Trumps coercive powers and their limits

Trumps coercive powers have always been central to his political style: start with a hard demand, threaten consequences, and force the other side to choose between concession and confrontation. Supporters describe this as leverage. Critics describe it as brinkmanship. Either way, Trumps coercive powers are best understood as a negotiation strategy that treats diplomacy less like relationship maintenance and more like a series of high pressure transactions.

Recent reporting around Greenland and NATO shows the recurring pattern. Trump has repeatedly pressed for dramatic outcomes, including proposals related to Greenland that Danish and Greenlandic officials have rejected, and he has repeatedly linked U S security commitments to allied defense spending. These moves have generated attention and sometimes short term movement, but they also carry predictable costs: allies begin to hedge, reputational damage accumulates, and threats lose credibility when the threatened action is politically or legally difficult to carry out.

The strategy behind Trumps coercive powers

Trumps coercive powers rely on a simple logic. If you begin from an extreme position and attach a penalty to noncompliance, you may pull the final outcome closer to your preferred endpoint. In negotiation literature, this resembles a maximalist opening posture, where the initial ask is intentionally large and the pressure is part of the design.

This approach can be effective when three conditions hold. The threat has to be believable. The target has to believe you can carry it out. The target has to believe you will pay the costs of carrying it out. When any of those conditions fail, Trumps coercive powers can produce the opposite of the intended effect: hardening resistance, increasing unity among the pressured parties, and reducing trust that future commitments will be stable.

Why maximalist tactics can backfire

Maximalist tactics can collapse when the other side has strong domestic political constraints, legal barriers, or widely shared red lines. Denmark’s position that Greenland is not for sale is one example. Greenland’s own leaders have also publicly stated that the territory is not for sale, framing the issue in terms of sovereignty and self determination.

In those circumstances, escalating pressure can make it politically harder for the other side to compromise, because compromise becomes indistinguishable from surrender. That is one reason Trumps coercive powers can generate short term headlines while reducing room for negotiated outcomes.

Greenland and the limits of Trumps coercive powers

The Greenland episode is a clean case study because the core obstacle is not price or terms. It is ownership and sovereignty. In 2019, Reuters reported that Trump’s interest in buying Greenland triggered a sharp Danish response, including Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen calling the idea of selling Greenland to the United States absurd, and Greenland’s foreign minister saying the island was open for business but not for sale. Reuters also reported that Trump canceled a planned Denmark visit after the rebuff.

That sequence shows how Trumps coercive powers can collide with a basic diplomatic reality: some counterparts cannot give you what you are asking for, even if they wanted to. The cost of even appearing to entertain the demand can be too high domestically. When that happens, the tactic does not extract concessions. It triggers resistance and public backlash.

Greenland in 2026 and the escalation problem

In January 2026, Reuters reported renewed Trump statements about Greenland, including threats of tariffs connected to his push for U S control or acquisition, and Denmark’s insistence that security talks must respect territorial integrity. Reuters also reported Denmark’s prime minister traveling to Greenland in a show of support amid the crisis.

Independent reporting described the social and political impact inside Greenland. The Washington Post reported protests in Nuuk under the slogan Greenland is not for sale and described the whiplash created by conflicting signals and pressure tactics.

The bigger point is not whether Greenland becomes a U S asset. The point is that Trumps coercive powers can turn an already sensitive issue into a credibility contest, where European governments feel compelled to demonstrate unity to avoid setting a precedent that pressure works.

NATO and the credibility cost of Trumps coercive powers

NATO is built on collective defense and political confidence. If allies believe the United States is conditionally committed, they adapt. That adaptation can include increasing their own defense spending, but it can also include distancing from U S leadership or building alternative arrangements. Trumps coercive powers have consistently targeted allied defense spending as leverage, especially around the 2 percent of GDP guideline tied to the NATO Defence Investment Pledge.

A major inflection point came during the 2024 campaign. Reuters reported Trump saying he would not protect a NATO member that was not spending enough on defense and that he would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want in that scenario. Those remarks drew rebukes from allies and prompted debate about deterrence and alliance reliability.

This is where Trumps coercive powers meet a hard limit: coercion is not the same thing as deterrence. Deterrence depends on an adversary believing the commitment is firm. When public messaging introduces conditionality, it can weaken deterrence even if the goal is to pressure allies to spend more.

Afghanistan remarks and alliance strain

In January 2026, major outlets reported international backlash to Trump comments about NATO partners in Afghanistan, with leaders and veterans disputing his characterization of allied contributions. The Financial Times and the Washington Post described the political reaction in the United Kingdom, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer calling the remarks appalling and urging an apology.

