On the first day of my strategic intelligence class, I emphasize to students that the analytic assessments of the U.S. intelligence community do not foretell the future. Instead, they are designed to bound uncertainty for policymakers — clarifying what we know, what we don’t and what lies in the gray zones in between. The goal is to reduce ambiguity and support informed decision-making.
Ironically, President-elect Donald Trump’s recent statements — ranging from acquiring Greenland to retaking the Panama Canal and renaming the Gulf of Mexico — have not clarified U.S. strategic priorities. Instead, his remarks — whether bluster or strategic posturing — have provided adversaries with a predictable framework for justifying their own territorial ambitions.
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
Though these declarations could be dismissed domestically as political theater, their international ramifications cannot be ignored. Adversaries such as Russia and China might well seize on these statements to justify their own territorial claims, pointing to a U.S. precedent. Meanwhile, allies who depend on a steady and principled United States might view such rhetoric as further evidence of strategic unpredictability.
Together, these dynamics risk eroding the credibility of U.S. leadership, undermining its influence on the global stage.
Some might argue that Trump’s declarations signal a vital reassertion of American power in an era of great-power competition. Proponents might frame his rhetoric as a return to “peace through strength” or as a form of strategic ambiguity designed to deter adversaries.
On the surface, such an approach might appear rational, particularly when viewed through the lens of 19th-century realism. Greenland’s vast reserves of critical resources and its strategic location are undeniably valuable assets for any great power. Similarly, securing the Panama Canal — a crucial trade artery — could bolster U.S. control over global commerce while curbing Chinese influence in Latin America.
However, effective deterrence requires coherence and careful calibration — qualities Trump’s rhetoric lacks. Rather than reassuring allies and creating uncertainty for adversaries, his unpredictability generates confusion and emboldens rivals. By mirroring the tactics of revisionist powers such as Russia and China, Trump risks legitimizing their disregard for international norms while fostering a global environment that serves their ambitions at the expense of U.S. values and credibility.
For Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump’s proclamations are a strategic gift. Russia has not required external validation for its actions in Ukraine or Crimea, but Trump’s voiced territorial ambitions bolster Putin’s narrative. Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine — a supposed defense of ethnic Russians, reclaiming “rightful” territory and resisting NATO’s “encirclement” — is an imperialist agenda cloaked in rhetorical legitimacy. Trump’s statements echo these themes, giving Putin’s doctrine a veneer of credibility.
Russian state media will be at the ready to seize on Trump’s rhetoric and portray his territorial ambitions as equivalent to Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. This narrative not only undermines Washington’s ability to credibly condemn Russian aggression but could also embolden Putin to press further in Eastern Europe or the Arctic. Worse, Trump’s statements risk being framed as tacit approval for Moscow’s imperialist ambitions, complicating NATO’s efforts to present a united front against Russian expansionism.
China, too, benefits from this narrative. Xi Jinping’s policy of national rejuvenation frames territorial recovery as central to China’s historical identity. Beijing can point to the United States’ openly declared ambitions as a pretext to escalate its own actions, such as challenging U.S. resolve in the South China Sea or testing the limits of American commitments to Taiwan. These provocations could force the United States to respond, putting Trump’s bluster to the test in scenarios where the stakes for failure would be far higher than any perceived gain.
For Indo-Pacific allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, the disparity between Trump’s rhetoric and traditional U.S. commitments to international norms is deeply troubling. This inconsistency raises serious questions about Washington’s reliability and long-term commitment to countering Beijing’s influence.
Trump’s rhetoric also risks alienating key partners beyond traditional alliances. In Latin America, Trump’s talk of retaking the Panama Canal revives memories of U.S. dominance in Latin America. In a region where China’s Belt and Road Initiative has made significant inroads, such statements could further erode U.S. influence. Beijing’s investments are often framed as pragmatic partnerships, avoiding the overt territorial claims that Trump’s rhetoric embraces. This allows China to position itself as a more reliable and less intrusive actor, deepening its influence at the United States’ expense.
In Africa, where the United States has struggled to counter growing Russian and Chinese influence, Trump’s declarations could compound skepticism about American intentions. Both adversaries have consolidated their influence without the need for territorial claims, relying instead on infrastructure investments and strategic alliances. Trump’s statements risk reinforcing perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable power, further alienating nations that might otherwise serve as critical partners in countering Chinese and Russian influence.
Trump has long sought to project an image of Churchillian strength — stoic, tough, and visionary. He has leaned into Churchill’s remark, “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” Yet Churchill also warned, “The price of greatness is responsibility.” This principle calls for engaged and accountable leadership, not unilateral bluster cloaked in chaos.
Trump’s reliance on chaos as a strategy may resonate in a corporate setting, but in geopolitics, it sows disorder with far-reaching consequences. Rival leaders — such as Putin and Xi — thrive in such environments, turning disorder to their advantage. This approach risks legitimizing adversaries’ territorial ambitions and undermining U.S. credibility, framing Washington as an expansionist power rather than a defender of sovereignty.”
Adversaries have already witnessed the first act of Trump’s leadership and are now better prepared to exploit his blind spots and missteps in the sequel.
Brian O’Neill, a recently retired senior executive from the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center, is an instructor on strategic intelligence at Georgia Tech.
About the Author
