In the last week of 2024, Donald Trump’s statements that the United States (US) should take control of Greenland and Canada are considered as an attempt to reshape the boundaries of US international policies. While these statements are important in terms of national security and strategic interests, they can also be considered as a reflection of expansionist policies. How Trump’s statements can be evaluated in the context of international law, hegemony, economic interests and geopolitical strategy is important for understanding the current dynamics of not only the US but also the global order.
Greenland has long attracted the attention of global powers due to its geographical location and natural resources. US military assets in Greenland, such as the Pituffik Spaceport, emphasize the strategic importance of the region. With its location between the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, Greenland is a critical logistical point for the US military and commercial activities in both Europe and Asia. In addition, Greenland’s underground resources, especially rare earth elements, are seen as a great source of attraction in line with the US’s goals of reducing its foreign dependence in the technology and defense industry.
Trump’s statements on Greenland stand out as part of the US’ efforts to realize its geopolitical goals. In 2019, Trump made similar statements regarding the purchase of Greenland, but this proposal was described as “absurd” by Denmark.[1] Following this proposal, Trump canceled his planned state visit to Denmark. In 2024, he revived his rhetoric on Greenland on a more comprehensive national security ground. However, Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede’s statement that “we are not for sale” shows that this goal of Trump will face serious resistance within the framework of international law.[2] Similar to his statements on Greenland, Trump also used expressions emphasizing the pursuit of national security and strategic control for Canada.
Trump’s proposal to make Canada the 51st state of the United States stands out as an unusual discourse in US-Canada relations. Trump’s statements, backed by promises of economic prosperity and offers of military protection, are not taken seriously by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other Canadian leaders. However, such rhetoric clearly demonstrates Trump’s intention to exert hegemonic pressure on neighboring countries and his desire to expand US economic interests. In the Canadian context, such rhetoric has the potential to threaten the delicate balance in US-Canadian relations. Canada is one of the largest trading partners of the United States and the economic ties between the two countries are deep and extensive. Trump’s rhetoric can create political tensions that can complicate economic and military cooperation. Canada’s steps to increase border security can be characterized as an indirect response to Trump’s rhetoric.
Trump’s statements on Greenland and Canada can be interpreted not only as a reflection of strategic interests but also as a show of power and a claim to hegemony. Within the framework of his foreign policy defined by the slogan “Make America Great Again”, Trump emphasizes the goal of re-establishing the US supremacy in the global system. In this context, Trump’s discourses on buying Greenland and making Canada a state are considered as a strategy to redefine US power and create unpredictability in international relations.
In line with Trump’s so-called “madman theory”, this strategy demonstrates unpredictability and the intention to use chaos as a diplomatic tool. In international relations, such a strategy can cause other states to be confused about the real intentions of the US, which can give the US an advantage at the negotiating table.
Trump’s rhetoric is in direct conflict with international law and principles of sovereignty. Greenland is an autonomous territory, part of Denmark, and the acquisition or control of such a territory would be considered an unacceptable intervention by the international community. Similarly, the idea of Canada as a sovereign state being annexed to the United States is contrary to the basic principles of the international order. Such rhetoric is seen as a threat that could jeopardize US relations with its allies and destabilize the global system in the long run.
Trump’s rhetoric has the potential to have not only political but also economic effects. American control over Greenland’s natural resources can have a major impact on global technology and energy markets. The rhetoric against Canada risks undermining economic cooperation in North America. The future of trade arrangements, such as the US-Canada-Mexico Agreement (USMCA), can be jeopardized by such rhetoric.
From a geopolitical perspective, Trump’s rhetoric is also seen as a strategy to strengthen the US position against China and Russia. Efforts to balance Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic require the United States to assume a more active role in the region, and the rhetoric over Greenland emerges as part of this strategy. This further increases the importance of US geopolitical interests in the region.
Trump’s statements on Greenland and Canada can be interpreted not only as the rhetoric of an individual leader, but also as an attempt to reshape the US place in the global system. These statements are linked to the goals of national security, economic interests and strategic hegemony. However, such statements carry serious risks for international law and stability. Trump’s rhetoric also has the potential to create tensions in relations with allied countries.
Trump’s approach can be considered as an example of unpredictability and use of force strategies in international relations. However, in the long run, such rhetoric has the potential to weaken US relations with its allies and destabilize the global system. The rhetoric over territories such as Greenland and Canada requires not only the US but also the international community to take a clear position against such expansionist policies. Such statements could have important consequences that could shape both US foreign policy and the future of the global order.
[1] “Danish PM Says Idea of Selling Greenland to U.S. Is Absurd”, Euronews, www.euronews.com/2019/08/18/danish-pm-says-idea-of-selling-greenland-to-us-is-absurd, (Accessed Date: 01.05.2025).
[2] Armstrong, Kathryn. “Greenland Again Tells Trump It Is Not for Sale”, BBC News, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c791xy4pllqo, (Accessed Date: 01.05.2025).
