PARIS — President-elect Donald Trump has stirred controversy with his statements about expanding U.S. influence, suggesting that American power should extend into Canada, the Danish territory of Greenland, and further south to encompass the Panama Canal. His assertion that borders could be altered—potentially through force—has particularly agitated European leaders, especially in light of ongoing tensions with Russia, as they seek to make their stance clear against President Vladimir Putin’s policies.
European officials, who have learned to anticipate unexpected developments from Trump, have been relatively restrained in their criticisms. Some have chosen to adopt a perspective that dismisses the issue rather than vocally championing the rights of European Union member Denmark. Despite this composed response, analysts warn that even mere rhetoric could jeopardize U.S.-European relations as Trump approaches his second term.
Several European leaders, recognizing their reliance on U.S. trade, energy, investment, and defense strategies, expressed skepticism regarding Trump’s intentions. Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni stated, “We can exclude the U.S. trying to forcibly annex territory of interest in the coming years.” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz echoed this sentiment delicately, asserting that “borders must not be moved by force” without directly naming Trump. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, urging for ongoing support from Trump’s administration, remarked on the universal desire for assurance that nations will not be erased from the map—a plea reflective of the ongoing conflict since Putin’s military actions in Ukraine began in 2022.
Both British and French foreign ministers indicated that they do not foresee a U.S. invasion of Greenland. Nonetheless, the French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, interpreted Trump’s comments as a signal of potentially returning to a period characterized by raw power dynamics. Greenland’s prime minister, representing its semi-autonomous status and its EU citizenship through Denmark, stated that while the people of Greenland do not desire U.S. membership, they are open to enhanced cooperation instead. “Cooperation is about dialogue,” asserted leader Múte B. Egede. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reaffirmed the bond with the U.S., calling it “our closest ally,” and emphasized the importance of unity.
European security analysts have acknowledged the unlikelihood of Trump initiating military actions against NATO ally Denmark; nevertheless, they express deep concern regarding the implications of his statements for trans-Atlantic relations, international norms, and the NATO alliance. The ongoing tension between Trump and Canada regarding the suggestion of it becoming a U.S. state adds another layer to this developing narrative. “It’s possible that this is simply Trump establishing his approach,” noted Flemming Splidsboel Hansen from the Danish Institute for International Studies, finding a measure of comfort in the notion that such comments may be politically motivated bravado. Yet, the damage has seemingly already been inflicted. Hansen lamented the alarming notion of eroded ties among NATO member states and questioned the future cohesiveness of the alliance.
As some diplomats and analysts deliberate over Trump’s focus on Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, they point to the need for America to secure natural resources and strategic waterways against rising global adversities. Analyst Alix Frangeul-Alves observed that Trump’s rhetoric aligns with his broader agenda of “Making America Great Again,” particularly given Greenland’s potential vast deposits of rare earth minerals essential for advanced technologies. This scenario places significant emphasis on competition with China, which dominates much of the global supply.
Others, however, see Trump’s proposed strategies as laden with risks. Security analyst Alexander Khara has drawn parallels between Trump’s assertions about Greenland and Putin’s justifications for Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which came wrapped in national security rhetoric. Such hints that borders could be malleable set a “dangerous precedent” and throw into question the established norms that have traditionally fostered stability. Khara cautioned that the world appears to be transitioning from an era rooted in established principles to one riddled with potential conflicts and uncertainty.
