- In his 2nd term as president, Donald Trump has entertained proposals to acquire Greenland from Denmark, make Canada the 51st US state, and seize control of the Panama Canal.
- Academic Roseanne McManus draws parallels between Trump’s rhetoric and what has been dubbed ‘madman theory,’ which involves building an image of unpredictability to intimidate adversaries and extract concessions
- ‘He wants to appear unpredictable enough that countries like Panama cannot rule out the possibility that he would use military force. Through intimidation, he may be able to secure concessions at a low cost,’ McManus explains to Anadolu
- Trump’s desire to take control of Greenland, Canada and Panama canal all appear related to competition with China, expert at International Crisis Group Sarah Harrison tells Anadolu
ISTANBUL
US President Donald Trump’s recent comments about potentially acquiring Greenland from Denmark, making Canada the 51st state, and seizing control of the Panama Canal have ignited a firestorm.
While some dismiss his rhetoric as mere bluster, others see it as a calculated strategy to intimidate adversaries and advance US interests through unpredictability.
For many, Trump’s statements reflect a broader expansionist agenda, aimed at securing strategic advantages in the Arctic and global trade routes.
But it remains unclear whether these remarks are serious policy proposals, or part of a larger negotiating tactic. Experts weigh in on the implications of Trump’s ambitions and whether they could come to fruition.
Greenland: A strategic prize in the Arctic
Before returning to the Oval Office, Trump told reporters that Greenland is “a wonderful place. We need it for international security.”
Greenland, the world’s largest island, has been an autonomous territory of Denmark since 1979. Earlier this month, Trump stressed that Greenland should become part of the US to ensure national security and protect against potential threats from China and Russia.
Strategically, Greenland’s offers the shortest route from North America to Europe, making it a critical location for military and ballistic missile early-warning systems.
The US already operates the Thule Air Base on the island, but Trump has expressed interest in expanding its military presence, including by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland, and the UK.
The island is also rich in natural resources, including rare earth minerals essential for high-tech industries. A 2023 survey found that 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission are present in Greenland. Despite its economic potential, Greenland’s Indigenous population has largely opposed large-scale mining, leaving the territory reliant on its fishing industry.
Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new. During his first term, he floated the idea of purchasing the island, which was met with laughter and disbelief in Washington. Denmark, a close US ally, firmly rejected the proposal, leading Trump to cancel a planned visit to Copenhagen.
Canada as the 51st state?
Trump has also promoted the idea of Canada becoming the 51st US state.
Claiming that many Canadians support his proposal, he has argued that the move would bring economic stability to Canada and shield it from perceived external threats, including “Russian and Chinese ships.”
While some view this as a joke, others see it as part of Trump’s broader strategy to assert US dominance in North America.
Canada, however, has shown no interest in becoming part of the US. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly emphasized Canada’s sovereignty and independence, making Trump’s proposal a non-starter.
The Panama Canal: A flashpoint in global trade
Trump’s criticism of the Panama Canal has also drawn attention. He has argued that the 1999 transfer of control to Panama was intended as a gesture of cooperation, not a concession, and has criticized the high tariffs for canal transit.
The canal is a vital artery for global trade and accounts for an estimated 2.5% of global sea trade and 40% of all US container traffic. Trump has accused Panama of mismanaging the canal and allowing China to gain influence over its operations.
“We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made,” Trump said during a recent address. “Above all, China is operating the Panama Canal. And we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”
Panama, however, has firmly rejected Trump’s claims. President Jose Raul Mulino stated that “every square meter of the Panama Canal and the surrounding area belongs to Panama and will continue belonging (to Panama).”
‘Madman theory’
Academic Roseanne McManus, a professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University, offers insight into Trump’s rhetoric, drawing parallels to what has been described as “Madman Theory.”
This involves a psychological tactic to frighten adversaries by creating the perception that one is unpredictable and willing to take extreme actions.
“Trump’s strategy is likely similar,” says McManus. “He wants to appear unpredictable enough that countries like Panama cannot rule out the possibility that he would use military force. Through intimidation, he may be able to secure concessions at a low cost.”
The term “madman strategy” was popularized by former US President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War. Nixon hoped to convince North Vietnam that he was irrational enough to use nuclear weapons, thereby forcing them into making concessions.
“The madman strategy is the idea that you can intimidate opponents by pretending to be a little mad,” explains McManus. “Former US President Nixon, who gave the strategy its name, wanted to make the North Vietnamese believe that he was crazy enough to use nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War. He believed this would cause them to make concessions in negotiations.”
McManus suggests that Trump’s unpredictability in making extreme comments might serve a similar purpose, intimidating countries into making favorable deals for the US. However, she cautions that this strategy can also create distrust of the United States.
What are Trump’s goals, and will he succeed?
For Sarah Harrison, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group’s US Program, Trump’s desire to take control of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal “all appear related to competition with China, whether for control of the Arctic or trade routes.”
“You can find much of the explanation about the Panama Canal in Secretary Rubio’s confirmation hearing. And Trump’s proposal to purchase Greenland is not new,” she says.
Harrison pointed to the desire Trump expressed to purchase Greenland during first administration, which many in Washington laughed at, creating a stir within the executive branch.
“Maybe his offering to Canada to be the 51st state is more of a joke than serious, but it’s hard to know for sure without the president saying so,” she adds.
Experts believe that Trump is unlikely to take control of these territories or use military force to acquire them.
“None of the countries involved are likely to concede their territory, and I am fairly certain that he will not use military force,” says McManus.
“I think he sees US strategic interests in both Greenland and Panama, but achieving his goals does not truly require taking over their territory. I believe his talk of taking over Canada is most likely a joke, although he does want trade concessions from Canada.”
Negotiating tactic or expansionist agenda?
Experts also offer their views on whether Trump’s plans reflect a genuine expansionist agenda or are merely negotiating tactics.
For McManus, while Trump is unpredictable, she cannot rule out that this is part of an expansionist agenda. “However, I think this is more likely a negotiating tactic. He is taking extreme positions to intimidate these countries, in the hope that they will make lesser concessions,” she says.
“For example, he might hope to reduce Chinese influence over ports near the Panama Canal and get a better trade deal from Canada. Maybe he wants more access to natural resources in Greenland,” she adds.
Harrison emphasizes that Trump’s recent statements were not campaign promises and that the president does not have a mandate from the American public to pursue an expansionist agenda.
“Such threats to take sovereign territory signify that President Trump will continue his unorthodox approach to international relations, sidelining international law — and possibly domestic law — to pursue what he thinks is in the best interest of the US,” she says.
She noted: “If he intends to pursue these policy goals at any cost, the question will be what branch of government is willing to rein him in?
“And if they fail, the next question will be what allies and partners would stand up to such aggression.”
