NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump’s latest foreign policy pronouncements have left many bewildered and worried, as he seems to be embracing an imperialist agenda that threatens to upend decades-old norms about territorial integrity and use of military force.
Despite his initial campaign promise to end wars and instead focus on “America First,” Trump has been touting a new platform that includes using military force to take control of the Panama Canal, Greenland, and even pressuring Canada into becoming the 51st state.
This language, which is reminiscent of 19th-century colonial powers, has raised concerns that the U.S. might be willing to use force to redraw borders, emboldening enemies like Russia and China.
John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser-turned-critic, said that if he were Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping, he would “love” this kind of rhetoric.
Trump’s language has also been criticized by his own former adviser, Gerald Butts, who said that the president-elect now seems more emboldened than when he first took office, with no restraints holding him back.
The rhetoric has also sparked fears that Trump’s language is not just a negotiating tactic, but rather a reflection of a deeply ingrained imperative to demonstrate strength and power. Charlie Kirk, a key Trump ally, has even argued that the U.S. needs to take control of Greenland to restore national pride and masculinity.
But experts like Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, say that Trump’s language is counterproductive and will only lead to chaos and confrontation. “President Trump is about to take over at one of the most dangerous times in American history,” he said. “We will be best at addressing those threats with allies. Allies are our superpower.”
Allies have responded with anger and incredulity, with Canada’s finance minister, Dominic LeBlanc, saying that Trump’s comments are “a way for him to sow confusion, to agitate people, to create chaos.”
The threats also raise the possibility of direct military conflict, with NATO members sworn to defend each other if they are attacked. As one expert noted, “You could make a strong argument that the rest of NATO would be obliged to come to Denmark’s defense, creating a situation of direct military force.”