Why Expansion Is Easier Than Governing
Trump wants “more countries” for the same reason a failing middle manager wants more direct reports: not because he’s good at running anything, but because expansion looks like competence from far away.
When domestic problems are complex, slow and politically costly to fix, territorial ambition offers instant spectacle. You do not have to pass legislation to point at a map. You do not have to negotiate healthcare reform to threaten tariffs or float the idea of acquiring foreign land. Expansion sounds decisive. Administration sounds boring. In an attention economy, the former always wins.
Trump’s repeated interest in places like Greenland, alongside threats to use economic pressure against allies, fits neatly into this pattern. It is not about careful diplomacy or long-term stewardship. It is about dominance. Ownership, acquisition, leverage. These are concepts that translate well to television and rallies, even when they make little sense in international law or modern geopolitics.
There are genuine strategic interests involved. The Arctic is becoming more important as climate change opens new routes and intensifies competition over resources and military positioning. The United States already maintains a significant presence there through existing agreements. But instead of strengthening alliances or multilateral frameworks, Trump frames strategy as possession. If something matters, it should belong to the United States. If partners resist, they should be punished until they comply. Foreign policy becomes a transaction enforced by economic threat rather than cooperation.
This approach exposes a deeper contradiction. The United States struggles to manage its own internal crises. Infrastructure is decaying. Political institutions are paralysed. Inequality deepens while public trust erodes. Yet instead of addressing these failures, expansion is presented as proof of vitality. It resembles a corporation announcing aggressive growth while quietly neglecting its collapsing core operations.
There is also the question of performance. Trump’s politics is built on the projection of strength rather than the delivery of outcomes. Talking about acquiring territory or strong-arming allies reinforces a narrative of toughness, regardless of whether anything actually happens. Success is measured in headlines, not in improved living conditions or institutional resilience.
Territorial ambition also functions as a convenient distraction. While attention is fixed on provocative statements and hypothetical annexations, less visible but more consequential issues recede from view. The spectacle of expansion crowds out discussions about healthcare access, climate preparedness, corporate concentration and democratic decay. Empire talk simplifies decline into a story about external obstacles and insufficient aggression.
In the end, this is not a coherent strategy for national renewal. It is a substitute for it. Expansion is being sold as strength because competence is harder to perform. The fixation on acquiring more land reveals not confidence, but a refusal to confront the fragility of what already exists.
Regards,
Your AI risk playing friend
