By: Leif Bromme
On Sept. 5, 2025, workers at the Pentagon tore the name “Department of Defense” off their walls and replaced it with “Department of War.” Though President Donald Trump’s rebranding seems benign, it indicates a significant foreign policy shift. His actions have ranged from vague threats against Panama and Canada to military action in Venezuela. But most notorious of the president’s foreign interests is Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
The Trump administration has been salivating over Greenland since his first term. His tactics have ranged from monetary offers to economic coercion and military threats. At the core of the issue lies rare earth minerals and strategic positioning.
At the Jan. 21 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump explained that his primary interest in the territory was for security reasons.
“To get to this rare earth,” Trump said, “you have to go through hundreds of feet of ice. That’s not the reason we need it. We need it for strategic national security and international security. This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America, on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere. That’s our territory.”
In the same speech, he argued that United States intervention in World War II entitled our country to ownership of the Arctic island.
“We saved Greenland and successfully prevented our enemies from gaining a foothold in our hemisphere. So, we did it for ourselves also. And then after the war . . . we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that?”
The desire for a stronger military presence in Greenland is redundant; in 1951, Denmark and the United States signed a military treaty concerning Greenland. The treaty was reinforced in 2004 and continues to grant the U.S. military freedom of movement throughout the territory. It also authorizes operations within designated defense regions, including Pituffik Space Base, an installation used for surveillance and missile detection. The only major restraint defined in the treaty is the need to consult the Danish government before building more military infrastructure.
In response to Trump’s demands, Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielson, pointed to the existing treaty and emphasized the territory’s desire for self-governance. From the Danish perspective, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen released a statement urging the United States to “stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have said very clearly that they are not for sale.”
Trump emerged from the World Economic Forum with what he called the “framework of a future deal” for Greenland, marking a softer stance. Still, a more peaceful expansion of power does not erase these dangerous precedents. Trump’s rhetoric has already normalized a new form of imperialism, damaged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and associated the United States with a chaotic, callous form of world leadership.
A New Form of Imperialism
Though Trump’s foreign policy is more aggressive than his predecessors, it is not without precedent. Trump’s plan is heavily influenced by the Monroe doctrine, described by the National Archives as an effort to prevent European involvement in the Western Hemisphere. Notably, former President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the doctrine to justify further intervention in Latin American countries, still under the guise of preventing European involvement. In an official White House statement, Trump seems to be reviving this policy with his “Trump Corollary.” Though the statement emphasizes trade agreements, his past attitudes towards nearby countries paint a darker picture.
An imperialist image of the United States is problematic. Most obvious is the question of sovereignty. As a former collection of colonies, the United States should understand how important self-determination is for other nations. On a more practical note, Trump’s policy threatens to normalize aggressive takeovers by world powers. Russia maintains interest in recapturing former soviet states. China has long had its eyes on Taiwan.
In an interview with The New York Times, Trump responded to concerns about other powers emulating his actions in Venezuela.
“No,” he said. “This was a real threat.”
Though countries have a right to defend themselves, the qualifications of a “threat” are murky. Trump considered Venezuela a threat due to fentanyl imports, despite insignificant amounts originating from there, according to experts. In the case of Greenland, Trump’s concerns relate more to potential threats than to imminent danger. Russia could easily manufacture “threats” that justify intervention elsewhere, as could China. And if the other superpowers attack, we will have no moral or legal standard with which to confront them.
Trump’s tamer “framework of a future deal” may not be enough to reduce his impact. Even without an invasion, his threats against Greenland and his actions in Venezuela have already normalized a new type of foreign policy—one based not on diplomacy, but on domination. At best, this new direction for our country is outdated and sets a dangerous precedent; at worst, it threatens to fracture our strongest economic and military alliances.
Damaged Alliances
One such alliance is with NATO, which has grown since its establishment in 1945 to include 32 countries in Europe and North America, all committed to collective security and stability. The Wilson Center states that NATO provides the United States with trade benefits. In addition, the alliance grants us soft power: the ability to extend our cultural and political influence across the globe.
According to NATO’s website, this groundbreaking partnership was formed for the purposes of “deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.”
During both his terms, Trump has criticized other member states for not contributing enough money to NATO. His claims are at least partly justified; 2023 figures reported by The Independent show that only 11 countries met the spending threshold, 2% of the national GDP, which is encouraged by the alliance. The United States was the second-highest contributor by percentage at 3.24%, second only to Poland, at 3.92%. The president’s quarrels with NATO have not stopped with finances, however.
His rhetoric surrounding Greenland has put the United States at odds with Europe, a reality that reporter Katie Rogers of The New York Times addressed in the paper’s recent interview with President Trump.
“If you had to choose between obtaining Greenland and preserving NATO, what’s your higher priority there?” Rogers asked.
“Well,” Trump answered, “I don’t want to say that to you, but it may be a choice.”
