Trump’s recent comments regarding the potential use of the US military to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal have understandably caused significant concern. The very suggestion of such actions, especially considering the established alliances and international laws involved, is deeply unsettling. The casual manner in which this possibility was broached is particularly alarming, painting a picture of disregard for both diplomatic norms and the potential ramifications of such aggressive actions.
The idea of a military takeover of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member, is especially problematic. This action would directly violate the core principles of the NATO alliance, potentially triggering Article 5 and bringing the US into a conflict with its own allies.… Continue reading
President-elect Trump refused to rule out military action to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, deeming both vital to U.S. national security, a departure from decades of established policy. His comments followed a private visit to Greenland by his son, Donald Trump Jr., despite the Greenlandic government’s assertion that the visit was unofficial. Trump also vowed to overturn President Biden’s recent offshore drilling ban upon assuming office, alleging interference in the transition process. Additionally, he expressed intentions to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
Read More
In a bizarre Christmas message, Donald Trump threatened annexation of Canada, suggesting Wayne Gretzky run for Prime Minister to facilitate this. He further asserted that the U.S. should seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, citing national security concerns for the latter. These statements, made on social media, represent a continuation of Trump’s previously expressed, expansionist views. His pronouncements raise significant concerns given his impending assumption of presidential power and control over the U.S. military.
Read More
In a Christmas message, President-elect Trump reiterated his desire for U.S. territorial expansion, targeting the Panama Canal and Greenland, and suggesting Canada become the 51st state with significant tax cuts and military protection. He also falsely claimed a high death toll during the Panama Canal’s construction and mocked Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau. While Greenland’s prime minister rejected any sale of the territory, Denmark expressed willingness to cooperate with the new U.S. administration, even while increasing its defense spending for Greenland. Trump further urged Wayne Gretzky to run for Canadian prime minister.
Read More
Donald Trump is renewing his calls for the U.S. to purchase Greenland from Denmark, citing national security, a move met with immediate rejection from Greenland’s government. Simultaneously, he’s threatened to retake control of the Panama Canal due to rising shipping costs, despite the 1977 treaty transferring control to Panama. These actions, alongside suggestions of annexing Canada, are seen by some as a negotiating tactic to leverage concessions from allied nations, echoing his past business strategies. Greenland and Panama have both firmly rejected his claims.
Read More
President-elect Trump threatened to reclaim U.S. control of the Panama Canal, citing allegedly unfair fees charged by Panama and expressing concerns about potential Chinese influence, despite China’s lack of control over the canal’s administration. This assertion drew immediate condemnation from Panamanian President Mulino, who declared Panama’s sovereignty non-negotiable and defended the canal’s fee structure. Trump’s threat, unprecedented in its directness, marks a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy and lacks legal basis under international law. The Panama Canal, a crucial waterway for global trade, was transferred to Panamanian control in 1999 following agreements signed in 1977.
Read More
Trump’s suggestion to retake the Panama Canal if transit fees aren’t lowered is a dramatic escalation, raising eyebrows internationally. The statement itself is startling, given the implications of unilaterally seizing another nation’s sovereign territory. It suggests an approach to international relations that prioritizes aggressive unilateral action over diplomacy and negotiation.
This action, if implemented, would be a clear violation of international law and norms, potentially triggering significant diplomatic backlash and jeopardizing US relations with numerous countries. Beyond the legal ramifications, such a move could severely damage America’s standing in the global community, undermining its credibility and leadership.
The claim seemingly stems from a dispute over transit fees, implying a belief that the US has some inherent right to influence or control these prices.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker