Trump’s priorities

Donald Trump swept to victory on promises to retreat from the foreign entanglements that had defined recent US presidencies, vowing instead to champion American industry, slap tariffs on imports, and revive the nation’s manufacturing base.

Yet, the brash rhetoric that fueled his campaign has evolved into a far more assertive posture, suggesting a recalibration of his isolationist doctrine. Recent remarks from the president-elect hint at a broader, muscular approach to asserting US influence abroad, underscoring contradictions between his rhetoric and emerging policy signals.

Trump, ever a provocateur on social media, ignited controversy with a quip about Canada as the “51st state”, revived murmurings about reclaiming the Panama Canal, and resurrected his fascination with acquiring Greenland -- a move Denmark, its sovereign, has repeatedly dismissed as absurd. While most regard these statements as performative bluster, they nevertheless reflect an undercurrent of a more aggressive ‘America First’ agenda, where the projection of power underpins economic and security goals.

On December 21, Trump unleashed a fresh salvo, lambasting Panama for its “unfair” canal fees. The warning was pointed: if access terms aren’t renegotiated to suit US interests, Washington could pursue the canal’s return to American management. Though improbable, such declarations reveal a willingness to frame global economic levers as extensions of US hegemony -- potentially igniting tensions and reshaping alliances. With Trump, ambiguity is the point, not the byproduct.

The Panama Canal, a linchpin of global commerce and a critical artery linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, holds immense strategic importance for the US economy. Any disruption to its operations -- a scenario unprecedented since Panama gained control in the 1970s -- could upend supply chains and send shockwaves through import-dependent industries. The ripple effects, particularly on goods arriving from Asia, would sharply escalate costs along US coastlines.

Trump, true to his fiery rhetoric, has spotlighted these stakes. On his Truth Social platform, he called Panama’s fees “ridiculous” and issued an ultimatum: if the “moral and legal principles” underpinning the canal’s transfer aren’t adhered to, the US will demand its return. As if words weren’t enough, Trump ratcheted up tensions by sharing an image of the canal adorned with an American flag, branding it the “United States Canal”. The provocative act elicited a scathing rebuke from Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli Mulino, who responded in kind on his X account: “Every square foot of the Panama Canal and surrounding lands is, and will forever remain, Panamanian.” Trump’s gambit signals not merely a flashpoint in US-Panama relations but also a calculated strategy to counter China in its backyard -- wielding American economic leverage with a mix of showmanship and raw power.

His threats to reassert American control over this vital waterway have stirred both outrage and anxiety, reviving dormant tensions and provoking questions about the future of US foreign policy under his second potential presidency. The Panama Canal, a 51-mile engineering triumph linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, has been a symbol of both American ingenuity and contentious diplomacy since its construction in 1914. Transferred to Panama in 1999 under the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, it represents a cornerstone of Panamanian sovereignty -- a status Trump’s incendiary remarks threaten to undermine.

Trump’s comments, combined with his contentious musings over Canada and Greenland, signal more than reckless posturing. They reflect a provocative, perhaps deliberate, shift that prioritises power projection over consensus-building. While it may galvanise domestic supporters, this approach risks destabilising international norms and amplifying geopolitical discord. As the US-Panama standoff looms, broader concerns arise: Will Trump’s aggressive gambits reshape global order, or simply erode America’s standing as a trusted partner?

Donald Trump’s assertion that Panama’s canal fees are “ridiculous,” coupled with insinuations of Chinese interference, encapsulates the high-stakes brinkmanship that could define Trump 2.0. His threat to wrest control of the Panama Canal, an audacious nod to an imperial past, carries consequences far beyond the Americas, reverberating across the world’s political and trade systems. If the US were to reassert control, it would set a volatile precedent for managing global chokepoints like the Turkish Straits.

Trump’s rhetoric signals a stark pivot toward a more unilateral and forceful US foreign policy. By questioning Panama’s sovereignty and framing Chinese activity as a threat, he has revealed a willingness to leverage American power to bolster strategic interests, regardless of collateral damage to alliances or multilateral norms. This assertive posturing is a double-edged sword. While it may strengthen US dominance in key geopolitical arenas, it risks isolating allies and upending the fragile equilibrium of the international order. More critically, it challenges fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity -- principles that have underpinned global stability since the mid-20th century.

Donald Trump’s incendiary remarks about the Panama Canal fit neatly into his well-worn populist playbook, where external threats -- real or imagined -- are conjured to rally the domestic base. Like his belligerent stances toward Mexico, China, or even Canada, this latest outburst smacks more of performative demagoguery than of a well-considered policy stance. Populist leaders thrive by inflating crises and draping themselves in nationalist rhetoric, casting themselves as defenders of the nation against shadowy forces.

In this light, Trump’s threats to revisit the canal’s sovereignty are unsurprising, a continuation of his penchant for provocative theatrics. But Trump’s statement also rekindles old controversies about ownership and the strategic significance of the Panama Canal -- a vital artery of global trade. The revival of such disputes feels like a distraction, a manufactured spectacle to deflect attention from America’s real crises.

While Trump rails against imagined foreign adversaries or regurgitates absurdities, like his baseless assertion that Haitians in Ohio are consuming cats and dogs, the US battles systemic and tangible challenges. The nation’s healthcare system is in shambles. Mass shootings are an epidemic, turning schools and streets into battlegrounds. Climate change wreaks havoc, erasing entire communities. Meanwhile, income inequality reaches historic highs, leaving millions behind in a fractured economy.

These are the urgent issues demanding leadership and solutions. Instead of addressing them, Trump is leaning into divisiveness, peddling xenophobia and nationalist fervour to energise his base. It’s a cynical calculation, one that neglects urgent needs while exacerbating its polarisation. This is not governance; it is misdirection. And the cost of such misplaced priorities -- at home and abroad -- will be heavy indeed.

The writer is a freelance contributor.