Eliminationist Rhetoric Part 2: Trump's Imperial Vision

We should assume he will try to do what he tell us he wants to do.

Donald Trump has thus far shown little respect for existing laws. On the first day of this administration, he declined to enforce a law banning TikTok and he issued an executive order declaring birthright citizenship illegal. In doing so, he immediately signaled that laws passed by Congress and signed by a president and even the text of the Constitution itself would not prevent him from trying to act on his desires.

Trump’s actions since that first day have consistently shown his disregard for the law. He appointed an OMB Director, Russ Vought, who shares his belief that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and that presidents should be allowed to apportion government funds as they see fit, regardless of what it is written in appropriations laws. Trump has also shown his disregard for international treaties and agreements, as he levied inordinately high tariffs on our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, in violation of the USMCA trade agreement—an agreement he negotiated and signed! Trump gave these tariffs a thin veneer of justification by declaring a national disaster against fentanyl and then using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to tax imports. The IEEPA allows a president to take abnormal economic powers until the emergency is over, or until Congress votes to end the emergency. Under the IEEPA, a congress member skeptical of the emergency declaration can call for a “privileged resolution,” which would require Congress to quickly vote on whether or not to continue the emergency declaration. It’s an important provision of the IEEPA that allows Congress to check presidential powers.

Or it was.

The spending bill that passed the Senate today removes the right of members of Congress to call for a timely vote on Trump’s specious fentanyl emergency declaration. That means Congress has given up its best leverage against Trump’s tariffs. The spending bill also eliminates guidelines for how Trump must spend money, essentially creating larger buckets of money that he can spend as he sees fit. Since the spending bill lasts through the end of the fiscal year (an abnormal length of time for a supposed continuing resolution), that means Congress has also given up its best leverage through the “power of the purse” to control executive actions.

Congress can pass other bills to limit Trump, but even if there were some willingness to do so within the Republican caucus, we’ve already seen that Trump cares little for laws, rules, and norms.

This brings me to a topic that I firmly believe Americans should take very seriously—especially in light of the additional authority that Congress just ceded to Trump: Trump’s Imperial Vision.

In his inaugural address, Trump invoked manifest destiny—“And we will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars”—a throwback to the early days of the US, when grabbing territory was a way to greatness. Manifest destiny was a hallmark of German fascism, and this idea Trump seems to have of securing his legacy through expansionism, is reminiscent of Putin’s wish to secure the Black Sea territory held by Catherine the Great.

Trump has very specific imperialistic goals—annexing Canada, annexing Greenland, and seizing control of the Panama Canal.

He has repeatedly and very clearly stated these goals.

Canadians are taking Trump seriously.
Greenlanders and the Danish are taking Trump seriously.
Panamanians are taking Trump seriously.
It is past time for Americans to take Trump seriously.

Trump often does what he says he is going to do. Maybe the rollout is typically chaotic—like with the yes-no-yes-no of the tariffs—but it’s just not credible to claim that Trump’s speech doesn’t forecast his actions… even if his speech is bombastic and barely intelligible.

In a previous post, I lauded Just Security for a project that collected Putin’s “Eliminationist Rhetoric” about Ukraine—speech that telegraphed Putin’s disdain for Ukraine’s sovereignty and telegraphed his intentions to overtake the nation.

Below, I list Trump’s eliminationist speech that indicates his lack of respect for the sovereignty or right to self-governance of Canada, Greenland (and by extension, Denmark), and Panama.

These quotes from Trump are only those that come directly from readouts and transcripts from the White House website. So, they are official statements by the US President and should be treated as such. Trump and the White House are not hiding their ideas. These are not “slips of the tongue.” They are clearly stated intentions, openly stated intentions, repeatedly stated intentions. Why should we laugh them aside? While I indeed hope this is all a joke, no one should act surprised if Trump follows through with his threats.

---

Canada

Trump’s new favorite not-a-joke is referring to Canada as the 51st state, referring to their Prime Minister as “Governor,” and explaining why Canada makes more sense as a state than as a separate nation. Trump’s team is following along. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also seriously suggested that Canada should become the 51st state of the US.

Why? Well, Trump has some, shall-we-say, trumped-up economic excuses about bilateral trade balances, but I think he gave the real reason away in a statement on March 13 (full statement listed below): “This would be the most incredible country visually. If you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it — between Canada and the U.S. Just a straight artificial line. Somebody did it a long time ago — many, many decades ago — and makes no sense.”

Now-former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes that the recent onslaught of tariffs on Canada are linked to Trump’s imperialism. As Trudeau said in response to a question about what Trump might want from negotiations on tariffs:

[…] even the excuse he’s [Trump’s] giving for these tariffs today of fentanyl is completely bogus. Completely unjustified. Completely false. So we actually have to fall back on the one thing he has said repeatedly that what he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy. Because that’ll make it easier to annex us […] We will never be the 51st state.

