Trump Wants to Expand Like It's 1799? Not Exactly

Trump's Venezuela and Greenland moves aren't colonial conquest—they're responses to China and Russia

Things are getting lit abroad, and the Democrats and their progressive flank are freaking out.

Since Trump has been president—for the second time— we've watched Trump launch strikes on Iran, oversee the capture of Nicolás Maduro, announce U.S. control of Venezuelan oil "for the time being," and meet with Danish and Greenlandic officials to discuss Greenland's future—only to have them report a 'fundamental disagreement' remains.

The talking heads are freaking. Imperialism! They cry Colonialism! And my personal favorite, “What is this, the 1800s?”

You’d think we just declared war on Canada.

Some critics have gone further, drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany and Putin’s Russia—because nothing says “measured analysis” like comparing a negotiated purchase offer to Lebensraum. But this tells us more about the left’s moral framework than Trump’s foreign policy. For progressive critics, expansion and colonialism can only exist as tools of oppression. There’s no space for defensive positioning, strategic competition, or the possibility that sometimes you fill a vacuum before your adversaries do. The implicit demand is that America handicap itself to atone for historical sins, even as Russia and China expand unchecked. That's not foreign policy. That's self-flagellation dressed up as principle.

The comparisons to 1800s expansionism are flying fast and furious, because of course they are. If there’s one thing legacy media loves more than a Trump scandal, it’s historical hyperbole that makes Orange Man look like a cartoon villain. But here’s the thing nobody seems willing to actually examine: When adversaries are actively positioning to threaten your security, and international norms don’t seem to constrain them, is defensive strategic positioning the same thing as colonial conquest?

I have thoughts. Buckle up.