By Gustav Graner.
The first months of Donald Trump’s second presidency have been tumultuous. Threats of tariffs and increased pressure on Ukraine have been expected, however other moves have caught observers by surprise, such as the continuing obsession with territorial expansion. Beyond trivial changes like renaming the now-called “Gulf of America”, Trump has continuously pressured Denmark to sell Greenland, suggested reclaiming the Panama Canal, and repeatedly referred to Canada as the “51st state”. [1].
To understand Trump’s sudden obsession with increasing America’s territory, one must understand the deeply ingrained expansionist mindset in America, which predates the nation’s founding and has evolved over time. Though it has not manifested itself through major territorial annexations in the past 100 years, this ideology has persisted in America’s pursuit of strategic interests and ideological influence. By exploring the history of American expansion – its origin and evolution – we can put President Trump’s abrupt policy shift into a broader historical context.
Manifest Destiny
The American expansionist mindset dates back to its founding in 1776, as the nation underwent a westward expansion unlike any other up until its Civil War in 1861 [2]. The U.S. flag’s 50 stars represent each state, while its 13 stripes signify the original states from which the nation expanded. This growth, starting with the Louisiana purchase in 1803, was based on the ideology of American exceptionalism. In the mid-19th century, the expansionist fervor was dubbed “Manifest Destiny,” coined to encapsulate Americans’ belief in a God-given right to conquer the entire North American continent – a conviction tracing back to the first settlers, who believed survival in the new world would be a sign of god’s approval [3]. These European immigrants had emigrated from nations torn by religious wars and lacking opportunity, to a new nation where they could start from scratch and build a new life: The American Dream. Over generations, these settlers and their descendants forged a distinct national identity, separate from the one that they had left behind. The environment which had been created was one of optimism, hard work, and, ultimately, independence – leading the Americans to fight against the Brits in the Revolutionary War [4]. After that victory, the sentiment of American exceptionalism grew even stronger. Americans now believed themselves to have not only the right, but the responsibility, to spread the enlightened values of freedom they fought the British over. Liberation through imposition of such superior values on territories was in their view inevitable, as God had destined them to conquer all of North America, a standpoint which largely shaped the foreign policy and desire for expansion, until the Civil War and beyond [5].
This self-image as liberators persisted and evolved, partly due to the state of their neighboring lands, and the relative ease with which they expanded. At that time, the U.S. only held territory on the East Coast of North America, however the territory to their west was either sparsely populated by primitive (meaning pre-contact) Native Americans, owned by Europeans who could not economically justify keeping it or by Mexicans who could not stand up militarily to America. From the Europeans, Americans bought land through the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the purchase of Florida under the Adams-Onis treaty in 1819 [6]. The Mexicans were then defeated in battle, after which vast areas on the West Coast were acquired through the purchase of the Mexican Cession in 1848, followed by the Gadsden purchase 5 years later [7]. Against Native Americans, the U.S. employed a variety of brutal strategies to take territory – far more complex than those against Mexico and the European powers – including forced removal of Native Americans following acquisition of a land, or outright taking their land [8]. Relations to the Native American population are severely damaged even today largely because of these actions, which shows a negative consequence to expanding. Despite worsening Native American relations however, each U.S. territorial gain reinforced public enthusiasm for expansion. Such success confirmed their divine duty to spread the ideals of freedom and capitalism – especially given how rapidly these gains came, so soon after the nation’s founding. This historical sentiment even echoes in Trump’s America, where a revival of territorial ambition is considered patriotic by many, especially among conservatives.
By the mid-19th century, due to their expansion, America stretched from sea to sea; from the east to the west, as Americans believed God had blessed them to do. The country was now one of the world’s largest, had an abundance of natural resources, and enormous potential. There was neither time nor need to alter their expansionist ideology until the Civil War, which forced the nation to prioritize internal affairs.