Here’s a timeline of Trump’s eliminationist comments on Canada:

January 23, 2025 - World Economic Forum

• “Canada. We have a tremendous deficit with Canada. We’re not going to have that anymore. We can’t do it. It’s — it’s — I don’t know if it’s good for them. As you probably know, I say, ‘You can always become a state, and if you’re a state, we won’t have a deficit. We won’t have to tariff you, et cetera, et cetera.’”

January 25, 2025 - on Air Force One

• “I think Canada has been treating us very unfairly on trade, and they’ve taken advantage of us for years, and we’re not going to allow that to happen.

  I love Canada. I have so many friends up in Canada, and they like us and they like me. But Canada has been taking advantage of the United States for years, and we’re not going to let that happen. And without our subsidy, Canada, you know, doesn’t exist really. It’s very — it’s — Canada is totally reliant on us, therefore they should be a state. Canada — we lose $250 billion a year on Canada. I could stop that in one day. And if I stopped that, Canada wouldn’t exist as a state, you know, as a — as a country. And I think if that’s going to — if we’re going to have to give that kind of subsidy — and we’re not even talking about tariffs yet, but that’ll happen on February 1st. But if we’re going to lose $250 billion for the sake of supporting a country, it’s not fair to us. And they do about almost 90 percent of their business with the United States, whereas with us, it’s the opposite. It’s, you know, relatively small. So, I don’t want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on supporting a country unless that country is a state. And if it is a state, the people of Canada would pay a much lower tax. You know, their taxes would be cut in half. They would have no military problems. They’d be much more secure in every way. And I think it’s a great thing for Canada. And I view it as, you know, honestly, a country that should be a state, and they’ll get much better treatment, much better care, and much lower taxes, and they’ll be much more secure.”

February 20, 2025 - Republican Governors Association Meeting

• “And I think Canada — you know, they’re going to have to pay tariffs on automobiles, lumber, and oil and gas, et cetera, et cetera. And they get 95 percent of their product from the United States. I think they have to become the 51st state.

  And you heard the people booing the national anthem, but I think, ultimately, they’ll be praising the national anthem. We’ll have to work out some deal — because I do like the “O Canada.” Right? It’s a beautiful thing. I think we’re going to have to keep it for the 51st state. I call him Governor Trudeau. I said, “Governor Trudeau is doing a wonderful job.” I think it’s actually cost him his election, if you want to know the truth.”

February 20, 2025 - White House Press Briefing

• Said by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in official press briefing: “So, he looks forward to watching the game tonight, and we look forward to the United States beating our soon-to-be 51st state, Canada.”

February 26, 2025 - before Cabinet Meeting

• “The — Canada — look, we support Canada $200 billion a year in subsidies one way or the other. We let them make millions of cars. We let them send us lumber. We don’t need their lumber. We’re going to free up our lumber. Lee is going to do — the head of environmental. We’re going to free up our lumber. We have the best lumber there is. We don’t need their lumber. What do we need their lumber for? When you look at the — we subsidize them $200 billion a year. Without us, Canada can’t make it. You know, Canada relies on us 95 percent. We rely on them 4 percent. Big difference. And I say Canada should be our 51st state. There’s no tariffs, no nothing. And — and I say that, we give them military protection. They have a very small military. They spend very little money on military. Or NATO, they’re just about last in terms of payment, because they say, “Why should we spend on military?” That’s a tremendous cost. Most nations can’t afford to even think about it. “Why should we spend on military? The United States protects us.” And I would say that’s largely true. We protect Canada. But it’s not fair. It’s not fair that they’re not paying their way. And if they had to pay their way, they couldn’t exist. When I spoke to — let’s call it the prime minister, rather than the governor. But when I spoke to him, I said, “Why are we giving you $200 billion a year?” He was unable to answer the question. I said, “Why are we letting you make millions of cars and send them in?” He was unable to answer the question — Justin Trudeau, a nice guy. I think he’s a very good guy. I call him Governor Trudeau. He should be governor, because the fact is that if we don’t give them cars — we don’t have to give them cars. The c- — tariffs will make it impossible for them to sell cars into the United States. The tariffs will make it impossible to — for them to sell lumber or anything else into the United States. And all I’m asking to do is break even or lose a little bit, but not lose $200 million. And we love Canada. I love Canada. I love the people of Canada. And — but, honestly, it’s not fair for us to be supporting Canada. And if we don’t support them, they don’t subsist as a — as a nation.”

