Trumpism is increasingly being viewed through the lens of neo-imperialism, as President Donald Trump’s foreign policy blends national security rhetoric with territorial ambition, economic coercion, and unilateral use of power.
By Annpurna Nautiyal
January 23, 2026: As events continue to unfold on the world stage, few can doubt the intentions of US President Donald Trump to extend American influence into virtually every corner of the globe, often under the guise of safeguarding national security. His administration’s bold and controversial actions — including the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his fortress-like safe house in a midnight operation — coupled with threats of invasion and regime change in Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico over alleged narco-terrorism ties, reflect a highly assertive expansionist agenda that has dramatically reshaped Washington’s posture in the Western Hemisphere. These moves underscore a pattern of aggressive foreign policy aimed at projecting U.S. power and influence while signaling willingness to bypass conventional diplomatic norms.
His explicit desire to capture Greenland and make it a US state, along with his deep desire for the Nobel Peace Prize for his claimed role in stopping eight wars, reflected through accepting the Nobel Peace Prize of Maria Corina Machado despite it belonging to her, further illustrate his personal ambitions. His statement that he was honoured to finally receive the Nobel Peace Prize indicates an intense desire for recognition and ego.
Trump was so annoyed by the Nobel Committee’s decision that he even threatened in a letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, asserting that his country had denied him the prize despite stopping eight wars; therefore, he felt obligated to nothing but “what is good and proper for America.” Norway’s Prime Minister had to clarify that the Nobel Committee works independently and is beyond governmental control.
Trump’s list of whims and fancies is long and full of peculiarities, which may indicate a unipolar power game or neo-imperialism being advanced by the US through military power, economic control, and political supremacy to exploit resources in the Western Hemisphere and even Europe. The declaration to exploit Venezuelan oil indefinitely, despite US oil companies’ reluctance to take part in this risky venture, and threats of implementing 500% punitive tariffs on India, China, and Brazil for importing Russian crude, are driven more by geopolitical than transactional interests in a crumbling international order. This scenario reads like a script for a mafia don who wants to grab everything—land, people, and resources—to establish a reign based on terror and tribute collection.
A prime example is Trump’s threat of imposing a 10% tariff from February 1, 2026, rising to 25% by June 1, 2026, on allied European countries such as Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and Finland, as well as other NATO members, for opposing US demands to fully control Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. This is another blow to the world order established by the US itself. Trump’s policy reflects a form of realism disguised as national security—aiming to safeguard the Arctic from China and Russia while exploiting Greenland’s natural resources, despite Greenlanders’ refusal to comply.
Greenlanders have protested, adopting a motto reminiscent of Trump’s MAGA but transformed into “Make America Go Away.” Trump argues that an independent Greenland could become a foothold for Russia and China, posing a security risk to the US. The contradiction is clear: in 2025, he had suggested NATO countries protect themselves, claiming the US could not fund their security indefinitely, and he chastised Ukraine’s President for not signing a peace deal with Russia. Yet, Trump pursues Greenland, breaking international norms and risking retaliation from Russia and China. He has also posted maps showing Canada and Greenland as US territories, arguing it is essential for American security. Trump believes international powers respond only to strength; the use of power will earn America respect.
Trump has also turned attention to the Indian Ocean region, questioning the UK’s decision to return Diego Garcia to Mauritius, where the US maintains a military base, disregarding India’s strategic interests in the IOR. India supported the UK-Mauritius deal, which Trump called a “stupid act.” European leaders aim to resolve disputes through negotiation but have also expressed commitment to protect Greenland. If pressured excessively, they have warned of retaliatory tariffs on US tech companies or service providers from February 2026. French President Emmanuel Macron advised the EU to activate an “anti-coercion instrument,” Europe’s trade “bazooka,” a weapon never previously used against an ally to counter economic bullying.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in his January 20, 2026 Davos speech, indicated that the rules-based order is fading and powerful countries act freely—a reminder of a new era of great power rivalry. He urged middle powers to act collectively to avoid becoming targets, as compliance alone cannot guarantee security. Macron echoed Carney, describing Trump’s new tariffs as unacceptable. European countries are seeking trade diversification, while China and Canada move toward strategic cooperation. Credit for China’s expanded role is, paradoxically, attributed to Trump’s policies. European dependence on the US has now become a liability, revealing a conflict over a non-descript territory. US opinion polls suggest 68–70% of Republican voters oppose military action in Iran and forcibly occupying Greenland. Yet, Trump’s power-driven approach treats any move as legitimate if it serves US interests.
Trump also proposed a Board of Peace, initially authorized by the UN to oversee the Gaza Peace Pact, involving Middle Eastern, Pakistani, and European countries. Recent developments show US inviting countries like Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and India to join or become permanent members for $1 billion. This extension beyond Gaza has raised European concerns about establishing a parallel to the UN Security Council. The charter states that the board aims “to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict,” undertaking peace-building according to international law. The board will be chaired by Trump for life, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, and Ajay Banga, head of the World Bank, among the officials. Members have three-year tenures but can extend membership by paying a fee. Trump has called it “the Greatest and Most Prestigious Board ever assembled at any time, any place.”
However, fissures have emerged: the US named the first Gaza Executive Board members, including Turkey’s foreign minister, a Qatari official, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Jared Kushner. Israel’s President Benjamin Netanyahu objected, noting Israel was excluded from discussions on the board’s structure. The onset of a new Cold War, guided by neo-imperialism, land grabbing, resource exploitation, decline of Pax Americana, and the formation of a new board of peace, is evident. The US has withdrawn from nearly 60 multilateral international pacts on climate change, energy, healthcare, democracy promotion, and fair trade, undermining multilateralism supported by India. India received an invitation to join Trump’s board but remains cautious, given concerns about US intentions. Threats of punitive tariffs for oil imports from Iran make US actions difficult to trust.
China, however, avoided additional tariffs due to its strong export base, manufacturing, computer chips, semiconductors, AI tools, and military capabilities, allowing its leadership to stand firm. Russia, engaged in a long war, still seeks NATO disintegration and a European realignment under its patronage. With limited options, India is pursuing retaliatory tariffs on the US, investment agreements with UAE, and FTAs with Middle Eastern and European Union countries to protect its economy and sovereignty. In this high-stakes game, Indian diplomacy faces challenges, but quiet, strategic moves and diversification of trade agreements bode well for the country’s long-term interests.
( The Write is Former Vice Chancellor and Professor of Political Science, HNB Garhwal (Central) University, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand)
