Recently, President Trump told an interviewer from Atlantic magazine that he “runs the country and the world.” While it’s clear he’s been a dominant force in U.S. governance—arguably more than any president since World War II—claiming to run the world is a bit more complicated.
This week’s Canadian elections highlighted how much some voters oppose Trump’s intentions, especially his aspirations regarding annexation. Prime Minister Mark Kearney, who was just elected, made his campaign largely about resisting those plans.
But the pushback doesn’t stop with Canada. Denmark isn’t prepared to surrender Greenland, rallying not just Nordic allies but also support from other NATO countries who are aligning to push back against U.S. pressure.
In an interesting twist, Washington imposed 20% tariffs on the European Union. The EU, however, has opted for restraint, especially since Hungary could block any coordinated response. Still, there’s potential for retaliation, especially if trade talks falter—after all, the Trump administration seems focused on dismantling tax barriers. This could foster a “coalition of will” among European nations seeking to counter U.S. demands.
Resistance to American policies isn’t confined to Europe; China seems poised and ready to go to war over tariffs if they don’t get a deal they find acceptable. They’re not about to concede without a fight, given their historical grievances.
China still has cards yet to play. They’ve already slapped hefty tariffs on U.S. products, and they hold about $760 billion in American treasury bonds. Flooding the market could trigger chaos among investors, leading to a recession deeper than what many currently project.
Japan might take similar steps unless they secure a satisfactory trade agreement that reduces their own tariffs. With their $1.1 trillion in U.S. bonds, they too hold significant leverage, but they typically act cautiously.
People inside the administration, like Treasury Secretary Scott Bescent, are acutely aware of the risks posed by a tariff war with powerful economies. Yet, Washington’s challenges extend beyond Trump’s ambitions for territorial expansion and a balanced trade stage.
One notable issue is Ukraine. Despite strong U.S. pressure, there’s little indication that Vladimir Putin is interested in anything but a Munich-style negotiation. Therefore, Ukraine seems ready to continue its fight, regardless of U.S. military support or new agreements.
And while european supporters won’t just abandon the troops they’ve backed since the Russian invasion, they are gearing up to help Ukraine become more self-sufficient. The longer the conflict drags on, the more likely it is that European countries will develop their own military capabilities, independent of U.S. influence.
The Middle East also presents its own set of challenges. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears inclined to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas, but this is complicated by his far-right coalition.
More concerning for the U.S. is that Netanyahu hasn’t ruled out attacking Iran—with or without U.S. backing. He’s been trying to pull America into that conflict for years, but so far without much luck. If he perceives the U.S. agreement with Iran as a mere remnant of Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, he might just take matters into his own hands—potentially dragging the U.S. along with him.
Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis once said, “the enemy gets a vote” in any crisis. The same can be said for friends and allies; they’ll act in their own interests as much as their adversaries will.
So, while Washington may aspire to “run the world,” it seems the world has other plans. And those plans might have serious implications for U.S. safety and economic standing.
