The Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy Goals: A Hemispheric Defense of U.S. Interests

The foreign policy of the Trump Administration has taken a bold and assertive approach to securing U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere. President Trump’s statements regarding Greenland and the Panama Canal have sparked significant debate, with some critics labeling them as expansionist or reckless. However, a closer examination reveals that these statements reflect a strategic effort to counter increasing threats from our adversaries, safeguard American economic interests, and protect the U.S. homeland by prioritizing control over critical geopolitical assets in close proximity to the United States. Trump’s focus on Greenland and the Panama Canal is a calculated response to the growing influence of adversaries like China and Russia in the Western Hemisphere, which poses risks to U.S. economic and national security. Trump’s policies aim to reassert U.S. dominance in America’s immediate neighborhood to mitigate these threats, and are deeply rooted in the U.S. strategic tradition. 

President Trump’s shift toward the Western Hemisphere is evidenced by his policy agenda and personnel choices. He has downplayed long-term U.S. involvement in the Middle East and pledged to broker a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine war, instead prioritizing a fortified U.S. southern border to curb illegal immigration. He has voiced interest in reasserting the geopolitical importance of Greenland and the Panama Canal, emphasized trade and security dynamics with Mexico and Canada, and appointed a Secretary and Deputy Secretary of State with extensive Latin America experience, alongside a Special Envoy for the region and 10 political ambassadors for Latin American posts unusually early in his tenure. Additionally, by naming Stephen Miller, a key figure in immigration policy, as White House Homeland Security Advisor, Trump has cemented a regional focus on border security within the national security framework. 

The Strategic Importance of the Western Hemisphere 

The Western Hemisphere has long been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, rooted in the Monroe Doctrine, which declared the Americas off-limits to European colonial interference. This doctrine, later expanded by President Theodore Roosevelt to justify U.S. intervention in Latin America, established the United States as the dominant power in the hemisphere. Ambitious initiatives like Secretary of State William Seward’s purchase of Alaska and proposed acquisition of Greenland reinforce a long-standing hemisphere-centric strategy to prioritize security outside the nation’s immediate boundaries. This focus, epitomized during World War II as “hemispheric defense” under Latin America Coordinator Nelson Rockefeller, saw Washington actively protect its interests by occupying Greenland and assuming control of British naval bases in the Caribbean. The hemispheric defense strategy successfully prevented significant Axis military incursions or diplomatic infiltrations in the Americas through proactive military, economic, and diplomatic efforts. 

However, in recent decades, U.S. attention has shifted toward global conflicts in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, leading to what some describe as “benign neglect” of the Western Hemisphere. This neglect has allowed adversaries, like China and Russia, to expand their influence in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Arctic, creating new security challenges for the United States. Trump’s reprioritization of the Western Hemisphere marks a return to traditional U.S. strategy, focusing on securing the region abutting the homeland to counter adversary influence. 

The proximity of the Western Hemisphere to the U.S. homeland amplifies the urgency of addressing these challenges. Unlike distant conflicts, instability or hostile influence in Latin America, the Caribbean, or the Arctic directly threatens U.S. borders, trade routes, and core economic interests. The Panama Canal, a vital artery for global trade, and Greenland, a strategic outpost in the Arctic, are critical assets that, if controlled or influenced by adversaries, could directly undermine U.S. national security. Trump’s statements about these regions reflect a recognition that the United States must act decisively to prevent adversaries from gaining a foothold in its own hemisphere. 

The Panama Canal: Economic Security and Adversarial Encroachment 

The Panama Canal is one of the world’s most vital chokepoints for global trade, serving as a key route for U.S. container ships. In fact, 40 percent of all U.S. container traffic transits through the canal each year.[i] Control of the canal is essential for U.S. economic security, as it facilitates the efficient movement of goods between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, reducing shipping costs and time. However, since the United States relinquished control of the canal to Panama in 1999 under the Carter Administration’s Panama Canal Treaty, concerns have grown about foreign influence, particularly from China. 

Trump’s statements about reclaiming the Panama Canal stem from fears that Panama’s management of the Canal, coupled with China’s growing economic presence in the region, could disadvantage U.S. interests and pose a strategic threat. In a January 2025 news conference, Trump accused Panama of charging excessive fees for U.S. ships and claimed that China was gaining a hand in the Canal’s operation.[ii] This reflected a broader concern about China’s expanding footprint in Panama. A Hong Kong-based contractor operates two ports connected to the Canal,[iii] and China has invested heavily in infrastructure projects across Latin America, including in Panama.[iv] As Trump highlights, the Panama Canal should be under American control to ensure that U.S. economic and military interests are protected, particularly in light of China’s ability to prioritize its own shipping interests. 

China’s growing influence in the Western Hemisphere is part of a broader strategy to challenge U.S. hegemony. Then Senator Marco Rubio noted in a 2022 Foreign Relations Committee hearing, China’s economic activities in Latin America hurt regional economies and bolster cartels that export fentanyl and violence across U.S. borders, destabilizing the region to weaken the United States.[v] Trump’s rhetoric about the Panama Canal, including his refusal to rule out military or economic coercion, may be a negotiating tactic to pressure Panama into aligning more closely with U.S. interests. By signaling a willingness to reassert control, Trump aims to deter Panama from deepening ties with China and to ensure that the Canal remains a secure and cost-effective trade route for the United States. 

The economic security implications of the Panama Canal extend beyond trade. The Canal is a strategic asset for the U.S. military, which relies on it for rapid naval deployments between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. During World War II, the United States prioritized control of the Canal to safeguard its interests, and today, the Canal remains critical for projecting power in the Western Hemisphere. Allowing adversaries like China to gain influence over the Canal could enable them to disrupt U.S. military operations or prioritize their own strategic interests, posing a direct threat to U.S. national security. Trump’s focus on the Canal reflects a determination to prevent such an outcome and to maintain U.S. dominance in a region critical to both economic and military power. 

