Trump’s Sovereign Agenda: You Can't Always Annex What You Want

Catherine Maltman | United States Fellow

Image sourced from U.S. Secretary of Defense via Wikimedia Commons.

Donald Trump’s rhetoric, whether satirical or serious, is a hallmark of his presidency. When that rhetoric bleeds into ambition and influence, it must be treated with the seriousness the world’s most powerful office demands. 

In recent weeks, we have seen Trump refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”, Canada as the “51st state”, propose turning Gaza into a luxury holiday destination, and declare “one way or the other, we’re going to get it” about acquiring Greenland. While Trump’s motivations may shift, their nationalistic tone and global consequences are clear. 

The current Administration’s attempts to assert control over foreign territories and long-standing regions reflect a broader shift away from respecting international agreements and alliances, and erode key principles of international law, fuelling concerns about how far states are willing to go to redraw global borders for economic and political advantage. If the US continues down this path, it risks undermining the very principles it has historically championed, making it harder to push back against future territorial disputes.

The Status Quo

In the post-WWII era, the dominant rules-based worldview — driven by principles of territorial integrity and state sovereignty — has been questioned, subverted, and tested by global tensions. These principles, enforced through the need for stability and control on a state-by-state basis, are consistently facing legal and normative challenges — self-determination, decolonisation, civil war, the dissolution of states, and complex territorial claims.

Despite this, the global order has, on balance, been upheld through cooperation and negotiations between states. Driven by adherence to international rules and laws, this post-WWII era has removed the legitimacy provided to territorial conquest and promoted stronger dialogue between states. Though imperfect, it has shown itself to be a functional framework for stability and peace. The lesson is simple — we cannot risk even the slightest possibility of sending our global order back into the territorial skirmish that existed prior to the end of World War II.

Make Acquisition Great Again?

If the US — arguably the most influential, hegemonic country — continues to undermine the recognition of states like Canada and normalises disregarding the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland, the consequences could be traced in the response from other states. At best, it is a temporary distraction; at worst, a precedent where the recognition of sovereignty does not matter, and land can be acquired or bought against the will of the citizenry.

Although the US — or most states, for that matter — cannot be held up as the perfect example of respecting all instances of sovereignty and territorial integrity over the last 80 years, it cannot let territorial acquisition be normalised. We have already seen Trump respond with limited condemnation for Israel’s acquisition of land in Syria seized during the collapse of the Assad regime and support the progression of Morocco into disputed territory in Western Sahara. A greater progression of Trump’s current and past behaviour could signal to China that acquiring Taiwan is no longer out of the question and further embolden Russia’s position in Ukraine, outcomes that the international community has fought to prevent. 

When a precedent becomes a norm, it does not take long for other states to leverage that position. If these options become permissible, it could reshape what sovereignty and territorial integrity mean in practice — and what actions states may feel empowered to take going forward.

Subverting Sovereignty

At a time when countries like Russia are trying to subvert territorial norms through armed conflict and annexation, the prospect of the global hegemon — and a key figure in global cooperation — reorienting the meaning of sovereignty and territorial acquisition could be catastrophic. It is, for many states, like a teacher encouraging their students to steal one another’s lunch. What exists legally is very different to what states promote as the norm, and the US knows it shapes those norms. 

Trump’s rhetoric could not only legitimise the idea of acquiring another state’s territory, but it could also open up states to the use of troublesome methods to achieve territorial gains. We could, hypothetically, see more instances wherein states use economic coercion — trade and tariffs — or conquest, force and blockades as legitimised means of control. Trump’s attitude is not just about his Administration’s ambitions — it signals implied approval to other states.

Preventing the Revolution

For as strong as Trump is claiming to be in his own sovereignty and territorial integrity, his rhetoric neglects to respectfully and meaningfully recognise those rights in others. While maintaining national security and national interests have always been integral to the US’ position as the global hegemon, Trump’s “America First” policy cannot be allowed to mean ‘America above all’. The international community has rules and laws and must uphold them for the security and stability of our global order.

History has made it painfully clear: when territorial ambition is left unchecked, whether colonial, ethnic, or nationalistic, the consequences can be devastating. Other state actors, especially US allies, should be looking to dissuade such actions through both diplomacy and vocal support for the stability of the current rules-based order. If states do not take decisive action to dissuade Trump’s recent rhetoric, they risk promoting a global order where force and coercion shape territorial goals, and borders are up for renegotiation. That precedent would not just crack the foundation of our rules-based order — it could pull it apart entirely, to the detriment of all who depend on it.

Catherine Maltman is the United States Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. She holds a Bachelor of Arts, a Master of International Relations, and a Master of International Law from the University of Western Australia. Passionate about U.S. politics and international affairs, Catherine is eager to contribute to discussions about the United States' evolving role on the global stage under the incoming administration, particularly its implications for security and trade.