What are Trump's Goals with Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland?
Is there a strategy to Trump's bluster?
Here’s a writeup I did in response to a Facebook message from my Mom’s Canadian second cousin:
To quote the saying, you have to take Trump seriously, but not literally. Likewise, don’t take my email as a definitive account, but an informed, speculative explanation of what might be going on.
Canada: 51st State?
I don’t think Trump is literally trying to make Canada the 51st state, but he loves to troll. The Republicans don’t want a political union with 40 million more people who believe in universal health care and will largely vote against the Republican party.
Instead, I think Trump is doing his typical coercive “negotiations”1 where he trash talks and makes outrageous demands so that opponents feel a sense of relief when he settles for something less outrageous. So what does Trump want?
What Trump Wants:
The arrangement that I’ve heard Trump is pursuing could be called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0” (my suggestion), or perhaps the “Trump Doctrine,” with US allies giving it greater control over their military and economic policy,2 and US debt refinanced through extortion.3 Some within the Trump camp talk about the US reducing its military role in the wider world and fortifying its command of North America. For those of you who wonder what would happen to the military industrial complex in such a scenario, Trump is asking Allies to spend 5% of their GDP on the military. (The US currently spends 3.4% of GDP). Trump is willing to reduce his ask, depending upon how much Allies source from US Military Industrial Complex companies.
"If Trump pushed them to go as high as 5%, they might decide to spend most of the cash on building the European defense industry rather than buying American. However, analysts said, a deal could be struck: Spend less than 5% of GDP but spend a bigger share on US manufacturers." (Deutsche Welle, Jan 8, 2025)
The US previously subsidized the Military Industrial Complex in 1974 when they “negotiated” with Saudi Arabia for them to buy weapons (left over from the Vietnam War), as part of the Petrodollar deal (sanitized NYTimes version).
A History of Extortion:
The US didn’t just offer to protect Saudi Arabia, they threatened to invade it later in 1975, as the relationship was a “protection racket.” The elites reasoned that they could initiate an invasion which they acknowledged was immoral, so long as it didn’t cost the US public too much:
"There remains the argument that military intervention in the Persian Gulf would on moral grounds alone not be countenanced by domestic public opinion. Nor is it only the public that would presumably find in the act a manifestation of complete moral bankruptcy.
.. The point is worth emphasis that we simply do not know what might bring the public to support intervention in the Persian Gulf. If the public viewed such intervention as another Vietnam, they would most assuredly oppose it. But if intervention were to promise success at relatively modest cost, opinion might well move in the direction of support, and particularly if unemployment were to rise to 8 or 9 per cent. Moreover, in this instance, by contrast to Vietnam, the existence of an all-volunteer military force would preclude the painful issues once raised by the draft."
Commentary magazine, Jan 1975
Trump’s “Mafia” tactics with the promise of an easy reward have precedence. The Iraq war was sold on the prospect of similarly low costs. How long does it takes for Trump supporters to see costs have risen beyond what they were prepared for? Would Trump care, or would he be able to rally them for the cause?
Greenland and Panama Canal:
"Word on the street" is that Trump wants to use military bases in Greenland (submarine base) and the Arctic to protect US efforts to extract natural resources increasingly accessible due to global warming in the Arctic.
Trump likewise wants to control the Panama Canal as part of his efforts to control North America, as well as use as leverage against South American countries that wish to collaborate with China and ship to China or Pacific via the Panama Canal.
The Return to Mercantilism
Before the return of Trump, Michael Every argued that free trade has been the historical exception. Under mercantilism, countries tried to generate a trade surplus at the expense of their neighbors by maximizing their exports and minimizing their imports rather than allowing each sector to trade freely. Michael Every argues that we were setup for a disruption to the economic system prior to the second Trump term because the benefits of and support for global free trade were distributed unevenly. Then during Covid, the US realized that it lacked the productive capacity to supply itself (and particularly supply the Military Industrial Complex) without dependency on China.4
A New Economic Order
Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, talked about restructuring the global financial system (under a speculated Mar-a-Lago Accord) prior to his nomination. Stephan Miran, whom Trump nominated to head the Council of Economic Advisers advocates using tariffs as a weapon to coerce other countries into agreeing to a new “Bretton Woods” financial system.
The big weakness of these plans is that they assume the US can pull off these complex changes with Doge-weakened institutions, in a single term, and that they can bully the rest of the world without risking other countries uniting against it.
"As things stand, there is little reason to expect that either Europe or China would agree to a coordinated move to strengthen their currencies.
Japan, the U.K., and potentially Canada and Mexico, might prove more amenable to currency intervention, but aren’t large enough in today’s global economy to accomplish the desired end. Instead, recall that President Trump views tariffs as generating negotiating leverage for making deals. It is easier to imagine that after a series of punitive tariffs, trading partners like Europe and China become more receptive to some manner of currency accord in exchange for a reduction of tariffs." (Stephen Miran, Nominee to head President’s Economic Advisers: A Users Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System, Nov 2024, Page 17)
An Empire in Decline?
The Trump playbook is the type of risky behavior scholars say empires do when they are fighting against their own decline. It is also a high profile education to the world of the narcissism and bullying “playbook."
Will the American people avoid the world’s backlash?
Will it spiral out of control?
And how long will Trump’s voters maintain their support?
Not many people are talking about what the world would be like if America withdrew from its role as global hegemon and downgraded itself to one of strongest regional powers.
The Soviet Union dissolved peacefully. The US Empire may continue for decades, but if it is dissolved or re-organized, one thing is clear — it won’t be resolved without a lot of Trumpian drama.
While coercive tactics can lead to short-term gains, they often create long-term resentment and instability in relationships. Historical Examples (Chat GPT)
Michael Every describes a scenario where the US would use tariffs to incentivize Brazil to switch their production to take the place of Chinese production, while reducing the Brazilians’ competition with US farmers. The strategy is to use leverage to create an economic and military coalition against China, while reducing the cost the the US would bear for maintaining this system.
Later in part of this piece that deals with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Nominee for head of the Council of Economic Advisers, you’ll see proposals to use tariffs to coerce other countries into restructuring the debt and currency using “a series of punitive tariffs.”
My assumption with Trump is that he will implicitly tap into discontent over inequality, but his actions will be focused on addressing military and geo-strategic goals rather than addressing inequality.