Expansionist rhetoric, tariffs, and the new global order – Firstpost

In an increasingly fractured global order, President-elect Donald Trump’s ambitions for Canada and Greenland might sound funny but points towards a broader expansionist agenda. By proposing economic integration of these territories into the United States, Trump is reimagining trade as a tool of economic growth but as a weapon of geopolitical influence. His rhetoric, while at times satirical, points to a broader trend: the use of economic pressure as a substitute for direct military engagement. This approach blurs the lines between coercion and diplomacy, raising critical questions about the ethics and effectiveness of leveraging trade to reshape global power dynamics.

Since his election as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump has embraced an expansionist rhetoric, frequently showcased through his Truth Social posts and media statements. One of the earliest examples of this was his pointed remarks about Canada. His overtures to Canada, including his threats of punitive tariffs and framing Canada as the “51st state,” exemplify a deliberate use of economic coercion to recalibrate trade relationships. These actions reflect dependency theory. which suggests dominant states exploit economic asymmetries to maintain control over others. Canada’s reliance on the U.S. market for trade and investment positions it as vulnerable to such coercive tactics, even as a developed nation. Trump’s framing of this interdependence as a weakness allowed him to weaponize economic ties in ways that pressured Canada to renegotiate trade agreements under less favorable terms.

Trump’s tactics also align with theories of economic statecraft**,** particularly as articulated by David Baldwin in his seminal work Economic Statecraft (1985). Baldwin argues that trade policies, tariffs, and sanctions can be used as tools of power projection. They are simply not economic ends, but they also help in serving strategic and political objectives. Trump’s second presidency will leverage economic penalties as bargaining tools.

Trump’s tactics challenge liberal theories of international trade, which emphasize the cooperative benefits of interdependence. Instead, his strategy illustrates how economic interdependence can be exploited asymmetrically, turning mutual reliance into a source of leverage. The renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA showcases this dynamic, where Canada made concessions under the threat of punitive measures.

Greenland, with its immense natural resources and strategic Arctic location, represents another dimension of Trump’s expansionist vision. The island’s untapped reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and natural gas have made it a focal point in the scramble for Arctic dominance. Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland mirrors the principles of resource geopolitics, where control over critical materials becomes central to national security and economic competitiveness. The Arctic, as theorized by Kaplan (2009), is an emerging theater for great-power rivalry, and Trump’s interest in Greenland reflects an acknowledgment of its strategic importance. His administration’s willingness to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the region, even through economic pressure, underscores the relevance of Waltz’s structural realism, which emphasizes the role of power in shaping international order.

The Panama Canal has become the third prey of Donald Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, as he has vowed to reclaim the strategically vital waterway, citing its importance to U.S. economic and military security. During a press conference, Trump criticized the 1977 treaties that returned control of the canal to Panama, calling the decision a “very big mistake” and implying it left the U.S. vulnerable. He also accused Panama of overcharging U.S. ships and suggested that the canal’s operations are being influenced by China, despite Panamanian officials categorically denying such claims. Trump’s framing of the canal as a critical asset reflects his broader strategy of leveraging economic arguments and security concerns to justify territorial expansion, mirroring his rhetoric about Canada and Greenland.

The Gulf of Mexico has emerged as another target of Donald Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, with his proposal to rename it the “Gulf of America” symbolizing an effort to assert U.S. dominance over shared geographic spaces. Trump has framed the Gulf’s renaming as a matter of national pride and economic security, despite the practical challenges such a change would entail. The Gulf’s current name, used for over four centuries, reflects historical ties and shared ownership with Mexico, underscoring its complex geopolitical significance. Renaming it would require approval from the International Hydrographic Organization, which standardizes global waterway names, making the proposal more symbolic than actionable.

Two consistent themes run through Trump’s expansionist rhetoric: first, it is predominantly directed at the United States’ closest allies, and second, it is consistently backed by the use of trade barriers, such as higher tariffs, as a coercive tool.

Historically, trade has been a potent weapon in the arsenal of global powers. From the British Empire’s use of mercantilism to the United States’ post-World War II economic diplomacy, nations have long leveraged economic tools to achieve geopolitical objectives. Trump’s approach is a modern iteration of these strategies, where tariffs, trade agreements, and investments replace gunboats and blockades. However, many might argue that such tactics risk undermining multilateralism and the norms of cooperative trade that have underpinned global stability since the Bretton Woods era. However, Trump 1.0 dealt a severe blow to multilateralism, undermining its very foundations by prioritizing unilateral actions and transactional diplomacy over collective global cooperation. This trend is likely to intensify under Trump 2.0, with a renewed emphasis on “America First” policies that could further erode multilateral frameworks, weaken international alliances, and prioritize short-term national gains over long-term global stability.

In Trump’s next presidency, this trend is likely to intensify. His first term already demonstrated a preference for renegotiating trade deals and imposing tariffs, with economic statecraft often taking precedence over multilateral consensus. This aggressive stance, while effective in the short term, risks alienating allies and destabilizing established trade networks.

A significant enabler of this strategy is the paralysis of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Appellate Body, which has been non-functional since 2019 due to the US blocking new appointments. Without a functioning dispute resolution mechanism, the global trade system has become increasingly vulnerable to unilateral actions. The absence of a robust adjudication process provides fertile ground for Trump’s unilateralism, allowing him to bypass traditional checks and balances in pursuing aggressive trade policies. The WTO’s diminished capacity to enforce rules may well mark a turning point in global trade, with far-reaching implications for the balance of power.

Trump’s second presidency is likely to be marked by a continuation of his provocative rhetoric and reliance on tariffs as his preferred tool of economic coercion. While the specifics of his expansionist ambitions may shift, the constant will be the use of trade barriers to assert US dominance.

Aditya Sinha (X:@adityasinha004) is a public policy professional. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.