Is the Trump Administration Really Trying to Acquire Canada, Panama, and Greenland?

President Donald Trump’s imperial ambitions to turn Canada into the fifty-first state, reclaim the Panama Canal, and purchase Greenland or conquer it from Denmark has caused controversy, but is this talk just a negotiation tactic, or will he really push to invade these countries to pursue an America-first policy by force? Are there battle plans being drawn up to engage American troops in military actions that would be necessary to force three independent nations into compliance, or will the president get what he wants through pressure and diplomacy?

The Trump administration wasted no time in issuing executive order after executive order (something that Republicans cried about when the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administrations used such tactics) to unconstitutionally bypass Congress on fundamental policy decisions, and the most famous of them was probably the twenty-five percent tariff for imported goods on two of the United States’ largest trading partners: Canada and Mexico. After an arbitrary emergency declaration (a dangerous precedent in of itself and one used by executives to usurp power), these tariffs were announced on February 1, 2025 and delayed two days later, after both countries agreed to play President Trump’s games (Mexico, for example, sent 10,000 National Guard and Army troops to enforce border policies and crack down on fentanyl smuggling, and fentanyl was also the excuse used to slap tariffs on Canada). Then, he resumed the tariffs on March 4^th, only to rescind them again over the next couple days and threaten to restore them in the near future. Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and incoming Prime Minister Mark Carney have both vowed to retaliate and impose taxes on goods and services imported from and exported to the United States (including Ontario’s rate hike on electricity sent to New York, Minnesota, and Michigan, thus meaning potentially higher energy costs for Americans in those states).

These executive edicts are attempting to reduce the trade deficit that Canada and Mexico have with the United States. For example, Canada had a $35.7 billion trade advantage over the United States in 2024 and $40.6 billion in 2023 in both goods and services, and if you simply include goods, it jumped to $70.6 billion in 2024 and $72.3 billion in 2023 (a far cry from the $200 billion deficit that Trump has claimed). Although Canada has a 270% tariff rate on dairy powder and a 241% tariff rate on over-quota milk, the tariff on quota (regular) milk is around 7.5%, and most other products and services are taxed at somewhat fair rates (again, a trade deficit does exist). In time, if these new tariffs (including on automobiles, steel, aluminum, and copper) continue, Americans may feel the increased prices being passed on to consumers by the corporations that sell Canadian products and services. After all, any tax or regulation on businesses, whether it is tariffs or an increase in the minimum wage, will affect the final purchasing price (corporations do not willingly take on the extra costs and reduce their profits). This will likely be no different, unless Trump knows something that most economists do not.

Regardless, fighting a trade war with Canada to force it into compliance and weaken its economy ahead of calling for the country to become the fifty-first state is an imperialist move that we should not encourage (President Trump jokingly called the Canadian leader: Governor Trudeau). However, it does appear that, at least for now, Canadians are pushing back against this idea through nationalism and reciprocal actions (even at hockey games). As far as we can tell, the Trump administration does not have plans to actively invade Canada, and doing so would only cause animosity between the United States and other major global players. It appears that President Trump is causing theatrics in order to simply cause Canada to reduce trade deficits, and in the end, we should not expect more than rhetoric flying and possible increased taxes. It does not seem as if most Americans actually believe that Canada will become the next American state (if Canada joined the United States, each of the ten provinces should enter as ten separate states, leaving the three territories to join the adjacent states of Alaska, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Manitoba, or Quebec across the Hudson Bay).

President Trump’s efforts to reduce Chinese influence in the Panama Canal and turn it over to American interests has seemingly been a success with BlackRock’s $22.8 billion asset purchase of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holding’s shares of the Panama Ports Company’s Balboa and Cristobal ports (on the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, respectively). With a 90% interest in the two ports, BlackRock and its subsidiaries and partners of Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited will effectively control the Panama Canal, thus giving the Trump administration bragging rights that the United States has “acquired” the canal. Of course, Panama President José Raúl Mulino has pointed out that the United States still does not control the Panama Canal and that a majority ownership in the port’s operating company by a Hong Kong corporation did not equal Chinese control either. The United States built the canal from 1904 to 1914 (after taking over the project from France and supporting Panamanian separatists in a revolution against Colombia) and controlled it until 1977, when the Torrijos–Carter Treaties under President Jimmy Carter relinquished control of it to the Panamanian government (the United States is still obligated to protect the canal if it is attacked by hostile forces). Years later, China gained some influence over it, and as many are aware, there is currently a resource race around the globe between the United States and China to secure as many countries as possible through economic deals (the old colonial system is making a resurgence in the twenty-first century).

