- Trump’s close advisers warn his plans to annex Greenland and Panama Canal could embolden Russian aggression.
- China’s focus on Taiwan intensifies as Trump’s rhetoric undermines U.S. diplomacy.
- Taiwan maintains its sovereignty stance despite renewed geopolitical tensions.
- Experts debate whether Trump’s transactional foreign policy strengthens or weakens U.S. strategic influence.
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office on January 20, 2025, his unconventional foreign policy stances are drawing sharp reactions from global analysts and political observers alike. Among his most controversial proposals are the potential annexation of the Panama Canal and Greenland—plans that, according to sources familiar with his inner circle, have met significant internal resistance.
One of Trump’s trusted advisors, a long-time associate, reportedly warned that pursuing these ambitions would provide Russia with further justification for its aggressive actions in Georgia and Ukraine. Yet, despite such counsel, Trump is said to remain committed to his vision of reshaping the geopolitical landscape.
A Precedent for Global Tensions
The implications of Trump’s proposed territorial expansions extend far beyond Greenland and Panama. Foreign policy experts argue that if the United States, the world’s preeminent power, openly violates the sovereignty of other nations, it sets a dangerous precedent. Critics highlight that such moves could embolden China to intensify its grip on Taiwan, a long-time U.S. partner in the Indo-Pacific region.
For decades, successive American administrations have urged China to exercise “restraint” in its claims over Taiwan and to refrain from using military threats to achieve unification. Trump’s actions could undermine these efforts and hand China rhetorical ammunition to justify a more aggressive posture.
Chinese commentators and social media users have already begun to draw parallels between Trump’s plans and China’s claims over Taiwan. Zhao Minghao, a professor at the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, noted that Trump’s willingness to consider annexing foreign territories reflects a transactional approach to diplomacy that could signal new vulnerabilities. “If Trump views Greenland and the Panama Canal as negotiable assets, then many in China may perceive Taiwan as a similar opportunity for bargaining,” Zhao stated.
The Taiwan Question
The status of Taiwan has long been a flashpoint in U.S.-China relations. While China claims the island as part of its territory and has never renounced the use of force to achieve unification, the United States maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity”—providing Taiwan with defensive arms without explicitly committing to military intervention in the event of a conflict. During Trump’s first term, he strengthened ties with Taiwan by approving significant arms sales, yet he controversially suggested that Taiwan should “pay” for continued American protection.
Trump will not rule out force to take Panama Canal, Greenland
In recent days, Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland and Panama has fueled speculation that his administration could adopt a more transactional approach toward Taiwan as well. Taiwanese officials quickly dismissed any notion that their sovereignty could be part of a deal. “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country,” the island’s foreign ministry said in a statement. “Any distortion of Taiwan’s status will not change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”
Reactions from Beijing and Washington
China’s foreign ministry called attempts to link Greenland to Taiwan “absurd,” asserting that Taiwan’s status is an internal matter. However, Chinese social media platforms have been abuzz with discussions about whether Trump’s statements create new strategic opportunities for Beijing. Wang Jiangyu, a professor of law at City University of Hong Kong, argued on Weibo that if the U.S. annexes Greenland, China would be justified in seizing Taiwan. “We must act decisively if Trump follows through on these threats,” he wrote.
Similarly, Chen Fei, an associate professor at Central China Normal University, noted on NetEase that while Taiwan and Greenland are fundamentally different—Taiwan being an “intrinsic” part of China—the perception of American hypocrisy could weaken the moral authority of U.S. foreign policy. “What Trump proposes undermines the principles of sovereignty that the U.S. has long championed,” Chen observed.
Strategic Risks and Military Implications
Sources within Trump’s transition team have expressed concerns that his territorial ambitions could provoke broader conflicts. Advisors reportedly urged Trump to abandon the idea of annexing the Panama Canal, highlighting its potential to destabilize Central America and strain relations with key allies. Similarly, the push to acquire Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, has already drawn condemnation from European leaders.
Bold Shifts in Trump’s Foreign Policy That Redefined U.S. Geopolitics
“Such actions would validate Russia’s narrative that its actions in Georgia and Ukraine are legitimate responses to Western expansionism,” said one senior advisor familiar with internal deliberations. “We cannot afford to give Moscow that kind of propaganda victory.”
Another critical risk is the potential impact on China’s calculus regarding Taiwan. Trump’s aides have pointed out that any aggressive U.S. moves could provide Beijing with a pretext to escalate its military presence in the Taiwan Strait. “If we undermine our own arguments about sovereignty, we weaken our ability to deter China,” one advisor warned.
For years, Beijing’s ambitions for Taiwan have been tempered by the high costs of military conflict and the United States’ commitment to Taiwan’s defense. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. is obligated to provide defensive arms, though the extent of military support in a direct confrontation remains deliberately ambiguous. Bonnie Glaser, a Taiwan expert at the German Marshall Fund, noted that Xi Jinping’s decision-making is more likely influenced by military readiness than by rhetorical parallels with Greenland. “China’s leadership will focus on hard power calculations rather than symbolic gestures,” she said.
The Broader Geopolitical Context
Trump’s transactional worldview has long been a hallmark of his approach to international relations. In his first term, he frequently framed foreign policy as a series of deals, prioritizing economic leverage over traditional alliances and norms. His renewed emphasis on territorial acquisition fits within this pattern but raises profound questions about the future of U.S. diplomacy.
Drew Thompson, a former U.S. Department of Defense official, dismissed the notion that Trump’s remarks on Greenland would embolden China. “It’s preposterous to think there’s a direct link,” he said. However, he added, “If Trump signals a willingness to use military force to protect American interests, it could serve as a powerful deterrent.”
Nevertheless, the perception of inconsistency in American policy could have far-reaching consequences. “China has always maintained that Taiwan is part of its sovereign territory,” Thompson noted. “But if the U.S. starts redrawing international borders, it muddies the waters of international law and weakens the norms we rely on to support Taiwan’s autonomy.”
As Trump prepares to assume the presidency once again, his unorthodox ideas are already reshaping global debates about sovereignty and power. His advisors’ warnings about the dangers of annexing Greenland and the Panama Canal highlight the potential for unintended consequences, from emboldening adversaries like Russia to complicating U.S. policy on Taiwan. Whether Trump ultimately heeds this counsel remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: his actions will reverberate far beyond America’s shores, redefining the contours of international relations in the years to come.