March 13, 2025 - Remarks before meeting with NATO Sec. Gen. Mark Rutte

• “In the case of Canada, we’re spending $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada. I love Canada. I love the people of Canada. I have many friends in Canada. “The Great One,” Wayne Gretzky, the great. Hey, how good is Wayne Gretzky? He’s the Great One. But we have — I know many people from Canada that are good friends of mine. But, you know, the United States can’t subsidize a country for $200 billion a year. We don’t need their cars. We don’t need their energy. We don’t need their lumber. We don’t need anything that they give. We do it because we want to be helpful, but it comes a point when you just can’t do that. You have to run your own country. And to be honest with you, Canada only works as a state. We don’t need anything they have. As a state, it would be one of the great states anywhere. This would be the most incredible country visually. If you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it — between Canada and the U.S. Just a straight artificial line. Somebody did it a long time ago — many, many decades ago — and makes no sense. It’s so perfect as a great and cherished state, keeping “O Canada,” the national anthem. I love it. I think it’s great. Keep it, but it’ll be for the state. One of our greatest states. Maybe our greatest state. But why should we subsidize another country for $200 billion? It costs us $200 billion a year. And again, we don’t need their lumber. We don’t need their energy. We have more than they do. We don’t need anything. We don’t need their cars. I’d much rather make the cars here. And there’s not a thing that we need. Now, there’ll be a little disruption, but it won’t be very long. But they need us. We really don’t need them. And we have to do this. I’m sorry, we have to do this.”

• “So, we’re in the process of ordering 48 icebreakers, and Canada wants to know if they could use them. I said, “Well, you know, you got to pay for them.” Think of it. Canada. We pay for their military. You know, Canada pays very little for their military, because they think we’re going to protect them, but — even with the icebreakers. So, we’re going to order 48, and Canada wants to be part of the deal. I say, ‘You got to get your own icebreakers. I mean, if you’re a state, you can be part of the deal, but if you’re a separate country, you’ve got to get your own icebreakers.’”

---

Greenland (Denmark)

Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark. It operates its own government services, but receives considerable benefits and aid from Denmark. As a part of Denmark, it is covered by NATO. The US already has a military presence on Greenland through agreements with Denmark. Greenland could very well be more strategically important as the Arctic melts and northern transport routes between North America and Russia because more consistently navigable.

For Trump, though, the original idea appears to have come from his friend Ron Lauder (of the cosmetics giant), yet another example of the haphazardness and capriciousness of Trump’s agenda. Since the idea got stuck in his head, however, Trump has been consistent in pushing for it. In a recent statement (March 13, listed below), Trump even refers to US troops on Greenland in what might be considered a not-so-veiled threat.

Other recommended reading: the first post from Carl Bildt, the former Prime Minister of Sweden and a mediator in the Yugoslav wars, and a very welcome addition to Substack. It outlines the reality of US presence and near-future of minerals mining on the island, as well as the Greenlander independence movement, and he has a moderating view on the strategic importance of Greenland with regard to Russia.

Just yesterday, all five leaders of Greenland’s major political parties issued a statement directed at Donald Trump decrying his “repeated statements on annexation and control of Greenland.”

Here’s a timeline of Trump’s eliminationist remarks about Greenland:

January 25, 2025 - on Air Force One

• “I think Greenland will be worked out with us. I think we’re going to have it. And I think the people want to be with us, as you know. There’s 55,000 people there. They want to be with us. I don’t know, really, what claim Denmark has to it, but it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn’t allow that to happen. Because that’s for protection of the free world. It’s not for us; it’s for the free world. […] But I do believe Greenland we’ll get, because it really has to do with freedom of the world, not just freedom of — it has nothing to do with the United States, other than we’re the one that can provide the freedom. They can’t. They can’t. And you know what? The people don’t like the way they’ve been treated by Denmark. They don’t like the way they’ve been treated by Denmark. And they do like us.”

February 19, 2025 - on Air Force One

• “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security and international security. We have to do something with Greenland. We have to protect Greenland. But we need it for national security, and we need it, maybe more importantly, for international security. […] We have to have Greenland because of the national security picture, even more so now than it would have been 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when they talked about it then too. You know, they used to talk about it. Years ago, they were talking about Greenland, but much more so now with, you know, modern weaponry, planes and the speed of planes, and all of the things. So, we have to have Greenland.”

February 20, 2025 - Republican Governors Association Meeting

• “But we’re going to — we’re going to see about that. We’re looking at Greenland, and we have to take back the Panama Canal, because that wasn’t the deal.”

March 6, 2025 - Joint Address to Congress

• “And I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland. We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and, if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it. We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together, we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.”

