Trump’s strategy did not stop at Greenland. During a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump hinted at using economic or even military force to seize control of Greenland and the Panama Canal, both of which he labeled as critical to American national security. He argued that the Panama Canal, built in the early 1900s and returned to Panama in the 1970s, was a strategic mistake and suggested it should be brought back under U.S. control. Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino swiftly rejected Trump’s assertions, emphasizing that there was “absolutely no Chinese interference” in the canal’s operations, countering Trump’s claims that China indirectly controlled key facilities.

Further, Trump has even floated ideas about annexing Canada, calling the U.S.-Canada border an “artificially drawn line” and expressing frustration over U.S. spending on defense without direct economic benefit. He criticized Canadian imports of cars, lumber, and dairy products and suggested that Canada should become a U.S. state, an idea met with firm rejection by outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

This latest threat marks a significant escalation from Trump’s 2019 suggestion to purchase Greenland, which Denmark dismissed as absurd. By linking the acquisition demand with the imposition of severe tariffs, Trump introduces a more direct economic challenge. While Denmark is not among the U.S.’s top trading partners, any tariffs could strain the broader EU-U.S. trade relationship due to the EU’s unified trade policies. The EU has previously demonstrated its readiness to counter economic threats, as seen in its response to China’s coercive actions against Lithuania.

In 2023, Denmark exported over $11 billion in goods to the U.S., including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and specialty foods. Novo Nordisk, a major Danish pharmaceutical company, is central to this trade relationship. The company, known for producing Ozempic and Wegovy, has significantly contributed to Denmark’s economy, accounting for half of the nation’s private-sector job growth. Conversely, the U.S. exported more than $5 billion in goods to Denmark, predominantly industrial machinery and advanced manufacturing products. The imposition of tariffs threatens to destabilize these transatlantic economic ties.

Denmark’s prominence in high-value sectors—pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, and shipping—could amplify the impact of U.S. tariffs. Given the EU’s collective trade policy, any U.S. measures against Denmark would effectively challenge the entire bloc. Historically, the EU has retaliated against U.S. tariffs, as seen in past trade disputes.

Moreover, multinational corporations like Lego could face significant supply chain disruptions. Although Lego serves much of the U.S. market through facilities in Mexico and Virginia, tariffs on Danish products could ripple through global supply chains. Similarly, Denmark is a leading supplier of hearing aids and specialized medical products to the U.S., industries that could face steep price increases if tariffs are implemented.

Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland and other territorial ambitions reflects a broader geopolitical strategy that leverages economic coercion. This approach risks undermining long-standing alliances, particularly with NATO partners. In response, the EU may accelerate efforts to achieve greater strategic autonomy to mitigate the impact of unpredictable U.S. policies.

Trump’s history of using tariffs during his first term—imposing them on various countries but often failing to follow through on threats—raises questions about the credibility of his current stance. His broader threats, including imposing severe tariffs on Mexico and Canada and even suggesting the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” reflect a pattern of provocative rhetoric that complicates diplomatic relations.

As these tensions unfold, global attention will focus on Brussels, Copenhagen, and Washington to gauge whether the situation escalates or de-escalates. Regardless of the outcome, Trump’s Greenland gambit highlights the intricate challenges of contemporary foreign policy, where economic leverage intersects with sovereignty, diplomacy, and international law.

Ultimately, Trump’s aggressive foreign policy stance, blending economic coercion and provocative rhetoric, is reshaping the geopolitical landscape. His pursuit of Greenland, coupled with threats against Denmark, Panama, and Canada, underscores a broader strategy aimed at expanding American influence. Whether these moves will secure U.S. interests or alienate key allies remains to be seen.

By Keyeon Fan