Greenland: Arctic Security and Critical Resources 

Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, has emerged as a focal point of Trump’s foreign policy due to its strategic location in the Arctic and its vast mineral resources. Straddling the Arctic Circle between the United States, Russia, and Europe, Greenland offers a unique geopolitical advantage, particularly as new Arctic sea routes open and reveal new access to resources. The island is home to the U.S. military’s Pituffik Space Base, a critical asset for Arctic security, and likely hosts significant reserves of rare earth minerals, like graphite, which are essential for technologies like electric vehicle batteries and defense systems. 

Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new; during his first term, he proposed purchasing the island, only to be rebuffed by Danish and Greenlandic officials. In his second term, Trump revived this effort, describing Greenland as an “absolute necessity” for U.S. national security. This stance is driven by the growing competition in the Arctic, where China and Russia are expanding their presence. China produces about 70% of the world’s rare earth elements and 65% of its graphite, making Greenland’s untapped resources a potential counterweight to Chinese dominance.[vi],[vii] Russia, meanwhile, has militarized the Arctic, increasing its naval and air presence, which threatens U.S. security in the region.[viii] 

The proximity of Greenland to the U.S. homeland heightens its strategic importance. Located just 1,500 miles from New York, Greenland serves as a defensive bulwark against potential threats from the Arctic. The United States has long recognized this, as evidenced by its occupation of Greenland during World War II to protect the American east coast against German incursions. Today, the threat comes from China and Russia, which could use Greenland’s resources or strategic location to undermine U.S. security. For example, China’s attempted investments in Arctic infrastructure and its efforts to gain influence in Greenland could give it leverage over critical supply chains, while Russia’s military buildup in the region poses a direct challenge to U.S. dominance.[ix] Trump’s statements about Greenland reflect a determination, consistent with long-standing U.S. strategic objectives, to prevent adversaries from gaining a foothold in this critical region. 

Greenland is increasingly pushing for full independence amid growing national pride and economic prospects from its natural resources.[x] However, achieving sovereignty raises significant security concerns, as Greenland lacks the requisite military capabilities, independence from Denmark, and population to defend its vast territorial waters and airspace. Without U.S. protection, Greenland would be vulnerable to Russian military incursions, given Russia’s expanding Arctic presence and interest in the region’s strategic routes. The island’s sparse population and limited defense capabilities make it ill-equipped to counter sophisticated foreign threats independently. 

Various options exist to bring Greenland into closer partnership with the United States, including a compact of free association agreement. This diplomatic route offers a less confrontational approach to securing U.S. interests. Such an agreement would grant Greenland greater autonomy in exchange for closer alignment with the United States, ensuring unfettered U.S. military access with the ability for Washington to deny other foreign powers, like Russia, the ability to operate nearby. 

The Monroe Doctrine Reimagined: Countering Adversarial Influence 

Trump’s focus on Greenland and the Panama Canal aligns with a modern reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which seeks to exclude adversarial foreign powers from the Western Hemisphere. Unlike the Obama Administration, which declared the Monroe Doctrine “over” in 2013,[xi] President Trump has consistently emphasized the need to counter expansionist foreign powers in the region. His 2018 UN General Assembly speech underscored this commitment, stating, “It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs.”[xii] 

The primary adversaries targeted by this rebooted Monroe Doctrine, China and Russia, have expanded their economic, military, and intelligence throughout the hemisphere. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has fueled infrastructure investments in Latin America, while Russia has increased its Arctic presence, creating instability that threatens U.S. national security it its own region. For example, China’s economic influence in Latin America has been linked to the rise of cartels and fentanyl smuggling, which directly impact U.S. communities and has been a top priority issue for President Trump. By prioritizing control over the Panama Canal and Greenland, Trump aims to limit these adversaries’ ability to project power in the Western Hemisphere, thereby protecting U.S. economic and national security. 

At the core of Trump’s foreign policy is the belief that economic security is inseparable from national security. The Panama Canal and Greenland are not just strategic assets but also economic linchpins that can bolster U.S. competitiveness. Control over the Panama Canal ensures affordable and reliable trade routes, reducing costs for U.S. businesses and consumers. Similarly, access to Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic and deposits of rare earth minerals could reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese-dominated supply chains, strengthening economic resilience. 

Trump’s rhetoric about the Hemisphere also serves as a negotiating tool to extract concessions from allies and partners. For example, his threats to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico have prompted Canada to increase border security spending, aligning with U.S. priorities. Similarly, his statements about Greenland may pressure Denmark to deepen cooperation with the United States on Arctic security, and increase its Arctic defenses. This “art of the deal” approach, while controversial, reflects Trump’s belief that bold rhetoric can yield strategic gains. 

President Trump’s approach to Greenland and the Panama Canal is a strategic response to the increasing threats posed by U.S. adversaries in the Western Hemisphere. By prioritizing control over these critical locations, Trump aims to counter the influence of China and Russia, safeguard U.S. economic security, and protect the homeland from threats in close proximity. His policies draw on the historical precedent of the Monroe Doctrine, reimagined for the 21st century, and reflect a determination to reassert U.S. dominance in its immediate neighborhood.

Trump’s statements underscore the urgency of addressing adversarial encroachment in the Western Hemisphere. His focus on the Americas marks a return to traditional U.S. strategy, prioritizing the security of the homeland in an increasingly competitive global landscape. By securing the Panama Canal and Greenland, Trump seeks to ensure that the United States remains the preeminent power in its own backyard, capable of meeting the challenges of a rapidly changing world.