In a recent move that has reignited debates over American expansionism, former President Donald Trump made bold claims about acquiring Greenland, the Panama Canal, and even merging Canada as the “51st state.” While met with a surge of skepticism worldwide, Trump’s declarations raise larger questions about geopolitics, trade, and his political ambitions.

Trump’s interest in Greenland is not entirely new. The U.S. has a historical precedent for attempting to buy the Arctic territory, as former President Harry Truman once offered Denmark $100 million for it. Though allowing the U.S. to maintain military presence there through various agreements, Denmark rejected the proposal of a full-on acquisition.

Kevin Tkachuk, chair of the history and social sciences department, believes that such an acquisition is unlikely to materialize this time for Trump. “Denmark has issued clear statements rejecting any sale,” Tkachuk said.“Greenland is incredibly resource-rich and strategically positioned, making it invaluable in the Arctic. The only way this could happen is through military action, which is obviously unrealistic.” 

Although purchasing Greenland might not initially seem pragmatic, there are other causes and objectives to be considered.

“There’s no real intention to buy Greenland. The real goal is securing influence over its emerging trade routes and rare-earth minerals. Expect increased negotiations rather than a direct purchase.” Daniel McMains, senior master teacher of history and social sciences, said, maintaining the theory that trade is Trump’s real objective, not the land itself.

While the attempt to purchase Greenland might merely be to secure trade routes, Trump has also claimed that the Panama Canal is “rightfully America’s” and should return to U.S. control. The canal, once controlled by the U.S. until the Carter administration handed it over in 1999, remains a critical artery for global trade.

Chris Thompson, instructor of economics, firmly believes Trump’s expansionist move to acquire the Panama Canal is less about sovereignty and more about countering China’s influence.

“Trump sees this as an economic and military security issue,” Thompson said. “He claims China has too much control over the ports at both ends of the canal. His rhetoric is likely a pressure tactic to renegotiate terms, ensuring the U.S. maintains economic leverage.”. 

McMains, on the other hand, sees Trump’s brazen comments as a means of negotiation. 

“The idea of ‘reclaiming’ the canal is perhaps not practical,” McMains said. “However, I expect the U.S. to push for favorable shipping rights, perhaps under the pretext of trade security.” 

Though Trump’s comments may be far-reaching, Thompson reminds us of Panama’s storied history with the United States. That history may bear fruit for Trump’s future negotiations.

“First of all, let us not forget about who built the Panama Canal, it’s the United States.” Thompson said.“We did the design and we invested in the infrastructure. On some level we are not completely ineligible to hold control over the canal.” 

Meanwhile, Trump’s claim that Canada could become the 51st state has been met with outright dismissal from Canadian officials and ridicule in the international press. Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland recently stated in a New York Times op-ed:

“Canada is not for sale,” Freeland wrote. “We are proud, sovereign, and deeply committed to our own identity.”

Furthermore, acquiring Canada may not only be “unfeasible” from a political perspective,  but  also unfavorable.

Others, however, see Trump’s statement as pure political entertainment, which fails to acknowledge the downsides. 

“If Trump truly wanted Canada, he’d have to accept a flood of Democratic voters and universal healthcare—things that are completely against his platform,” McMains said.

All in all, though Trump’s comments may be surprising to many, there may be a clear method behind his remarks.

“Trump has a knack for sensing political and economic weaknesses,” Thompson said. “With Canada facing political instability, he’s stirring controversy for leverage in trade negotiations.”