March 13, 2025 - Remarks before meeting with NATO Sec. Gen. Mark Rutte
(in response to questions about the annexation and eventual US statehood of Greenland)

• “Well, I think it’ll happen. And I’m just thinking — I didn’t give it much thought before, but I’m sitting with a man that could be very instrumental. You know, Mark, we need that for international security — not just security, international. We have a lot of our favorite players, you know, cruising around the coast, and we have to be careful. And we’ll be talking to you.”

• “But we’ve been dealing with Denmark. We’ve been dealing with Greenland. And we have to do it. We really need it for national security. I think that’s why NATO might have to get involved in a way, because we really need Greenland for national security. It’s very important. You know, we have a couple of bases on Greenland already, and we have quite a few soldiers that — maybe you’ll see more and more soldiers go there. I don’t know. What do you think about that, Pete? Don’t answer that, Pete. [Note: Referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.] Don’t answer that question. But we have bases, and we have quite a few soldiers on Greenland already.”

---

Panama

Trump has had a personal beef with Panama for awhile. The “Trump Ocean Club” in Panama City, a pet project of Ivanka Trump, was alleged to house money launderers and international fraudsters. In 2018, Trump was required by Panamanian police to surrender control of the building to investors.

Trump’s disdain for Panama goes back further. The Hoover Institution notes that Trump “has been critical of its [canal] management for over a decade.”

The most bandied-about current excuse for US interference in canal management is that China is extending its influence over canal-associated infrastructure. Recently, BlackRock, the US investment firm, has been trying to negotiate a purchase of two ports near the canal owned by a Hong Kong corporation CK Hutchinson, thus bring the ports under control of a consortium of US entities. This deal, however, has been condemned by China, and China is putting pressure on CK Hutchinson to stop the deal.

Late this past week, it was reported that the Trump administration has asked the Pentagon to develop military options to ensure US access to the canal, including partnering with Panama but also up to the “less likely option of U.S. troops’ seizing the Panama canal by force.” These options will include increasing troop presence and conducting military exercises in Panama.

Here’s a timeline of Trump’s eliminationist remarks about Panama and the Panama Canal:

January 20, 2025 - Trump’s Inaugural Address

• “And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal. And we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”

February 20, 2025 - Republican Governors Association Meeting
(Note: Trump falsely claims that “38,000 of our people” were killed building the Panama Canal. About 5,600 workers died, including ~350 Americans. The rest were from the Caribbean Islands. See wiki here, which quotes McCullough’s book.)

• “But we’re going to — we’re going to see about that. We’re looking at Greenland, and we have to take back the Panama Canal, because that wasn’t the deal. We gave the Panama Canal to Panama. It was the most expensive thing ever built in our country. It would be the equivalent of $2 trillion today. We spent massive amounts. We lost 38,000 lives from the mosquito and snakes. A lot of bad snake bites, but mostly the mosquitoes. They — malaria — they killed 38,000 of our people. They paid laborers five times what they were getting in the United States to go, knowing that there was a good chance they were going to die. Twenty percent of them died. And Jimmy Carter, may he rest in peace — the late, great Jimmy Carter — gave it away for $1. It’s also the most profitable thing ever built. You know, it’s — what you hear about casinos and you hear about all this stuff — they’re peanuts compared to this. It’s very — it’s the most profitable thing ever built. There’s never been anything — I mean, you have ships lined up. And by the way, when they gave it away — they gave it away like a bunch of dummies for $1. The day after they took over, they raised the price per ship by four times. That wasn’t high enough. There was no — no problem. They raised it again twice. And they’re getting almost a million dollars a ship. And their product is water. It’s Pacific and Atlantic, where they meet. And one is about 18 feet higher than the other, which a lot of people don’t know. Actually, it’s one of the great marvels of the world. Well, we built it. And we’re not going to let — because China has essentially taken it over. We’re not going to let that happen. China knows it, and so does Panama.”

March 6, 2025 - Joint Address to Congress
(Note: Trump falsely claims that “38,000” workers died building the Panama Canal. About 5,600 workers died, including ~350 Americans. The rest were from the Caribbean Islands. See wiki here, which quotes McCullough’s book.)

• “To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we’ve already started doing it. Just today, a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal and lots of other things having to do with the Panama Canal and a couple of other canals. The Panama Canal was built by Americans for Americans, not for others, but others could use it. But it was built at tremendous cost of American blood and treasure. Thirty-eight thousand workers died building the Panama Canal. They died of malaria. They died of snake bites and mosquitoes. Not a nice place to work. They paid them very highly to go there, knowing there was a 25 percent chance that they would die. The most expensive project, also, that was ever built in our country’s history, if you bring it up to modern-day costs. It was given away by the Carter administration for $1, but that agreement has been violated very severely. We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”