Trumperialism?

At one level this is just plain dumb. But dumb and reckless are what a plurality of American voters selected to be President for a second time. (1)

I’m sure the Proud Boys and the rest of the Trumpistas will continue to giggle over how their Mighty Hero Trump is “owning the libs” by saying crazy and irresponsible stuff.

But Trump is literally threatening – or, as Deutsche Welle report says, “has refused to rule out military force to gain control of the Panama Canal, and Greenland.” Trump is quoted in the report:

Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes.” I've been told that for a long time long before I even ran I mean people have been talking about it for a long time you have approximately 45,000 people there people really don't even know if Denmark has any legal right to it but if they do they should give it up because we need it for national security. That's for the Free World, I'm talking about protecting the Free World.

As the report also describes, Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. That means an ally in a mutual-defense treaty. Trump is clearly threatening to go to war against a NATO ally in order to force them to cede Greenland to the US. None of the MAGA zealots are likely to ask questions beyond that, they’re just enjoying the reality show.

In fact, France – currently the one nuclear power in the EU – and even Germany are at least in diplomatic rhetoric taking the threat seriously:

Germany and France have warned Donald Trump against any attempt to “move borders by force” after the incoming US president said he was prepared to use economic tariffs or military might to seize control of Danish-administered Greenland.

In a hastily called televised statement, Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said Trump’s remarks had triggered “incomprehension” among European leaders. “The principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country – regardless of whether it is east of us or to the west – and every state must respect that, regardless of whether it is a small country or a very powerful state.”

Earlier, the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said that Europe would stand up in defence of international law. “There is no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be, attack its sovereign borders.”

Barrot added on France Inter radio, that, while he did not believe the US “would invade” Greenland, “we have entered an era that is seeing the return of the law of the strongest”. (2)

The MAGA crowd will probably take this as another “freedom fries” moment. (3)

NATO countries are heavily dependent in the current treaty arrangements on US support for defense against any possible Russian aggression. NATO has a long history and there is lots than can be said about it good and bad. But that’s the current alliance system. And the incoming US President is threatening war against another of the NATO allies. He may just be throwing out rhetorical chum for the MAGA crowd to pleasure themselves with.

But this is a very practical signal to EU countries that they need to move to decouple their own defense as much as possible from the United States. That means, among other things, they should not commit military support for whatever military adventurism the US has in mind for Asia or the Near East.

Trump is not only threatening the nations of Denmark and Panama with hostile military action – Trump’s not-so-MAGA predecessor George H.W. Bush made a blatantly illegal regime-change invasion of Panama in 1989 with no more regard for the so-called “rules-based international order” than Trump shows – he’s threatening NATO ally Canada and the non-NATO nation of Mexico with invasion and even annexation.

Another important factor is that the European allies have militaries that are heavily integrated with the US military. It doesn’t prevent them from acting independently, as France has been doing in various countries of Africa with tacit US consent. But there is only a nominal common European military capacity, the European Defence Agency (EDA). (4)

If defense against a potentially aggressive Russia is a European priority, current NATO ally Britain could be a potential part of the European-centered mutual defense structure. But Britain has basically since the Suez crisis of 1956, Britain has been very consistent in not wanting to wind up on the opposite side of the US on any major foreign policy question. (The British government was critical at times of US policy in the Vietnam War, but they were not actively involved in the Vietnam War in the way they were in their joint action with France and Israel in invading Egypt during the Suez Crisis, where they were on the other side of the US position.)

The “restrainer”-oriented website Responsible Statecraft has an analysis by Joanna Rozpedowski that strikes me as a bit odd. (5) But basically, she’s giving a kind of best-case statement of how Trump’s threats against Denmark and Panama might be justified.

Not surprisingly, the EU Commission initially tried to publicly duck the issue.

Although the Commission confirmed that any military action against Greenland would activate the EU's mutual assistance clause in Article 42(7) of the Treaty, it refused to answer whether it assesses that there's a real risk of the U.S. invading Denmark's overseas territory, calling the case “very theoretical.” (6)

Yes, it’s not often mentioned, but the EU Treaty does have a mutual-defense clause. And, at least on its face, its more binding than the NATO Treaty.

Notes:

(1) Trump considering using military force to take Greenland. DW News YouTube channel 01/08/2025. <https://youtu.be/rJzmRldVUUc?si=GFhl_uYsjQpQlq0o> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(2) Wintour, Patrick et al (2025): Germany and France warn Trump against use of force over Greenland. The Guardian 01/08/2025. <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/08/france-warns-trump-against-threatening-eu-sovereign-borders-greenland> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(3) Freedom fries. Wikipedia 10/13/2024. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_fries&oldid=1250951159> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(4) European Defense Agency (EDA). European Union website n/d. <https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-and-bodies/european-defence-agency-eda_en> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(5) Rozpedowski, Joanna (2025): 'America First' meets Greenland, Taiwan, and the Panama Canal. Responsible Statecraft 01/07/2025. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-greenland/> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(6) Körömi, Csongor (2025): EU dodges questions on Trump’s mooted invasion of Greenland. Politico EU 01/08/2025. <https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-dodges-questions-donald-trump-invasion-greenland-military/>