In a startling proposal reminiscent of 19th century-era geopolitical ambitions, Donald Trump has suggested the U.S. annex Greenland, Canada, and Panama. Though unconventional even by Trump’s standards, this idea is evidently meant to reflect his vision of consolidating America’s global influence through the acquisition of territories with immense geographic and economic value. To understand the implications, we must examine the context of his plan, the international reactions, and the historical and theoretical frameworks which give insight into this audacious notion.
Trump’s plan, articulated in private discussions and musings made in public, emphasizes the strategic importance of these regions. Greenland, rich in untapped resources and vital for navigation of the Arctic, has long been of interest to the U.S. and was already designated byTrump as one of his expansionist ambitions during his first presidency. Canada’s vast landmass, resources, industry, and strategic value due to its geographic closeness to Russia (and China) make it an equally appealing, though rather improbable, candidate for annexation. As for Panama, its role as major trade route and passageway for military ships via the Panama Canal has solidified its status as the linchpin of U.S. control in the region and, given the many U.S. interventions there, the least surprising candidate for a reassertion of territorial expansion. While Trump’s language on the matter reportedly oscillates between jocular hyperbole and earnest pragmatism, the underlying message is clear: enhancing American dominance, if not over the world, then at least over the American hemisphere, by securing pivotal regions.
The response from Greenland and Denmark has been as swift as it was unequivocal. Greenlandic officials have called the idea “an affront to sovereignty,” with Denmark’s Prime Minister calling it “absurd” while reaffirming that Greenland is not for sale, much less annexation. Nevertheless, the move has bolstered Greenlandic independentists, and were it not for the repercussions of such an annexation for U.S.-EU relations, it is not entirely improbable that adequate financial leverage could persuade the local population to join the U.S. freely. Canada’s political establishment, while more measured in tone, has dismissed the concept of joining the U.S. as “fantastical” and contrary to the close, yet independent, relationship the two nations have enjoyed for over two centuries. Canada’s PM Trudeau even wrote on X: “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.” In Panama, finally, where the U.S. relinquished its military control of the Panama Canal in 1999, the idea has rekindled fear of imperial overreach. Local leaders decried the suggestion as “a colonialist fantasy,” warning of the damage such rhetoric could do to bilateral relations and regional stability.
Trump’s desire for annexation finds resonance in Carl Schmitt’s “Großraumtheorie” (“Theory of Greater Space”), which posits that great powers should establish clear and coherent spheres of influence defined by direct political and economic control. Schmitt’s framework contrasts starkly with the mixture between liberal multilateralism and de facto U.S.-centrism that has historically underpinned Washington’s foreign policy, favouring instead a return to classical geopolitics characterised by clear territorial delineations. Thus by seeking to absorb strategically vital territories, Trump departs from the cooperative ideals of alliances like NATO or the UN, leaning instead toward a realpolitik worldview in which regional dominance supersedes multilateral diplomacy. In this model, power is not gained by worldwide interventionism but rather through the step-by-step increase of one’s immediate territorial control. The Arctic, Atlantic, and Panama Canal—as zones of critical importance to trade, military positioning, and resource extraction—all align with this Schmittian vision of exclusive (and competing) spheres of control. Such ambitions, should they prove to be more than a passing fantasy, would suggest a fundamental reorientation of U.S. strategy from global leadership through cooperation to increased hemispherical domination via unilateral territorial assertion. Perhaps this reflects a kind of ordered retreat stemming from the insight that the U.S. has already crossed its political zenith and needs to reassure control over its immediate power base, where indirect control is transformed into direct annexation.