Post Civil War
Following the Civil War, American expansionism waned for a time and then fundamentally shifted in focus. While keeping the ideology of expanding their values across the globe, America started to focus less on territory, and more on geopolitical strategic interest. The shift occurred due to a plethora of reasons, including that the Civil War was caused by a rift in culture, which had been largely exacerbated due to their western expansion [9]. More specifically, the divisive and differing views on slavery from the south to the north. Hence, even after the war, focus on territorial expansion was not as strong, and due to expansion indirectly causing the war to some extent, expansionist policies were not viewed as favorably as they once had been [10]. During the ensuing period, sometimes referred to as the “Gilded Age”, from the Mark Twain novel of the same name, the nation turned to domestic challenges, such as managing a massive influx of immigrants and rapid industrialization. Another priority was building a nation-wide transportation and communication network, to facilitate the population moving further west [11]. In fact, the only expansion during this era was the 1867 purchase of Alaska – the last major expansion by the U.S. undertaken purely for the sake of territorial gain [12].
When the U.S. started to look outwards once again towards the end of the 19th century, its approach was largely shaped by the ideology of Theodore Roosevelt. First as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and then as President for 8 years, he believed that America had projected weakness abroad – in particular during the time after the Civil War [13]. Roosevelt’s vision emphasized military strength and strategic influence rather than the territorial conquest of the past, shifting the nation’s role from a regional power to a global player. Instead of the old view of geopolitics, expansionism would take the form of pursuing more strategic interest abroad. As a result, the U.S. started projecting power beyond its borders. The Monroe Doctrine – first articulated in 1823 – was revisited in the late 19th century, solidifying the U.S.’s intent to control the Western Hemisphere [14]. By asserting that European powers should refrain from further colonization in the Americas, America was staking a claim to leadership in Western Hemisphere politics, laying the groundwork for future military interventions.
Enforcement of the Monroe doctrine encouraged the U.S.’s first overseas imperial conquest – the Spanish-American War of 1898, a response to Spain meddling in Northern American affairs [15]. In the peace settlement, the U.S. gained the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam – however these acquisitions were driven more by strategic considerations (keeping Spain out) than by territorial hunger [16]. The creation of the Panama canal in 1903, which they leased back to Panama for 100 years, was another example of the shift to strategic interest, having more to do with strategic influence through controlling trade routes than it was about geographical expansion [17]. The consequence of the 1898 war – and of the Roosevelt Presidency – was the realization that America could project regional and even global influence, a notion which spurred massive militarisation. The U.S. had proven itself capable of defeating one of the major European powers not only on their own continent, but also overseas. The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, served as a critical link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, symbolizing America’s ability to influence global trade routes and military strategy. Armed with a booming economy, a modern military, and strong natural borders, the U.S. shifted from regional land grabs to strategic global expansion – becoming a dominant player in world affairs.
Ideological Battle
After modernizing and expanding its military, the postwar era – known as the Cold War – was defined by ideological confrontation with another superpower, the Soviet Union, ushering in a new type of expansionist foreign policy. While the U.S. had previously focused on territorial expansion and later strategic influences, post-WWII, the emphasis shifted towards spreading ideologies of democracy and capitalism, as the fight for global supremacy was now framed by ideological and political values, rather than mere territorial control. From an emerging nation with great potential at the beginning of the 20th century, 50 years later the U.S. had played a major role in shaping the world order after World War I, and even more so after World War II. The interwar period was an exception, as the Great Depression plunged the U.S. into a deep economic slump [18]. However, by 1945, most major powers – France, Germany, Italy, Britain, and to some extent the Soviet Union – were severely weakened, while America stood unscathed on its own soil. The U.S. was poised to become the leading actor on the international stage, helping to shape a new liberal international order. This was demonstrated by the Bretton Woods accords, which created many of the important Western international organizations we know today such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both of which were made to be based in the U.S. [19]. Even the United Nations was sited in New York City, further showcasing American dominance in the West [20].
Instead of spreading geographically, or even strategic interest, the U.S. now sought to spread its political ideals – promoting democracy, capitalism, and free speech – to as many nations as possible. Washington waged proxy wars, election interference, and technological races to execute this plan, as the Soviets tried to spread their own opposing ideology of communism. Some examples are the proxy-wars in Korea (1950-1953) and Vietnam (1955-1975), as well as supporting anti-communist movements in Latin America and Africa [21]. Some more controversial ones are the orchestrated coups in Chile and Iran, in 1973 and 1953 respectively [22] [23]. Economically, the best example is the Marshall plan. This plan to rebuild Europe after the world war on one part showed the dominance of America, as they were capable of doing what the Europeans could not: financing their own rebuild [24]. It also acted as a way to spread the ideology of capitalism, as the money received came with the condition of free elections being held, as well as encouraged free international trade, which was the backbone of U.S. ideology.
