Imperialism is in America’s DNA, whether through economic dominance or territorial expansion, it has always been a defining characteristic of American foreign policy. From inheriting the imperial mantle from the declining British after World War 2 to interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and beyond, the U.S. has consistently pursued strategies to maintain global supremacy. President Donald Trump has made this reality more transparent, openly declaring ambitions that past leaders masked behind diplomacy. His executive orders and attempts to acquire Greenland, reclaim control over the Panama Canal, and take control of Gaza reflect a recurring imperialist agenda. However one pursued in a uniquely unorthodox Trump way.
One of Trump’s defining foreign policy strategies was his desire to gain control over strategic land assets that could boost U.S. economic and geopolitical leverage on the world stage. His attempt to purchase Greenland is an example of this approach as Greenland is rich in natural resources and positioned strategically between North America and Europe. Trump’s proposal echoed previous American expansions, such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 or the purchase of Alaska in 1867, but without the necessary groundwork or economic commitment. This framing of Greenland as simply a commodity rather than an individual sovereign entity shows a blunt and transactional approach to global politics.
Similarly, Trump’s attempt to regain control and influence over the Panama Canal shows an economic dominance policy that greatly relates back to imperialism. The Panama Canal is a critical maritime trade route that was previously controlled by the U.S. until it was transferred to Panama on Dec. 3, 1999. Trump’s rhetoric points towards a willingness to revert this transfer based on economic and security concerns. However, his inability to come up with a concrete plan indicates an interest in projecting power and influence rather than investing to reestablish control. Both Greenland and the Panama Canal fit into Trump’s broader vision of imperialism “on the cheap”, one that continues American territorial and economic dominance without a significant financial or military commitment.
Trump’s strategy regarding Gaza and his discussions of American military intervention in the Middle East also fall into the pattern of historical U.S. imperialist intervention in the Middle East. Trump’s interest in converting Gaza into a “Riviera” for tourism completely ignores the crime of mass displacement of millions of Palestinians. His statements about “taking over” Gaza follows a long-standing strategy of U.S. interventions couched as efforts to protect democracy, national security, or regional stability. Historically, U.S. involvement in the Middle East has been justified under the pretense of securing democracy while ultimately serving to control oil supplies, maintain military footholds, and exert influence over regional politics. As seen in Iraq and Afghanistan these interventions have often prioritized American strategic and economic interests rather than humanitarian concerns.
Others like Secretary of State Marco Rubio have argued that Trump’s actions constitute a novel and pragmatic form of foreign policy aimed at strengthening American economic and military security. Supporters claim that acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal would have provided economic benefits without direct conflict. They also argue that involvement in Gaza could stabilize the region, preventing further escalation of conflicts and keeping relations with Israel as an American ally.
However, these justifications overlook the broader historical patterns of American imperialism. The U.S. has consistently framed interventions as economic or political necessities but in reality, they lead to political destabilization and economic exploitation. Greenland’s resistance to Trump’s bid to purchase, Panama’s firm refusal to give up its sovereignty, and global outrage at Trump’s Gaza remarks highlight that these strategies are purely aggressive attempts at exerting American control without due process. Trump’s statements have made explicit what past leaders have hidden, seeking imperial control to make America the most powerful while minimizing the perceived costs to the American public.
Trump’s foreign policy did not introduce imperialism to America; it merely stripped it of its traditional diplomatic guise. His attempts to purchase Greenland, reassert control over the Panama Canal, and intervene in Gaza are expressions of a budget-conscious form of imperialism that prioritizes dominance without direct investment or regard for humanitarian costs. By adopting an overtly blatant approach, Trump has exposed what past leaders did under the pretext of global cooperation. The underlying motive of U.S. foreign policy is to ensure that America will be at the top of the world stage. Trump reveals that American imperialism is not a relic of the past but a continuing force in world affairs. As the global landscape continues to shift at a faster rate, the question remains whether future administrators will return to more covert methods or continue Trump’s blunt, unapologetic strategy. The question is not whether American imperialism exists but how it will evolve in the years to come and if it will self-destruct like imperialistic empires of the past.