In addition to an American consortium taking over a majority of stocks on two of the four ports in the Panama Canal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to Panama led to President Mulino not renewing his country’s participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and this was viewed by China as manipulation of Panama in an effort to undermine operations that the Chinese government has engaged in to build infrastructure in several countries around the world (especially Africa). Being that the Panama Canal is one of the world’s most important economic and strategic locations due to its ability to cut down travel time between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, is it any wonder why the United States would prefer to exert control over it and not allow other countries to have influence? Having an economic deal where an American company takes control is preferable to a second American invasion of the Central American country (the first being in 1989), but we must realize that this is ultimately an imperialistic grab and a bullying tactic against a sovereign nation.

However, BlackRock, as discussed several times in my writings, controls almost every good and service that Americans use on a daily basis, including food, hygiene products, television, news, airlines, residential homes, and pharmaceutical products. Seeing this corporation take a majority stake in the Panama Canal seems like a slap in the face of Americans, as President Trump claims to be for the people and not someone who would sell them out to Larry Fink and his mega conglomerate, and yet, here we are (in the Panama Canal purchase, BlackRock is also taking control of forty-one other canals, which were also owned by Hutchison, across twenty-three countries). Is there more to this deal that would benefit Americans than what is seen on the surface? Let us hope.

As far as Greenland is concerned, it has so far remained a rhetorical battle, as President Trump has offered the people a better life under the United States. Greenland Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede has said, “We are not for sale and cannot be taken. Our future is determined by us in Greenland.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen echoed what the leader of Greenland suggested by saying, “Greenland is today a part of the kingdom of Denmark. It is part of our territory, and it's not for sale;” but President Trump has insisted that the United States needs to acquire the island “one way or the other.” However, the majority of the people of Greenland are not interested in becoming an American territory, and as a constituent part of the Kingdom of Denmark under an arrangement that allows it to be governed autonomously, the people receive welfare grants, subsidies for housing, and free healthcare and education provided by the Danish government. Greenland gets to operate somewhat like its own country while receiving large benefits from its motherland. That is not something that the people will willingly give up, though there is some indication that the opposition party in Greenland, Naleraq, is willing to support efforts for deals with the United States, perhaps in exchange for granting Greenland full independence. In achieving such deals, the United States might try to exploit the world’s largest island for its vast resources of gas, oil, and rare-earth minerals; but there is really no reason why American companies could not already make deals with Greenland (and Denmark) for the resources. Plus, the United States maintains Pituffik Space Base (Thule Air Base), so there is already a military presence on the island.

Of course, the real reason that the Trump administration wants to purchase Greenland outright is for “national security” purposes, as the Arctic economic and military zones are becoming more cherished as the ice starts to melt and the water becomes more navigable. There is currently a race to claim as much of the Arctic and its surrounding waterways as possible, and Russia and China are also moving into some of these areas. If the United States cannot purchase Greenland peacefully, will the Trump administration launch a coup against the ruling Inuit Ataqatigiit (democratic socialist) party and its Siumut (social democratic) party allies in Nuuk to turn Greenland into a new nation free from Denmark, or will the United States military invade the island? More than likely, just like with the other nations that he is utilizing aggressive rhetoric against, this is simply a negotiating tactic. In the end, Greenlanders should decide their future and which government that they would prefer to rule over them (as the American founding fathers made clear with the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution). Whether Greenland will ultimately be ruled by Copenhagen, Washington, or Nuuk remains to be seen (also remember that Denmark is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, ally, so an invasion would complicate the alliance).

Interestingly, House Representative Seth Magaziner put forth a bill (No Invading Allies Act) supported by Democrats to prevent President Trump from invading Canada, Panama, and Greenland; and of course, I completely agree that the president should not be authorized to do so. These Democrats have rightly pointed out that the United States Constitution only authorizes Congress to initiate military operations, and we have strayed so far from that principle. However, where were these same legislators and the entire Democratic Party when their presidents were drone striking and bombing several countries in the Middle East by dictatorial orders or engaging in a cold (or proxy) war with Russia using Ukraine as the tool (funding bills are not the same as a declaration of war, and the United States has most certainly been a belligerent in that conflict)? For now, it seems that the talk of adding two new stars to the American flag or militarily engaging in these three countries is a negotiating tactic, but if battle plans are drawn up, Americans should oppose them and advocate for “no new wars,” as the Trump campaign promised.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.