Just as the Civil War had prompted a shift in U.S. expansionism, so did the aftermath of World War II. Internally, America made this shift due to its economic dominance, which allowed its economy to benefit from free trade and to impose these policies on as many countries as possible. It no longer needed to settle for controlling their own national strategic interest, but instead could influence the politics of the entire world, being the world’s greatest economy. Externally, the rise of the Soviet Union’s collectivist communist ideology – and its own expansionist ambitions – further spurred the U.S. to promote its system [25]. The U.S. saw this as a direct challenge to its capitalist democracy, and in response, pursued a policy of ideological containment.
Modern America
After the end of the Cold War in 1991, America’s approach to expansion shifted once again. The ideological battle against the Soviets had been won and The Soviet Union, which had been the only real competition to global hegemony for the U.S., was shattered into pieces and posed no economic or political competition [26]. Hence, whilst the U.S. ideological influence continued, it was less intense. Instead of taking part in ideological wars, America positioned itself as a sort of “world police”, whose duty it was to interfere in the regions of the world which were not on the “right” path, according to their own ideals [27]. This policy harkened back to American exceptionalism – the belief in a providential mission to spread American values to those without them. America’s expansionist policies evolved in stages, reaching a peak of global influence. From creating land and opportunity to grow, to influencing the closest geographical sphere, to shaping the world through ideology, to policing the world according to their own beliefs. The expansionist ideology of manifest destiny and the divine belief that they were destined to improve the world had taken America to geopolitical supremacy.
At this point, thinkers like Francis Fukuyama argued in works such as The End of History that eventually all nations would converge on the values championed by the United States [28]. With U.S. supremacy uncontested, Americans believed more than ever that they were chosen to steer the world in the right direction – and that they had the military and economic prowess to do so. One example of such American sentiment was the “War on Terror”, initiated by the U.S. following the September 11th attacks 2001 [29]. The U.S. sent thousands of troops and billions of dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan – sometimes falsely justified by the threat of weapons of mass destruction – to fight something they could not see: an ideology.
However, this “world police” era, which was based on a total global hegemony, lasted only for a few decades. In part, this was because some nations refused to adopt U.S. values, contrary to Fukuyama’s prediction. More directly, the loss of influence was caused by the U.S. losing control of their financial markets, leading to the financial crash of 2008 [30]. Another factor was the “forever wars”, such as the War on Terror, which proved largely ineffective. For all the blood and treasure expended, the U.S. were unable to export their philosophy by force onto a country by continuous fighting. President Biden’s retreat from Afghanistan was a grueling example of this, leaving the country in a arguably worse state than when they found two decades earlier [31]. The expansionist drive of America had at this point reached its pinnacle.
Concretely, the U.S. loss of global hegemony was manifested by the rise of China and the economic challenge they pose to the U.S., signified for example by them overtaking America as the biggest economy based on purchasing power parity (PPP) in 2014 [32]. China, in the decades past, had played geopolitics much different to the expansionist ideology which America employed during its ascent to power. It was a strategy of cautiousness and patience, marked by former President Deng Xiaoping’s famous phrase “hide your capacities and bide your time” [33]. Today, this competition for global influence is playing out through the U.S.-led AUKUS military pact and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, with Washington focusing on military alliances to counterbalance Beijing’s growing economic and infrastructural dominance [34].
Realizing that trying to remake the world by force had failed – and that it contributed to the loss of its global hegemony – forced a U.S. foreign-policy reappraisal. Many Americans, it seems, concluded that forever wars and global policing had long ceased to benefit them [35]. For the middle class in particular, whose wages were stagnating and living standards worsening, such wars were seen as a waste of resources [36]. In response, the nation shifted toward protectionism and nationalism, values largely unseen in U.S. policy for generations. President Trump embodied this shift: shocking, disruptive and divisive. He maintained the expansionist philosophy of America, but reverted it back to a much more trivial form: a blend of the territorial expansion of early America, and the strategic influence expansion of the post-Civil War era. His protectionist and isolationist approach placed less emphasis on imposing American ideals of capitalism and freedom worldwide.
