In the initial months of returning to office, Donald Trump has reignited global controversy with a series of inflammatory and legally contentious statements. These include threats to use military force to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal, insinuations about U.S. “ownership” of Gaza following the hypothetical expulsion of its over two million Palestinian inhabitants, and an overt suggestion that Ukraine should cede sovereign territory to Russia in exchange for a cease-fire.
While these proclamations may appear at first glance to be manifestations of Trump’s signature rhetorical excess widely characterized as erratic, nationalistic, and improvisational, they in fact amount to a direct assault on a foundational tenet of the international legal order: the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.
The prohibition against territorial conquest is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which mandates that all member states refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It represents one of the bedrock principles of the post-World War II international system, designed to avert a return to the lawlessness and territorial expansionism that defined earlier eras of imperialism and global war. Trump’s recent positions signal not just a departure from diplomatic norms but a challenge to the very architecture of global order, suggesting a reversion to a power-centric, realist logic where might again makes right.
In suggesting the military seizure of Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory, Trump hearkens back to a time when imperial powers laid claim to foreign lands with impunity. Although Trump had floated the idea of purchasing Greenland as early as 2019, his revival of the notion through military means represents a dangerous escalation. Such rhetoric disregards the principles of self-determination and non-aggression, and evokes historical parallels to 19th-century territorial expansionism.
The idea that the USA could forcibly take Greenland, not only violates Denmark’s sovereign rights but also disrespects the Inuit population’s autonomy and collective identity. Moreover, it trivializes the long-standing norms that prohibit territorial acquisition by coercion, not only is not merely symbolic: Greenland is of increasing geostrategic importance due to its location in the Arctic and its natural resources, thus revealing how economic and military considerations might tempt powers to revive expansionist doctrines under the veil of national interest.
Trump’s threat to militarily retake control of the Panama Canal is equally unsettling. The canal was officially transferred to Panama in 1999 following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, marking a rare instance of voluntary decolonization and symbolic respect for Latin American sovereignty. Trump’s remarks suggest a revanchist attitude, one that not only disregards binding bilateral agreements but also undermines the decades-long struggle of Latin American nations to assert political and economic autonomy vis-à-vis the USA.
Such a posture recalls the Monroe Doctrine and the subsequent Roosevelt Corollary, which were used throughout the 20th century to justify US interventions across the Western Hemisphere. Trump’s rhetoric thus threatens to revive neocolonial dynamics, transforming what should be an equal relationship between sovereign states into one defined by coercion and control. Were the USA to act on such rhetoric, it would violate both the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the obligation to honour treaties— and the broader prohibition on the use of force.
These statements come at a time of growing global instability, when rising authoritarian powers such as Russia and China are already challenging the international order. By echoing their tactics and legitimizing their narratives, Trump’s rhetoric inadvertently strengthens their hand. It also weakens the collective ability of the international community to respond to acts of aggression, as it fosters division, cynicism, and resignation in the face of norm violations.
Perhaps the most disturbing of Trump’s statements is the suggestion that the USA could “take ownership” of Gaza after the mass expulsion of its Palestinian population. This idea not only violates international humanitarian law but also evokes comparisons to some of the darkest episodes in modern history, including the forced population transfers of World War II and the Israeli-Palestinian Nakba of 1948.
Such a proposal ignores international protections for occupied territories and displaced populations, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits forced displacement and collective punishment. Trump’s vision for Gaza effectively legitimizes ethnic cleansing, presenting it as a geopolitical solution rather than a war crime. Furthermore, the notion that the USA could then assume control of the territory contradicts its legal status as an occupying power and upends the principle of self-determination enshrined in international law. This rhetoric also risks normalizing violent and exclusionary ideologies, framing the removal of entire populations as viable policy options. If left unchecked, such statements could embolden other revisionist regimes to justify their own campaigns of territorial acquisition and ethnic displacement under the guise of national interest or regional stability.
Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine should relinquish territory to Russia in exchange for a cease-fire serves as a particularly egregious violation of international law and post-Cold War norms. It implicitly recognizes Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its de facto control over portions of eastern Ukraine, thereby legitimizing aggression and undermining the sovereignty of smaller states.
This proposal directly contradicts multiple international legal instruments, including the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, wherein Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for its denuclearization. By promoting such a resolution, Trump effectively supports the return of “spheres of influence” politics, in which great powers determine the fates of weaker states based on strategic calculations rather than legal or moral principles. This vision undermines the UN Charter and the principle of equal sovereignty among states, which seeks to shield smaller nations from predation by larger ones.
This approach also sets a dangerous precedent. If a major power like the USA can propose the partition of a sovereign state as a peacekeeping measure, it signals to autocratic regimes that might can still override right. It also discourages resistance to aggression by signalling that violations of international law can result in territorial rewards.
Trump’s statements reflect a broader return to realpolitik a worldview in which power, rather than law or norms, determines international outcomes. This worldview is fundamentally at odds with the liberal international order that emerged after 1945, which was based on the belief that law could and should constrain the behavior of states. While realpolitik has never been absent from international affairs, what is novel and particularly dangerous about Trump’s iteration is its open disdain for legal constraints and multilateral institutions.
Instead of engaging with the UN, NATO, or the International Court of Justice, Trump’s preferred mode of diplomacy appears to be transactional, unilateral, and coercive. This approach not only undermines international law but corrodes the moral authority of the United States, inviting accusations of hypocrisy and imperialism
Moreover, these statements come at a time of growing global instability, when rising authoritarian powers such as Russia and China are already challenging the international order. By echoing their tactics and legitimizing their narratives, Trump’s rhetoric inadvertently strengthens their hand. It also weakens the collective ability of the international community to respond to acts of aggression, as it fosters division, cynicism, and resignation in the face of norm violations.
