This article was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Washington office, the Center for North American Prosperity and Security (CNAPS.org). It originally appeared in the National Post.
By Balkan Devlen, Alexander Lanoszka and Richard Shimooka, January 23, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump’s statements about purchasing Greenland, annexing Canada and retaking the Panama Canal have caused considerable alarm. He alluded to the idea in his inaugural address, stating that the country will expand its territory and carry “our flag into new and beautiful horizons.” While these pronouncements and their effect on America’s international relationships deserve serious examination, there are plenty of reasons to doubt their feasibility.
Trump’s ambitions reflect a distinct 19th-century worldview, where national greatness is measured by territorial expansion and spheres of influence. However, this approach to international relations, while concerning, may be more political rhetoric than actual policy. These provocative statements serve primarily to energize his base, not unlike Trump’s failed first-term promise that he would make Mexico pay for the border wall. It was a nearly impossible promise to deliver on and was not meant to serve as an actionable foreign-policy objective.
Even if Trump harbours genuine expansionist ambitions, the gap between intent and capability is vast. Any territorial acquisition or military action would require congressional approval at multiple points, including substantial funding. With a razor-thin margin in the House and a Senate that may be less than hospitable, pushing through such an ambitious project would consume enormous political capital, which Trump will need to if he hopes to enact other parts of his agenda.
Trump faces pressure to deliver on core campaign promises: immigration enforcement, regulatory reform, energy policy and tax cuts. These domestic priorities will demand extensive negotiation and political manoeuvring to navigate through Congress. In this context, territorial expansion schemes are likely to remain mere rhetoric.
Yet we cannot dismiss these statements as harmless musings, either — they may not pose an immediate physical threat to Greenland, Canada or Panama, but they inflict very real damage on America’s international relationships. The United States’ global influence stems not just from its military and economic might, but from its extensive network of allies and partners. Each provocative statement erodes the goodwill that underlies these crucial relationships.
This erosion of trust has strategic consequences. American allies may begin hedging against future unpredictability by diversifying their international partnerships and reducing their dependence on U.S. leadership. Our adversaries, particularly China and Russia, will eagerly exploit these tensions to drive wedges between the United States and its allies. In fact, they have already started: Beijing’s embassy in Ottawa recently said that China is willing to deepen economic ties with Canada.
These distractions also come at a particularly dangerous moment. The world faces serious challenges: Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, China’s increasingly assertive posture in Asia, war and political turmoil in the Middle East. These have contributed to a general sense that the international order that has benefited the transatlantic community for decades is unravelling. Every moment spent managing the fallout from Trump’s territorial musings is time not spent addressing these pressing global concerns.
Navigating the fallout of Trump’s off-putting, if unserious, rhetoric will require Canada to not lose perspective. The United States is larger than any single four-year presidency, and its relationships with allies like Canada are founded on shared values and interests that transcend current political tensions. The fundamentals remain strong despite these new stresses.
The real threat, therefore, is not the unlikely prospect of territorial expansion, but the erosion of the western alliance’s cohesion and trust. Trump’s statements, while serving short-term domestic political purposes, undermine America’s long-term strategic interests and global leadership.
As the West navigates this period of uncertainty, all parties must work to maintain focus on actual threats rather than provocative rhetoric. Canada, Europe and other allies of the United States should certainly prepare contingency plans and maintain clear diplomatic boundaries. However, we must not allow these distractions to prevent us from addressing the real challenges posed by authoritarian powers seeking to reshape the global order.
We must right-size our response to Trump’s territorial ambitions: taking them seriously enough to manage the diplomatic fallout, while not allowing them to overshadow more pressing international challenges. The true test for the West will be to maintain unity and purpose in the face of both rhetorical provocations and genuine strategic threats.
Balkan Devlen is a senior fellow and the director of the transatlantic program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI).
Alexander Lanoszka is a senior fellow at MLI and an associate professor of international relations in the department of political science at the University of Waterloo.
Richard Shimooka is a senior fellow at MLI.