Conclusion
Whilst the phrase “America First” perfectly describes the stance President Trump has taken to foreign relations, Europe has not yet adapted to this new reality. If America continues to dismiss its long-standing alliances (like NATO), Europe will eventually have to adapt. A global wave of protectionism across the world is spreading, and whether the European Union can withstand such a wave of nationalism is unclear – though they would be the stronger for it.
The question which remains is if the spread of protectionism to some extent is inevitable, how long will it be? 4 years of President Trump’s protectionist policies might be enough to satisfy the American populus’ hunger for change. Subsequently, after President Trump, a more alliance-friendly candidate could take office, and find more of a balance between the rising nationalism and the unity between democratic nations, which has been developed for over 75 years. Alternatively, nationalism is here to stay, and the current natural unity between the European nations and the U.S. cannot be taken for granted any longer. If so, it would be a pity; with autocratic countries on the rise, democracy needs to unite now more than ever.
In any case, the conclusion from a historical U.S. perspective is that a clear shift has taken place. After 250 years of steady expansion by different means, America is now looking inwards. This shift towards inward focus and nationalism could mark a pivotal moment in the evolution of U.S. foreign policy, one that will redefine its role in the world for generations to come. The policies which President Trump is employing are undoubtedly undoing the post World War two order piece by piece, which some nations, like China, are happy to sit by and watch happen. Whether this turn towards protectionism and isolationism proves to be a temporary phase or a permanent reorientation remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the interconnected world of today presents new challenges – climate change, global health crises, and geopolitical instability – that will require cooperation and multilateral action. The future of American leadership, and indeed the future of global cooperation, may depend on how quickly the U.S. and its allies can adapt to these challenges and whether a balance can be struck between national interests and global responsibility. As the world watches, one thing remains certain: the policies that emerge from this new chapter will shape the future of the international order for decades to come.
Edited by Maxime Pierre and Justine Peries.
References
[1] Collinson, S. “Trump’s Greenland Gambit: Why the US Wants a Piece of the Arctic.” CNN, January 8, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/08/politics/trump-greenland-canada-panama-analysis/index.html. Accessed February 24, 2025.
[2] “Civil War Timeline.” National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/gett/learn/historyculture/civil-war-timeline.htm. Accessed February 26, 2025.
[3] “Westward Expansion: An Apotheosis?” Smithsonian Institution. https://americanexperience.si.edu/historical-eras/expansion/pair-westward-apotheosis/. Accessed February 27, 2025.
[4] “The Revolutionary War.” American Battlefield Trust. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/revolutionary-war. Accessed February 25, 2025.
[5] “Manifest Destiny: An Introduction.” National Humanities Center. https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm. Accessed February 28, 2025.
[6] “Milestones: 1801–1829 – Florida Acquisition.” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida. Accessed February 23, 2025.
[7] “Milestones: 1830–1860 – Gadsden Purchase.” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/gadsden-purchase. Accessed February 27, 2025.
[8] “Removing Native Americans from Their Land.” Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/native-american/removing-native-americans-from-their-land/. Accessed February 24, 2025.
[9] “Westward Expansion and the American Civil War.” U.S. History Scene. https://ushistoryscene.com/article/civil-war-west-expansion/. Accessed February 26, 2025.
[10] “Imperialism – Post–Civil War Period.” American Foreign Relations. https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Imperialism-Post-civil-war-period.html. Accessed February 25, 2025.
[11] “The Gilded Age Timeline.” HBO. https://www.hbo.com/the-gilded-age/timeline. Accessed February 24, 2025.
[12] “Milestones: 1866–1898 – Alaska Purchase.” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/alaska-purchase. Accessed February 26, 2025.
[13] Morris, Edmund. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1979.
[14] “Milestones: 1899–1913 – Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/roosevelt-and-monroe-doctrine. Accessed February 28, 2025.
[15] “Milestones: 1866–1898 – The Spanish-American War.” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/spanish-american-war. Accessed February 23, 2025.
