NYT: Trump targets Greenland, Panama Canal in latest "America first" push

In a series of bold statements, President-elect Donald J. Trump has called for the United States to assert control over both the Panama Canal and Greenland, raising questions about his "America First" agenda's expansionist nature.

Trump’s rhetoric suggests an approach rooted in national security and economic interests, particularly as the US seeks to strengthen its position in both global commerce and military strategy, Caliber.Az reports via The New York Times.

The President-elect’s remarks over the past two days make clear his aspirations to bring both territories under American influence. On December 22, while announcing a new US ambassador to Denmark—responsible for Greenland’s foreign and defence affairs—Trump emphasized that the United States’ national security and commercial interests necessitate ownership or control over the island, especially given its strategic location in the Arctic.

Trump’s interest in Greenland appears linked to its vast untapped natural resources, including rare earth minerals essential for advanced technologies. The region’s proximity to new Arctic shipping routes, opened by melting ice, has also heightened global interest.

Trump framed the acquisition as essential to "National Security and Freedom throughout the World," underlining the strategic value of Greenland in the face of growing competition from Russia and China in the Arctic. "The ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity," he wrote on social media. This aligns with his broader vision of asserting US dominance in critical global trade and security zones.

In addition to Greenland, Trump’s focus on the Panama Canal highlights his concerns about American economic interests. On December 21, he criticized Panama’s pricing policies for shipping fees through the canal, calling them excessive. The remarks, made just ahead of an impending fee increase in January, suggested that unless Panama adjusts its pricing structure, Trump would consider renegotiating or even abandoning the 1977 treaty that returned control of the canal to Panama.

"This complete 'rip-off' of our country will immediately stop," he warned, also voicing concerns about the canal potentially falling into the "wrong hands," a likely reference to China, the second-largest user of the canal. Panama, however, responded firmly, reaffirming its sovereignty over the canal and rejecting Trump’s suggestions.

In both cases, Trump’s assertions have been met with swift resistance. Greenland’s Prime Minister, Mute B. Egede, firmly rejected any notion of the territory being for sale, stating, “Greenland is ours.”

Similarly, Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino, insisted that the canal and its surrounding zones would remain under Panamanian control, adding that the country’s sovereignty is “not negotiable.” Denmark, which retains sovereignty over Greenland, has also expressed a measured response, offering to engage with the incoming US administration without committing to any territorial negotiations.

The statements from Trump are notable for their aggressive tone, diverging from his previous more casual suggestions—such as calling Canada the potential "51st state." Analysts have drawn comparisons to past US expansionist policies, particularly those of President Theodore Roosevelt, whose "Big Stick" diplomacy resulted in the acquisition of territories like the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.

While his proposals raise significant diplomatic tensions, some experts note that the US could stand to gain both economically and strategically from Greenland’s resources. However, any potential acquisition would likely be a complex and contentious process, involving not only Denmark and Greenland’s government but also local communities wary of foreign influence, especially regarding resource extraction.

Ultimately, Trump’s assertions over the past week signal a continuation of his "America First" policy, but with an added dimension of territorial ambition—one that could have lasting geopolitical and diplomatic implications. As tensions mount, the new administration will face challenges in balancing its ambitions with international law and the sovereignty of other nations.

By Aghakazim Guliyev