How to Make Trump’s Proposals on Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal a Reality

Trump could negotiate a North American Union Agreement with Canada and an independent Greenland while using diplomacy to negotiate a return of the Panama Canal ports to US control.

President-Elect Donald J. Trump speaking to reporters at a marathon Mar-a-Lago press conference where he called for the US annexation of Canada and Greenland and a return of the Panama Canal from the PRC to the US

Yesterday, President-Elect Donald J. Trump offered up a commanding performance at a nearly two-hour press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort which he described as “The Winter White House,” addressing a host of issues, demonstrating a strong contrast with Biden who is unable to conduct a press conference lasting even two minutes without his handlers yelling at reporters that the event is over. During the conference, Trump re-iterated his controversial plans to annex Canada utilizing economic coercion, while he would not rule out the use of the US military to retake control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He also threatened to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America if they do not stop the illegal immigration invasion of the US.

The President’s justifications for each proposal are centered on concerns regarding trade, immigration and national security. With regards to Canada, Trump has stated he wants to see a tariff free zone between Canada and the United States--two huge North American neighboring nations which are respectively the second and third largest nations in the world with a lower tax burden and free speech for Canadian citizens. He has called Greenland a territory of great strategic importance to US national security and implied that US control of the territory would help the US prevail in its increasing competition with Russia and China over control of the Arctic region. He has also stated that US control of the Panama Canal is a strategic imperative to ensure international shipping is not disrupted during war as well as saving money by removing the burden of increasing Panamanian transit fees.

Globalists have long championed a neo-imperialist strategy of liberal hegemony and US global dominance that puts America last, decrying America First conservatives for supposedly espousing an “isolationist” foreign policy yet now they denounce Trump’s America First initiatives to increase US security and influence over the Northern Hemisphere as too imperialistic. Of course, Republicans have never supported an isolationist foreign policy. Prior to World War Two, they supported a policy of hemispheric hegemony, which is what Trump’s policy initiatives for greater integration with Canada and Greenland and retaking control of the Panama Canal from the PRC signify.

A Revitalized Monroe Doctrine

Taken in total, the President’s proposals represent a welcome change in US policy to re-enforce the Monroe Doctrine and re-assert US dominance over the Western Hemisphere represent a tremendous opportunity for the US to re-orient itself from being a declining global superpower, subject to increasingly unsustainable imperial overreach and fighting regime change wars of indefinite duration, back to being a dominant and unchallenged hemispheric superpower. This is exactly what I have been calling for since 2003 in order to greatly enhance US national security and to minimize the risks that the US would stumble into an unnecessary war with the Sino-Russian military alliance over nations located along their borders half a world away.

The Monroe Doctrine formed the foundation of US foreign policy from 1823 until President John F. Kennedy pledged the US would never invade Communist Cuba as part of a negotiated agreement to end the Cuban Missile Crisis and to a lesser degree until the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. However, it has largely been neglected since the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union allowing Russia and especially China to make major inroads in increasing their influence in Latin America particularly with regards to Communist Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela as well as with regards to Chinese port facilities in Peru and Argentina.

Trump's policies to achieve greater economic and security integration with Canada and Greenland as well as to retake control of the Panama Canal should be pursued in conjunction with his proposals to swiftly end Americas proxy wars against Russia in Ukraine and against Iran in the Middle East while employing a skillful combination of diplomacy and deterrence to prevent the outbreak of an unnecessary war with the PRC over Taiwan. As part of a revitalized Monroe Doctrine, the US should take concerted action with its allies to isolate Communist Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela both economically and militarily using both economic sanctions and reciprocal agreements with Russia and China in which we agree to pursue a policy of non-interference in their spheres of influence (i.e. the former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Taiwan and the South China Sea) in exchange for them vacating the Western Hemisphere.

Panama

The single most important action the US could take to achieve President Trump’s objective of renewing the Monroe Doctrine would be to retake military control of the Panama Canal ports on either end of the canal currently controlled by the PRC due to its vital importance to the US as a strategic choke point both for international trade as well as for US Navy warships and supply ships that would be vital in the event of the outbreak of a great power war.

