December 23, 2024 09:00 am PST
(PenniesToSave.com) – In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has reignited conversations about two ambitious and controversial proposals: reclaiming U.S. control over the Panama Canal and purchasing Greenland from Denmark. While these ideas might seem far-fetched to some, they hold significant implications for the United States in terms of strategic influence, national security, and economic opportunities. But what do these proposals mean for the average American family, and how likely are they to happen? Let’s take a closer look.
Trump and the Panama Canal
The Panama Canal has been a cornerstone of global trade since its completion in 1914. Built and operated by the United States for decades, it was handed over to Panama in 1999 under the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. The canal facilitates the passage of goods between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, making it a crucial trade route for U.S. commerce.
President-elect Trump recently suggested that the United States should consider reclaiming control over the canal, citing concerns about high transit fees and potential foreign influence, particularly from China. Trump’s stance echoes broader fears about the canal’s role in geopolitics, as China has increased its economic footprint in Panama in recent years.
For Americans, this proposal raises important questions. On one hand, reclaiming control could reduce shipping costs, potentially lowering prices on consumer goods. On the other hand, the financial and diplomatic costs of such a move could outweigh the benefits. Panama’s sovereignty over the canal is enshrined in international treaties, and attempting to reverse this could strain U.S. relations with Panama and other global partners.
Moreover, the legal and logistical hurdles to reclaiming the canal are immense. The Torrijos–Carter Treaties explicitly guarantee Panama’s ownership, and any attempt to undermine this agreement could lead to international backlash. While the canal’s strategic value is undeniable, the likelihood of a U.S. takeover remains slim.
Trump and Greenland
Greenland, the world’s largest island, has long been of interest to the United States due to its strategic location in the Arctic and its abundant natural resources. Trump first proposed purchasing Greenland in 2019, a suggestion that was met with skepticism and outright rejection by Denmark, which governs the autonomous territory.
In 2024, Trump has renewed his interest in acquiring Greenland, framing it as a national security priority. The Arctic’s increasing importance—driven by melting ice caps opening new trade routes and exposing untapped resources—has made Greenland a focal point of U.S.-China-Russia competition. Trump’s proposal highlights Greenland’s potential as a key military and economic asset.
For American families, owning Greenland could mean access to vital resources and strengthened national security. However, the financial and diplomatic costs would be steep. Greenland’s population has expressed a desire for greater autonomy, not a transfer of sovereignty. Additionally, Denmark has repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale.
The feasibility of such a purchase is further complicated by international law and the political will required to negotiate such a deal. While the idea of acquiring Greenland may align with long-term strategic goals, its practical implementation is highly unlikely.
Final Thoughts
Trump’s proposals to reclaim the Panama Canal and purchase Greenland underscore his focus on asserting U.S. dominance in key geopolitical areas. While these ideas carry potential benefits in terms of economic opportunities and national security, they are fraught with legal, diplomatic, and financial challenges.
For the average American, the impact of these proposals would likely manifest in indirect ways, such as changes in consumer goods prices or shifts in U.S. foreign policy. However, the likelihood of either scenario coming to fruition remains low. Instead, these proposals serve more as reflections of the broader priorities and ambitions of Trump’s administration.