True military attacks aren’t necessary to fracture alliances. All it takes is policy. On Jan. 7, the White House issued an order outlining the United States’ departure from 66 international organizations. We have separately withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Human Rights Council. In response, the international community has begun to reshuffle their priorities and develop alliances without the United States.
At the same economic forum where Trump outlined his plans for Greenland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for a new world order. His speech described recent events as “the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality.”
“The other countries,” Carney said, “especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states.” He later outlined new trade partnerships and alliances across the globe, calling world leaders to resist American hegemony and determine their own futures.
As Trump exits global partnerships, new alliances will inevitably form in our absence. The countries we alienate may not wait for us; they will move on. Whether they turn toward Russia or China or simply embrace a world without American influence, the outcome is likely to undermine Trump’s vision for the nation. In expanding America’s global reach, he risks diminishing its true power: its global influence.
Respect on the World Stage
Amid world conflict, The New York Times reporters who interviewed Trump asked a question that pierced to the core of his aspirations.
“Do you see any checks on your power in the world stage?” they asked. “Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?”
“Yeah, there is one thing,” said the President. “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s very good.”
In a world woven with delicate alliances, democratic institutions and diverse cultures, the future of millions may well be forged by the morality and desires of one man. Underpinning those desires is the need for respect.
In his second inaugural address, Trump repeatedly emphasized the arrival of America’s golden age. “From this day forward,” he promised, “our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world.”
Trump’s vision of respect involves power: economic coercion, military threats and the vision of an expanded America. Often forgotten amongst the bravado is a quieter, stronger, type of respect—the kind offered by faithful allies across the globe, who, in exchange, help share democracy and shape a safer future. The respect earned through leadership, not conquest. The respect that Jesus expressed in Matthew 23:12: “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. These are the principles that make America great.
The world has entered a new era of politics. Powerful nations may grow bolder, encouraged to bully their smaller neighbors. Steadfast alliances can shift overnight. Institutions may falter as leaders grow more reliant on their own judgment. For now, “Department of War” still blazes across a wall in the Pentagon. That directive for our country may lead to more situations like Greenland, which will test our resolve and stress our alliances. As students, we are not only spectators of these events, but growing participants and leaders who will shape the future. Rarely does a case so effectively illustrate power and influence as does the Greenland conflict, and rarely do we get the opportunity to observe, analyze and learn from its consequences in real time.
Trump and Greenland: A dangerous precedent
By: Leif Bromme
On Sept. 5, 2025, workers at the Pentagon tore the name “Department of Defense” off their walls and replaced it with “Department of War.” Though President Donald Trump’s rebranding seems benign, it indicates a significant foreign policy shift. His actions have ranged from vague threats against Panama and Canada to military action in Venezuela. But most notorious of the president’s foreign interests is Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
The Trump administration has been salivating over Greenland since his first term. His tactics have ranged from monetary offers to economic coercion and military threats. At the core of the issue lies rare earth minerals and strategic positioning.
At the Jan. 21 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump explained that his primary interest in the territory was for security reasons.
“To get to this rare earth,” Trump said, “you have to go through hundreds of feet of ice. That’s not the reason we need it. We need it for strategic national security and international security. This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America, on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere. That’s our territory.”
In the same speech, he argued that United States intervention in World War II entitled our country to ownership of the Arctic island.
“We saved Greenland and successfully prevented our enemies from gaining a foothold in our hemisphere. So, we did it for ourselves also. And then after the war . . . we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that?”
The desire for a stronger military presence in Greenland is redundant; in 1951, Denmark and the United States signed a military treaty concerning Greenland. The treaty was reinforced in 2004 and continues to grant the U.S. military freedom of movement throughout the territory. It also authorizes operations within designated defense regions, including Pituffik Space Base, an installation used for surveillance and missile detection. The only major restraint defined in the treaty is the need to consult the Danish government before building more military infrastructure.
In response to Trump’s demands, Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielson, pointed to the existing treaty and emphasized the territory’s desire for self-governance. From the Danish perspective, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen released a statement urging the United States to “stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have said very clearly that they are not for sale.”
Trump emerged from the World Economic Forum with what he called the “framework of a future deal” for Greenland, marking a softer stance. Still, a more peaceful expansion of power does not erase these dangerous precedents. Trump’s rhetoric has already normalized a new form of imperialism, damaged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and associated the United States with a chaotic, callous form of world leadership.
A New Form of Imperialism
Though Trump’s foreign policy is more aggressive than his predecessors, it is not without precedent. Trump’s plan is heavily influenced by the Monroe doctrine, described by the National Archives as an effort to prevent European involvement in the Western Hemisphere. Notably, former President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the doctrine to justify further intervention in Latin American countries, still under the guise of preventing European involvement. In an official White House statement, Trump seems to be reviving this policy with his “Trump Corollary.” Though the statement emphasizes trade agreements, his past attitudes towards nearby countries paint a darker picture.