However, Trump’s proposal to regain control of the Panama Canal would likely be the most challenging to achieve due to the presence of several hundred PLA troops stationed at the ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal. China will not be persuaded to give up control of the strategically positioned canal ports without a fight, absent major US concessions. It is very likely that the only way they could be persuaded to do so would be if the US would mediate a confederation agreement between the PRC and Taiwan along the lines I have been advocating. China’s control of these canal ports represent a flagrant violation of the Neutrality Treaty under which the US returned the canal to Panamanian control. This would give the US a legal justification for taking unilateral military action to retake control of them particularly in the event China initiates an air and naval blockade of Taiwan later this year as seems increasingly likely should negotiations with Beijing to return control of the canal to the US diplomatically prove unsuccessful. The US could offer to pay Panama for a long-term fifty-year or longer lease of the canal ports. Panama could continue to control the rest of the Panama Canal Zone if it reduced its transit rates to more reasonable levels.

Greenland

In 1951, President Harry Truman offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 billion in gold—the equivalent of $1.5 trillion. At the time Truman stated that Greenland was a strategically valuable territory “indispensable to the safety of the United States.” Trump reiterated its strategic importance in a statement announcing his nominee for US ambassador to Denmark: “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”

Since Danish officials have repeatedly declared that Greenland, which is a huge but sparsely populated territory with only 56,593 inhabitants, is not for sale and presumably would also oppose the creation of a US-Danish condominium over a self-ruling, autonomous Greenland, President Trump should support its independence as the next best solution. Greenland’s Prime Minister has floated the idea of holding a popular referendum on the question of independence. Trump has stated he "would tariff Denmark at a very high level" if Denmark opposed such a referendum. Greenlanders would likely vote overwhelmingly in support of independence from Denmark due to popular discontent with Danish rule among the majority Intuit population.

All Trump would need to do is to publicly state if Greenland declares independence, the US would guarantee it militarily. Denmark wouldn’t dare challenge such a US military guarantee. Once independence has been achieved, Trump could offer ever Greenlander $1 million each if they vote to become a US commonwealth like Puerto Rico. If they vote against joining the US in a second referendum, the US should honor the will of its citizens and invite Greenland to join a North American Union with the US and Canada instead. Then, the US could negotiate a closer economic and security agreement with it after it became an independent state modeled on the free association agreement that the US has with the Pacific Island nation of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia in which the US has taken sole responsibility for their security. As a concession to Denmark, Trump could announce his support for the reunification of Denmark and Iceland. If Greenland voted against independent, the US could update its 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement which already provides a strong basis for an expanded US military presence and greater influence over the large island nation.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announcing his resignation on Monday after which he declared “there is no chance in hell that Canada will become a part of the United States.”

A North American Union

Trump’s stated desire to annex Canada is reminiscent of former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan’s call in his book, “A Republic, Not an Empire—Reclaiming America’s Destiny” published over a quarter century ago for the US to annex all the other Canadian provinces were Quebec to secede forming a huge and powerful new North American Union. While Trump’s proposal to make Canada “the 51^st state” is unrealistic, there are other more promising alternatives the US could pursue to achieve greater economic and security integration with our neighbor to the north as well as Greenland that would have a far greater chance of being accepted by them as mutually beneficial. Of course, any unification proposal between the US and Canada should be based on the principles of equality and mutual respect between the two sovereign nations rather than an attempt to make America’s longtime ally to the north subservient to the US. There is no other way that Canada would ever agree to establish joint political institutions except on that basis.

Rather than attempting to annex Canada, President Trump could instead utilize economic pressure from his imposition of 25 percent tariffs on all Canadian goods to encourage them to sign an agreement establishing a North American Union (NAU) between the US and Canada that would satisfy President Trump’s call for increased US influence over America’s northern neighbor and long-time ally. The center point of this agreement would be a joint border policy to defend against potential threats from terrorists, foreign state actors and criminal syndicates along with a customs union abolishing all bilateral tariffs and an overseeing international body to formulate such policies. It might also include the US lease of certain Canadian naval/air bases to the US or better yet make a few of them joint US-Canadian (NAU) military bases though that likely would not be necessary to achieve President Trump’s primary objective of securing our northern border.

As noted previously, Trump could also support Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede’s longtime call for independence from Denmark in exchange for it joining the new North American Union with the US and Canada modeled on the European Union (EU) in which each national leader would have equal status. Once independence was declared, the US could guarantee Greenland’s independence using its military forces to defend the nascent country against foreign attack. As a sparsely populated newly independent state, Greenland would need US protection to ensure its security and independence. Realistically, there is no foreseeable way Egede can achieve independence for Greenland without US support given the proclamations by Danish leaders that Greenland will forever remain under Danish control so it would be in his interest to negotiate a deal with the US to achieve it.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede, a long-time supporter of independence from Denmark