[16] “Reasons Behind the US Acquisition of Guam.” Guam Portal. https://guamportal.com/blog/reasons-behind-the-us-acquisition-of-guam. Accessed February 25, 2025.
[17] “Chronicling America: Panama Canal.” Library of Congress. https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-panama-canal. Accessed February 27, 2025.
[18] “Overview: The Great Depression and World War II (1929-1945).” Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/great-depression-and-world-war-ii-1929-1945/overview/. Accessed February 26, 2025.
[19] “The Bretton Woods Conference, 1944.” Federal Reserve History. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created. Accessed February 24, 2025.
[20] “United Nations Headquarters.” United Nations. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/headquarters.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2025.
[21] “American Proxy Wars: Korea and Vietnam – Global Perspectives, 1946-1975.” Readex. https://www.readex.com/products/american-proxy-wars-korea-and-vietnam-global-perspectives-1946-1975. Accessed February 23, 2025.
[22] “CIA Declassifies More of ‘Zendebad, Shah!’: Internal Study of the 1953 Iran Coup.” National Security Archive, February 12, 2018. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2018-02-12/cia-declassifies-more-zendebad-shah-internal-study-1953-iran-coup. Accessed March 6, 2025.
[23] “CIA Chile Scandal at 50: New Documents Shed Light on U.S. Role in 1973 Coup.” National Security Archive, September 9, 2024. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2024-09-09/cia-chile-scandal-50. Accessed March 6, 2025.
[24] “Milestones: 1945–1952 – The Marshall Plan.” Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/marshall-plan. Accessed February 25, 2025.
[25] “The Schuman Declaration – 9 May 1950.” CVCE.eu. https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/55c09dcc-a9f2-45e9-b240-eaef64452cae/462f6bf5-c496-4a36-981c-66a9e83576d0. Accessed February 27, 2025.
[26] Edwards, L. “How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War.” The Heritage Foundation, February 26, 2020. https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/how-ronald-reagan-won-the-cold-war. Accessed February 28, 2025.
[27] “What Is a Global Policeman?” Bootcamp Military Fitness Institute, February 8, 2023. https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/2023/02/08/what-is-a-global-policeman/. Accessed March 6, 2025.
[28] Fleming, C. “The End of History: Francis Fukuyama’s Controversial Idea Explained.” The Conversation, November 16, 2022. https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-history-francis-fukuyamas-controversial-idea-explained-193225. Accessed February 24, 2025.
[29] “Global War on Terror.” George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror. Accessed February 26, 2025.
[30] Weinberg, J. “The Great Recession and Its Aftermath.” Federal Reserve History. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-recession-and-its-aftermath. Accessed February 28, 2025.
[31] Kiely, E., and Farley, R. “Timeline of U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan.” FactCheck.org, August 17, 2021. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/. Accessed February 25, 2025.
[32] Baker, D. “China Is Bigger—Get Over It.” Center for Economic and Policy Research, January 2024. https://cepr.net/publications/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/#:~:text=Measuring%20by%20purchasing%20power%20parity,Source%3A%20International%20Monetary%20Fund. Accessed March 6, 2025.
[33] Baker, D. “China Is Bigger—Get Over It.” Center for Economic and Policy Research, January 2024. https://cepr.net/publications/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/#:~:text=Measuring%20by%20purchasing%20power%20parity,Source%3A%20International%20Monetary%20Fund. Accessed March 6, 2025.
[34] Economic Policy and Global Order: China’s Rise and Its Global Impact. Springer, 2024. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-97-5392-5_10. Accessed March 6, 2025.
[35] “The American Public Is Skeptical of Using the Military for Domestic Disruptions.” London School of Economics USAPP Blog, July 5, 2024. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2024/07/05/the-american-public-are-skeptical-of-using-the-military-to-respond-to-domestic-disruptions-though-views-differ-by-party-affiliation/. Accessed February 27, 2025.
[36] “Charting Wage Stagnation.” Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/. Accessed February 23, 2025.
[Cover Image] Photo of “American Flag” (https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-american-flag-11745444/) by Brett Sayles (https://www.pexels.com/@brett-sayles/) licensed under Pexels.
Leave a comment