Military and Economic Threats Against Greenland and Panama Canal Sovereignty

What Happened

Beginning upon taking office in January 2025, President Trump made explicit threats of military and economic force against the sovereignty of two territories: Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and the Panama Canal. These were not idle rhetoric -- in the case of Panama, the Pentagon was directed to develop actual military options.

Greenland

Trump renewed his first-term interest in acquiring Greenland, but escalated from a diplomatic inquiry to explicit threats. He refused to rule out the use of military or economic force to achieve the acquisition, and threatened a 25% tariff on EU goods unless Denmark agreed to cede the territory.

The threats provoked a strong international response. Seven European leaders issued a joint statement explicitly affirming "sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders" -- a pointed reference to the UN Charter principles that Trump's statements appeared to violate.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, Trump partially walked back the threats, pledging not to use military force or tariffs for Greenland acquisition. However, the initial statements had already been made and their legal implications documented by international law scholars.

Panama Canal

Trump directed the Pentagon to prepare military plans to "take back" the Panama Canal, despite the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties having transferred sovereignty to Panama. According to NBC News reporting, US Southern Command drew up plans ranging from closer military cooperation to outright invasion.

The Torrijos-Carter Treaties represent a settled international agreement negotiated and ratified by the United States. Any military action to retake the Canal would violate not only the UN Charter but the specific treaty obligations the United States undertook.

International Law Analysis

UN Charter Article 2(4)

The UN Charter prohibits not only the use of force but also the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Legal analysts at EJIL Talk (the blog of the European Journal of International Law) published a detailed analysis concluding that Trump's statements about Greenland constituted threats of force prohibited under the Charter.

Self-Determination

Both Greenland and Panama have clear self-determination rights. Greenland's people have expressed no interest in being acquired by the United States; Panama's sovereignty over the Canal was established through a bilateral treaty process. Any coerced transfer would violate the principle of self-determination enshrined in Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.

Crime of Aggression

Had the threats been carried out, they could constitute the crime of aggression under Article 8bis of the Rome Statute -- defined as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression by a person in a position to exercise control over the political or military action of a state. The Pentagon's development of invasion plans for Panama represents concrete preparation in this direction.

Just Security Analysis on Panama

Just Security published a detailed legal analysis titled "Ambiguity Is Not Authorization: The Neutrality Treaty Does Not Justify U.S. Military Intervention in Panama," directly addressing and rejecting the administration's apparent legal theory that the 1977 Neutrality Treaty provision allowing the US to act to keep the Canal open could justify military intervention.

Why This Entry Is Marked a Major Concern

• Threats of force against sovereign territories are prohibited under the UN Charter regardless of whether they are carried out
• The Pentagon developed actual military invasion plans for Panama, moving beyond rhetoric to concrete planning
• The Torrijos-Carter Treaties are settled international law; repudiating them through military action would undermine the entire framework of international treaty obligations
• European allies responded with a formal joint statement, indicating the seriousness with which the international community treated the threats
• The partial walkback at Davos mitigated but did not eliminate the damage; the threats had already been made, the military planning had already occurred, and the norm against threatening sovereign territories had already been eroded
• The precedent of a major power threatening to annex allies' territories and seize treaty-protected infrastructure undermines the rules-based international order that the US itself helped build