Greenland’s independence would be guaranteed under the terms of its entry into the North American Union which could initially be formed between the US and Greenland alone as the US continued to negotiate the terms of Canada’s entry. The US would provide for its security and could forge an economic union with Greenland with the US dollar as its new currency. Despite being referred to as “a Union”, the EU most closely resembles a confederation as member states retain a high level of sovereignty. Such a confederation, founded on the principle of equality for the US and Canada and continued self-rule for Greenland, would preserve a substantial level of independence for both Canada and Greenland on the level of EU member-states while going far to achieve President Trump’s objectives of achieving greater economic and security integration with the US. Such a North American Union could have a joint commission with appointed members from each member state to propose new policies, and optionally incorporate an economic union with a joint currency, based on the US dollar. It would also seek to establish joint trade, immigration, border, foreign and defense policies. However, unlike the EU, the NAU would not have its own presidents.

Just like the EU, each member state would retain its current political and electoral systems, customs, official languages and leadership. The US Congress and the Canadian Parliament would each have the right to amend and approve, or veto, the proposals of a joint North American Union Commission or Congress with elected or appointed representatives of the member states. Greenland would not have veto power over proposals by the NAU Council or Congress but would be represented in that rule-making body. In return for joining a North American Union, the US would commit to pay the cost of Greenland’s government budget at current levels with annual increases for inflation in perpetuity allowing its citizens to live their lives tax free. The US could also increase its economic and military integration with Greenland and US companies could help mine its abundant oil, natural gas, rare earth minerals and strategically important uranium resources, sharing the proceeds to enrich its citizens.

If the US were to join in some sort of political union with Canada and Greenland, it would constitute the largest political entity in the world by far with 8.5 million square miles with over 380 million people, vaulting ahead of Russia in size and approximating the extent of the defunct Soviet Union which boasted over 8.6 million square miles. If he were successful in doing so, Trump would be remembered as one of America’s greatest and most historic presidents. A grander achievement for the advancement of US national security interests could hardly be imagined. It would be Making America Great Again on steroids. Accordingly, US leaders in both parties should unite behind Trump in his efforts to achieve this historic achievement with negotiated compromise agreements that are mutually beneficial to all parties concerned.

© David T. Pyne 2025

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He is the former President and current Deputy Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He also serves as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. He has also co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “Restoring Strategic Deterrence” will be published in March or April 2024. He serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and previously served as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Interviews

December 2nd—Interview with COL Rob Manass on the Rob Manass show to discuss Russia’s decision to begin using ICBMs to attack Ukraine to restore deterrence with Ukraine and NATO and show he is willing to escalate the war to the nuclear level if the West does not agree to a negotiated diplomatic settlement of the conflict. Here is the link to the interview.

December 3rd—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss Russia’s super stealthy Kilo II class submarine Ufa which Russia’s Tass News Agency reports carries a nuclear missile with a 12,000 KM range. We will also discuss the Biden administration’s attempts to stir up trouble for Russia in Syria by supporting Al Queda rebels and in Georgia by supporting violent protests against the government. Here is a link to the interview.

December 5th—Panel Discussion with Scott Ritter on RT International’s Crosstalk program to discuss the prospects for peace in Ukraine after Trump becomes President. Here is the link to the interview.

December 5th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the just released House Intelligence Committee report detailing the US intelligence committees attempt to cover up Russia’s use of microwave Americans to target US military personnel, US intelligence personnel and embassy officials with microwave weapons since 2016. Here is a link to the interview.

December 10th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the fall of Syria to the HTS jihadist forces led by a former Al Queda and ISIS terrorist leader as well as China’s massive Joint Air-Naval Blockade exercises surrounding Taiwan, reported to be the largest such exercises in the past three decades. Here is the link to the interview.

December 17th—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell to discuss my latest article on the myths of World War Two and why it was an unnecessary war as well as Biden’s attempts to get the US into World War Three with Russia before Trump takes office. Here is a link to the interview.

December 20th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the report that Biden has more than doubled the number of US troops in Syria, China’s ongoing efforts to penetrate US cyber networks in preparation for war with us and the latest revelations that Biden has been a figurehead President over the past four years with a cabal of his senior cabinet officials setting policy in his absence. Here is the link to the interview.

Upcoming Interviews

January 20th-Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the impact of President Trump’s inauguration on US national security policy including the war in Ukraine, Gaza and what I see as China’s plan to blockade Taiwan later this year. Here is the link to the interview.

January 21st—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell discussing a host of issues including the Biden crime family pardons, President Trump's inauguration and executive orders, and my proposal to enable the US to exert greater influence over Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal. I will also discuss my new peace plan and the prospects for Trump achieve a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is a link to the interview.