The possibility of Donald Trump returning to the presidency of the United States has generated widespread interest in the international media and global politics. During his first term (2017–2021), Trump adopted a governing style that broke with both domestic and foreign policy conventions. Among his most controversial promises were the construction of a wall along the border with Mexico, the imposition of punitive tariffs on certain trade partners, and the renegotiation of existing free trade agreements.
In the current electoral context, the question arises: what implications would a second Trump administration have, especially for countries like Panama, Canada, Mexico, or even Peru, all of which are affected—directly or indirectly—by U.S. policies?
In his podcast, Farid Kahhat analyzes Trump's statements and possible actions, distinguishing between mere bravado and more plausible maneuvers. To understand this phenomenon, Kahhat emphasizes that Trump, beyond his incendiary rhetoric, acts with a kind of rationality aimed at achieving specific goals: economic advantages, better trade conditions, or the consolidation of U.S. influence in strategic regions.
From this perspective, his threats of territorial annexation or control over infrastructure can be seen as starting points for negotiations in which he seeks to consolidate power and reduce costs for the United States.
One of the first examples is the Panama Canal. Trump has openly expressed his disagreement with the tolls that U.S. ships—both commercial and military—must pay to cross it. At one point, he suggested that the U.S. might reclaim control of the Canal or renegotiate the terms to reduce those costs. However, Kahhat warns that the idea of Panama ceding its sovereignty under threat or pressure is unrealistic. Instead, this is typical of Trump's strategy to "open hard" in negotiations to secure better terms. Nevertheless, the mere suggestion of reclaiming control over a historically significant infrastructure causes diplomatic tension and alarms the international community.
A second target of Trump’s expansionist rhetoric is Canada. He once suggested that the neighboring country could become the 51st U.S. state—an idea that borders on the absurd geopolitically but may be motivated by Canada’s upcoming early elections and the impending renegotiation of the trade agreement that replaced NAFTA. According to Farid Kahhat, Trump's pressure on Canada is primarily about positioning the U.S. more favorably ahead of trade talks. Still, any actual annexation is highly improbable, as it would violate international law, U.S. federal principles, and Canadian sovereignty.
Mexico has also been a consistent target of Trump's rhetoric. While the border wall was the most publicized project, trade tensions have been equally significant. Trump has shown himself to be a protectionist—contrary to what some believe—imposing punitive tariffs even on ideological or political allies, such as Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro. For Kahhat, there's no room for illusion: ideological affinity does not protect a country from Trump’s pressure tactics. "America First" prevails over shared values, and it's no surprise that even friendly governments have been on the receiving end of his trade measures.
The case of Greenland is perhaps the most concerning for Farid Kahhat. Trump claimed that Denmark, which holds sovereignty over the island, does not even have a clear right to keep it and suggested that it should be transferred for the sake of U.S. national security. Greenland, the world’s largest island, holds genuine strategic value due to its geographic location, rare earth mineral deposits, and potential oil and gas reserves. Moreover, climate change is melting Arctic ice, potentially opening up new shipping routes and access to resources. While Trump's rhetoric may be exaggerated, it is not entirely irrational for a U.S. administration to seek military presence or advantageous agreements in Greenland.
How do these postures affect countries like Peru? Kahhat explains that the impact of U.S. foreign policy on Peru is not necessarily through direct action on its soil, but through how Washington deals with other global players—particularly China. The trade war between the U.S. and China risks slowing the Chinese economy, one of Peru’s main buyers of raw materials. According to figures cited by Kahhat, for every one percentage point decline in China’s growth, Peru’s economy loses 0.4 percentage points. In a scenario of increased protectionism and tariff wars, this negative impact could worsen.
Similarly, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—a decision Trump made during his first term and could repeat—has serious consequences for Peru. Climate change threatens water availability in cities like Lima, one of the largest metropolises built in a coastal desert. Lima depends on the melting of Andean glaciers for its water supply. The U.S. abandoning climate commitments, combined with being one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters, would exacerbate environmental crises and disproportionately harm vulnerable countries.
Another key issue is rising interest rates in the U.S. The protectionist measures, mass deportations, and tax cuts pushed by Trump in his first term generated inflationary pressures. If these trends were to continue under a second term, the Federal Reserve might be forced to raise interest rates, leading to capital flight toward the U.S. in search of security. This phenomenon, known as "flight to quality," increases the cost of financing for developing countries like Peru.
Lastly, there's the case of the port of Chancay in Peru, a major development project led by a Chinese state-owned company. Mauricio Claver-Carone, Trump’s special envoy to Latin America (and later, briefly, the president of the Inter-American Development Bank), proposed imposing 60% tariffs on products shipped through that port. While such a move would likely violate WTO rules and the bilateral U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, it shows how Trump’s protectionism could be used to intimidate Chinese investments in Latin America—potentially affecting Peruvian exports as collateral damage.
In summary, Trump’s threats of territorial annexation, control over strategic infrastructure, or imposition of punitive tariffs should be viewed with caution. As Kahhat notes, it’s not the first time Trump has used bombastic declarations as leverage to begin negotiations from a position of strength. Yet some scenarios do carry real danger: the case of Greenland, a possible escalation of the U.S.-China trade war, and withdrawal from multilateral environmental or trade agreements could have tangible consequences.
Still, the fulfillment of all Trump’s campaign promises does not rest solely on his will. Legal constraints, congressional resistance, international backlash, and pushback from U.S. allies can all limit or moderate his more extreme proposals. Kahhat reminds us that "America First" does not mean “the West First”—it means prioritizing U.S. interests above all. Even governments ideologically aligned with Trump could be affected if perceived as conflicting with American interests.
In conclusion, Trump’s return to power would create a complex landscape. Not everything he promises will come to pass, but the most feasible policies—such as trade conflicts, international withdrawals, and strategic pressure—could alter the global balance. For countries like Peru, Panama, or Canada, such maneuvers carry real economic and diplomatic risks. Caution and preparation for eventual negotiations are essential. As Farid Kahhat stresses, Trump’s bravado may be a tactic—but it can also become concrete policy with far-reaching consequences.