These episodes matter because they show the secondary effect of Trumps coercive powers: even when the demand is about spending or burden sharing, the method can create resentment that lingers and makes cooperation harder in future crises.

Domestic policy leverage and the pattern of escalation then exit

Trumps coercive powers have also appeared in how he handled major international agreements while in office. In May 2018, the Trump White House announced the United States would end participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly called the Iran nuclear deal.

The administration also pursued withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, with the State Department archiving the formal U S withdrawal position and timeline.

Those actions were not threats; they were follow through. That is an important distinction. Trumps coercive powers tend to be more effective when the other side believes the U S will actually execute the threatened move. But the cost is also clearer: withdrawals can reshape relationships, require years of rebuilding, and change how partners evaluate U S commitments in the future.

The credibility trap

The credibility trap is simple. If you threaten often and do not follow through, partners discount your threats. If you follow through often, partners stop treating your commitments as stable. Either way, Trumps coercive powers can reduce the overall value of American promises, because allies plan around uncertainty.

That does not mean coercion never works. It means coercion is expensive, and the bill is usually paid later, in quieter forms like reduced trust, slower intelligence sharing, tougher bargaining, and more hedging behavior by partners.

What the limits look like in practice

The limits of Trumps coercive powers show up most clearly when the opposing party has one of three advantages.

First, they have a non negotiable sovereignty claim, as in Greenland, where Denmark and Greenlandic officials have stated the territory is not for sale.

Second, they have collective action capacity, as in the European response to pressure tactics, where unity can dilute the impact of bilateral threats. The Washington Post described Europe’s ability to push back collectively in the 2026 Greenland episode.

Third, they can impose counter costs, such as retaliatory tariffs, defense realignment, or political consequences inside the alliance.

In all three scenarios, Trumps coercive powers produce fewer concessions and more friction. The method becomes the story, and once the method becomes the story, it is harder to walk back without looking weakened.

Bottom line

Trumps coercive powers are real, but they are not unlimited. They function best when threats are credible and the other side has room to concede. They function worst when the issue touches sovereignty, alliance credibility, or domestic political survival. The Greenland episodes and the NATO funding rhetoric show the same lesson from different angles: pressure can force attention, but it can also force resistance.

For U S interests, the key question is not whether coercion can win a round. It is whether the cost of coercion leaves the United States stronger in the next crisis. Trumps coercive powers may produce tactical wins, but the strategic ledger depends on what happens to trust, deterrence, and alliance cohesion after the headline fades.

Further Reading

Reuters reported on Trump’s 2019 interest in buying Greenland, including Denmark’s rejection and the subsequent cancellation of a planned Denmark visit: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-cancels-denmark-visit-after-rebuff-over-greenland-idUSKCN1VB006/ and Reuters also covered Denmark’s prime minister calling the idea absurd and Greenland officials stating the island is open for business but not for sale: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/danish-pm-says-trumps-idea-of-selling-greenland-to-us-is-absurd-idUSKCN1V9076/ and https://www.reuters.com/article/world/greenland-tells-trump-it-is-open-for-business-but-not-for-sale-idUSKCN1V60CU/.

For current reporting on the renewed Greenland dispute and Denmark’s stance on territorial integrity, Reuters coverage includes: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-it-will-be-done-getting-russian-threat-away-greenland-2026-01-19/ and https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-discuss-arctic-security-seeks-respect-territorial-integrity-2026-01-22/ and https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-nato-seek-boost-arctic-security-amid-greenland-crisis-2026-01-23/.

On NATO funding and Trump’s 2024 remarks about withholding protection from allies that do not meet defense spending expectations, Reuters reported the comments and allied reactions here: https://www.reuters.com/world/european-officials-criticize-trumps-nato-comments-2024-02-11/ and NATO explains the defence investment pledge and the 2 percent guideline here: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/funding-nato and the Wales Summit Declaration text is here: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2014/09/05/wales-summit-declaration.

For official U S documentation of major withdrawal decisions during the first Trump administration, the archived White House statement on ending U S participation in the Iran nuclear deal is here: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-ending-united-states-participation-unacceptable-iran-deal/ and the U S State Department archive on withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is here: https://2017-2021.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/.

For a negotiation focused perspective on Trump’s bargaining style, the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School has a discussion of his negotiating approach and its dynamics here: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dealmaking-daily/dealmaking-presidents-opening-moves-nb/

Connect with the Author

Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.

About the Author

Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]

NRP Dispatch Blog

Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]

Vera2 — News & Analysis 

Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2] 

Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.