By Richard Martin, Chief Strategist, Alcera Consulting Inc.
What is driving President Trump’s vision for Fortress America? He has doubled down on his statements about annexing Canada and Greenland while showing little interest in doing so for Mexico. This selective expansionist strategy reflects longstanding American ambitions and modern geopolitical realities. Canada and Greenland appear on the surface to strengthen U.S. dominance, while Mexico presents risks that outweigh its benefits. We need to take this thinking seriously if we wish to counter it and ensure our continued independence and sovereignty.
The Strategic Logic: Canada and Greenland Fit the Model
Trump’s expansionist instincts align with traditional concepts of Manifest Destiny, where the U.S. lays claim outright to all of North America except for Mexico. This reflects his belief that annexing or integrating Canada and Greenland would be relatively straightforward, while doing so with Mexico would be impossible and extremely costly. The geopolitical, grand-strategic, economic, military, and diplomatic costs would be enormous, regardless of what he and his closest associates may wish.
Canada and Greenland support a U.S. claim to self-sufficiency. Canada provides vital resources, including oil, minerals, fresh water, and agriculture. Greenland offers strategic Arctic positioning and rare earth minerals, critical for countering China. Both have small, culturally compatible populations, making integration feasible.
Mexico, in contrast, presents security and governance risks. Drug cartels, crime, and governance challenges make annexation a liability. Its large, poorer, Spanish-speaking population presents demographic challenges that contradict Trump’s nationalist vision.
Historical Context: Canada and Greenland as Unfinished Business
U.S. expansionist history helps explain why Canada and Greenland remain targets. Canada has long been viewed as part of America’s natural sphere. The War of 1812 included attempts to annex it, while the Fenian Raids and post-Civil War rhetoric reflected American ambitions. Canada’s Confederation in 1867 was partly a response to the U.S. annexation threat. Greenland holds strategic military importance, housing Thule Air Base, a key U.S. Arctic outpost. Trump’s 2019 and 2024 proposals to buy Greenland demonstrate continued interest in securing it.
Mexico was historically treated differently. After the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. took northern Mexico but left the rest intact, deeming full annexation politically and economically unfeasible.
Economic Imperative: Resources vs. Costs
Trump’s economic nationalism prioritizes assets over liabilities. Canada is already the U.S.’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade exceeding \$960 billion annually. It supplies over 50% of U.S. crude oil imports and is a major energy and mineral source. U.S. firms already control large portions of Canada’s resource sector, making annexation a natural extension of economic integration. Greenland’s rare earth minerals and Arctic position add further strategic value.
Mexico, however, would be an economic burden. Its GDP per capita is significantly lower, requiring massive investment. The U.S. benefits more from Mexico as a low-cost labour hub than as an integrated state.
Cultural and Racial Factors
Trump’s nationalist vision favours cultural and racial compatibility. Canada is culturally similar to the U.S. and would not dramatically alter demographics. Even Quebec, despite its francophone identity, remains Western and economically integrated. Greenland’s small Indigenous population makes assimilation relatively easy compared to Mexico.
Mexico’s large Spanish-speaking population would drastically shift U.S. demographics. Historically, the U.S. has preferred to exploit Mexican labor rather than integrate it politically.
Military and Security Considerations
Canada and Greenland could theoretically enhance U.S. security without destabilizing it. Canada is deeply integrated into NORAD and NATO, while Greenland secures Arctic dominance.
Mexico, however, is a security liability. Drug cartels, corruption, and border instability make annexation a governance nightmare.
Conclusion: Fortress America Prioritizes Canada and Greenland
Trump’s selective expansionism aligns with historical U.S. geopolitical logic. Canada and Greenland strengthen U.S. power without internal destabilization. Mexico, while a vital trade partner, remains an undesirable annexation target due to demographics, governance, and security risks.
Trump’s vision for Fortress America is about maximizing power while minimizing liabilities. Canada and Greenland fit that vision; Mexico does not.
About the Author
Richard Martin is the founder and president of Alcera Consulting Inc., a strategic advisory firm specializing in exploiting change (www.exploitingchange.com). Richard’s mission is to empower top-level leaders to exercise strategic foresight, navigate uncertainty, drive transformative change, and build individual and organizational resilience, ensuring market dominance and excellence in public governance. He is the author of Brilliant Manoeuvres: How to Use Military Wisdom to Win Business Battles. He is also the developer of Worldview Warfare and Strategic Epistemology, a groundbreaking methodology that focuses on understanding beliefs, values, and strategy in a world of conflict, competition, and cooperation.
© 2025 Richard Martin
Discover more from Exploiting Change
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