An imperialist image of the United States is problematic. Most obvious is the question of sovereignty. As a former collection of colonies, the United States should understand how important self-determination is for other nations. On a more practical note, Trump’s policy threatens to normalize aggressive takeovers by world powers. Russia maintains interest in recapturing former soviet states. China has long had its eyes on Taiwan.
In an interview with The New York Times, Trump responded to concerns about other powers emulating his actions in Venezuela.
“No,” he said. “This was a real threat.”
Though countries have a right to defend themselves, the qualifications of a “threat” are murky. Trump considered Venezuela a threat due to fentanyl imports, despite insignificant amounts originating from there, according to experts. In the case of Greenland, Trump’s concerns relate more to potential threats than to imminent danger. Russia could easily manufacture “threats” that justify intervention elsewhere, as could China. And if the other superpowers attack, we will have no moral or legal standard with which to confront them.
Trump’s tamer “framework of a future deal” may not be enough to reduce his impact. Even without an invasion, his threats against Greenland and his actions in Venezuela have already normalized a new type of foreign policy—one based not on diplomacy, but on domination. At best, this new direction for our country is outdated and sets a dangerous precedent; at worst, it threatens to fracture our strongest economic and military alliances.
Damaged Alliances
One such alliance is with NATO, which has grown since its establishment in 1945 to include 32 countries in Europe and North America, all committed to collective security and stability. The Wilson Center states that NATO provides the United States with trade benefits. In addition, the alliance grants us soft power: the ability to extend our cultural and political influence across the globe.
According to NATO’s website, this groundbreaking partnership was formed for the purposes of “deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.”
During both his terms, Trump has criticized other member states for not contributing enough money to NATO. His claims are at least partly justified; 2023 figures reported by The Independent show that only 11 countries met the spending threshold, 2% of the national GDP, which is encouraged by the alliance. The United States was the second-highest contributor by percentage at 3.24%, second only to Poland, at 3.92%. The president’s quarrels with NATO have not stopped with finances, however.
His rhetoric surrounding Greenland has put the United States at odds with Europe, a reality that reporter Katie Rogers of The New York Times addressed in the paper’s recent interview with President Trump.
“If you had to choose between obtaining Greenland and preserving NATO, what’s your higher priority there?” Rogers asked.
“Well,” Trump answered, “I don’t want to say that to you, but it may be a choice.”
True military attacks aren’t necessary to fracture alliances. All it takes is policy. On Jan. 7, the White House issued an order outlining the United States’ departure from 66 international organizations. We have separately withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Human Rights Council. In response, the international community has begun to reshuffle their priorities and develop alliances without the United States.
At the same economic forum where Trump outlined his plans for Greenland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for a new world order. His speech described recent events as “the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality.”
“The other countries,” Carney said, “especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states.” He later outlined new trade partnerships and alliances across the globe, calling world leaders to resist American hegemony and determine their own futures.
As Trump exits global partnerships, new alliances will inevitably form in our absence. The countries we alienate may not wait for us; they will move on. Whether they turn toward Russia or China or simply embrace a world without American influence, the outcome is likely to undermine Trump’s vision for the nation. In expanding America’s global reach, he risks diminishing its true power: its global influence.
Respect on the World Stage
Amid world conflict, The New York Times reporters who interviewed Trump asked a question that pierced to the core of his aspirations.
“Do you see any checks on your power in the world stage?” they asked. “Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?”
“Yeah, there is one thing,” said the President. “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s very good.”
In a world woven with delicate alliances, democratic institutions and diverse cultures, the future of millions may well be forged by the morality and desires of one man. Underpinning those desires is the need for respect.
In his second inaugural address, Trump repeatedly emphasized the arrival of America’s golden age. “From this day forward,” he promised, “our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world.”
Trump’s vision of respect involves power: economic coercion, military threats and the vision of an expanded America. Often forgotten amongst the bravado is a quieter, stronger, type of respect—the kind offered by faithful allies across the globe, who, in exchange, help share democracy and shape a safer future. The respect earned through leadership, not conquest. The respect that Jesus expressed in Matthew 23:12: “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. These are the principles that make America great.
The world has entered a new era of politics. Powerful nations may grow bolder, encouraged to bully their smaller neighbors. Steadfast alliances can shift overnight. Institutions may falter as leaders grow more reliant on their own judgment. For now, “Department of War” still blazes across a wall in the Pentagon. That directive for our country may lead to more situations like Greenland, which will test our resolve and stress our alliances. As students, we are not only spectators of these events, but growing participants and leaders who will shape the future. Rarely does a case so effectively illustrate power and influence as does the Greenland conflict, and rarely do we get the opportunity to observe, analyze and learn from its consequences in real time.
Share this story!
Staff Writer