidency.
