It sounds like a punchline, doesn't it? Buying the world's largest island and then claiming we want a century-old canal back. When Donald Trump first floated the idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland and later critiqued the 1977 treaty that handed over the Panama Canal, the internet basically melted. Critics called it "manifest destiny on steroids," while supporters saw it as a bold, transactional approach to American interests.
But if you strip away the Twitter wars and the late-night talk show monologues, there is a weird, gritty logic underneath it all. We are talking about the intersection of Trump, the Panama Canal, and Greenland—three topics that, on the surface, have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that they represent a massive shift in how the U.S. views its "neighborhood."
Honestly, it wasn't just a random whim.
The Greenland Gambit: It Wasn't Just About Ice
In August 2019, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that Trump had repeatedly asked advisors if the U.S. could buy Greenland. Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, called the idea "absurd." Trump then canceled a state visit. It was a whole mess.
Why Greenland?
Money. Power. Rocks.
The Arctic is melting. That is a fact. As the ice recedes, massive deposits of rare earth minerals—the stuff we need for iPhones and EV batteries—are becoming accessible. Currently, China has a stranglehold on that market. Trump, coming from a New York real estate background, viewed Greenland not as a sovereign territory of Denmark, but as a massive, undervalued fixed asset with a strategic "location, location, location" vibe.
The U.S. already has a footprint there with Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base). By "buying" the island, the U.S. would effectively block Chinese and Russian expansion in the North Atlantic. It sounds wild, but it’s not historically unprecedented. We bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million. People called that "Seward’s Folly" until they found the gold and oil.
🔗 Read more: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
The Panama Canal Regret
Then you have the Panama Canal.
During his first term and into his 2024 campaign, Trump frequently brought up the canal as a symbol of "the Great Giveaway." He often points to the Jimmy Carter era, specifically the Torrijos-Carter Treaties signed in 1977. That deal eventually handed full control of the canal to Panama on December 31, 1999.
Trump’s argument is basically: We built it. We paid for it. We lost thousands of lives to yellow fever and accidents to dig it. And then we just gave it away for nothing. He’s not just being nostalgic. He’s looking at who is there now.
China.
Chinese companies have invested billions in the ports at both ends of the canal—Balboa and Cristóbal. For a guy who views the world through the lens of a trade war, seeing "the greatest engineering feat in history" influenced by his main economic rival is a bitter pill. He’s suggested that the U.S. should never have walked away, or at the very least, should have kept a tighter grip on the "security" of the zone.
Connecting the Dots: The "Real Estate" Doctrine
You’ve got to understand the headspace here. Most presidents look at foreign policy through the lens of "diplomatic norms" or "international law." Trump looks at it through a balance sheet.
To him, Trump, the Panama Canal, and Greenland are all chapters in the same book about American leverage.
💡 You might also like: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
If the U.S. owns the Arctic (Greenland) and controls the shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific (Panama), it owns the two most important trade arteries of the 21st century. It’s a very 19th-century view of the world—think Alfred Thayer Mahan and sea power—applied to a 2026 reality.
Why People Got It Wrong
The media mostly focused on the "craziness" of buying a country. But geopolitical experts like Peter Zeihan have pointed out for years that the U.S. is becoming more isolationist and more focused on its own hemisphere.
- Greenland is a shield for the North American continent.
- The Panama Canal is the lifeblood of Western trade.
When Trump talks about these places, he’s signaling a return to the Monroe Doctrine. He wants a "Fortress America."
The China Factor
You can't talk about these two locations without talking about Beijing. China has been aggressively pursuing its "Polar Silk Road" initiative. They want to ship goods through the Arctic as the ice clears because it cuts weeks off the journey to Europe. If the U.S. owned Greenland, that plan hits a brick wall.
In Panama, it’s the same story. China is Panama’s second-largest user of the canal. They are building bridges, power plants, and ports. When Trump complains about the canal, he’s usually complaining about the fact that we left a vacuum and China filled it.
Is it realistic to "take back" the canal? No. Not without a literal invasion, which isn't on the table. Is it realistic to buy Greenland? Denmark says no, but the U.S. did open a consulate in Nuuk (the capital) for the first time in decades under the Trump administration. The interest hasn't gone away; the tactics just got quieter.
The Economic Reality of the Canal
The Panama Canal is currently struggling with massive droughts. Gatun Lake, which feeds the locks, is drying up. This has led to huge backlogs of ships.
📖 Related: Why the Air France Crash Toronto Miracle Still Changes How We Fly
Trump has used this to bolster his "we could do it better" narrative. His argument is that under U.S. management, the engineering and infrastructure would be superior. Whether that’s true or not is debatable, but it plays well with a base that misses the era of American "Big Projects."
How This Impacts You Today
This isn't just dusty history or political theater. The tension over these locations dictates:
- Shipping Costs: If the Panama Canal is congested or politically unstable, the price of your sneakers goes up.
- Energy Security: Greenland holds massive potential for the minerals used in the "Green Transition."
- Defense Spending: Expect more billions to flow toward Arctic defense in the coming years.
A Quick Reality Check
- Did we actually offer to buy Greenland? Yes. It was a formal inquiry.
- Can we legally take back the Panama Canal? No. The 1977 treaty is a binding international document.
- Is China actually "running" the canal? No, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) is an independent Panamanian agency, though Chinese companies have heavy influence in the surrounding ports.
Moving Forward: The Actionable Takeaway
If you are trying to make sense of the news regarding Trump, the Panama Canal, and Greenland, stop looking at it as "politics as usual." It is a shift toward geographic realism.
The world is moving away from global cooperation and back toward "Great Power" competition. If you’re an investor or just someone who likes to stay informed, keep your eyes on the Arctic. It’s the next South China Sea. Watch the shipping bottlenecks in Panama; they are a canary in the coal mine for global trade stability.
The biggest lesson here is that in the modern era, "land" and "access" are still the ultimate currencies. No matter how much of our lives move into the cloud, the physical world—and who owns the keys to the gates—still determines who wins.
Steps for staying ahead of this trend:
- Monitor Arctic Council developments: Watch how the U.S. and Denmark negotiate "defense cooperation" in Greenland. It’s the "buying" of the island by another name.
- Track Panama Canal Authority (ACP) water management projects: If Panama can't fix the water issue, expect calls for "international intervention" (likely led by U.S. interests) to grow louder.
- Diversify supply chain awareness: If you run a business, understand that relying on the Canal is riskier than it was 20 years ago due to both climate and geopolitics.
The era of "giving away" strategic assets is likely over in the American mind, regardless of who is in the Oval Office. The focus has shifted back to holding ground. If you want to understand the next decade, look at a map, not a poll. Greenland and Panama are the anchors of that map.
---