On January 8, 2025, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz addressed the importance of respecting the inviolability of borders in light of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's recent expansionist comments regarding territories like Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Scholz reiterated that borders should not be moved by force, a principle that has been undermined by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which he highlighted as a violation of international law.

He emphasized that this principle is fundamental to international law and a core element of Western values, drawing a parallel between Trump's remarks and Putin's aggressive actions.

The Chancellor affirmed NATO's role as a central pillar of the transatlantic relationship, stressing the need for unity among member states regarding military capabilities.

Scholz noted that NATO has established processes for determining military capabilities and that cooperation among its members is crucial.

In his discussions with European leaders, Scholz expressed concerns about Trump's comments, which many viewed as incomprehensible and inappropriate.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed these sentiments, stating that Trump's remarks were inappropriate but unlikely to provoke any significant action.

Several German politicians criticized Trump's defense spending demands as irrational, with SPD members advocating for a reduction in militarization rather than an increase.

Trump's call for NATO members to raise defense spending commitments to 5% of GDP has faced backlash, particularly from German officials who argue for a more reasonable target.

Canadian officials firmly rejected Trump's suggestion of merging Canada with the U.S., emphasizing their nation's sovereignty and strong economy.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot dismissed the idea of U.S. annexation of Greenland as improbable, reinforcing the EU's commitment to respecting sovereign boundaries.

Trump's previous assertion that control of Greenland is a necessity for national security has sparked outrage in Europe, with critics labeling it a form of imperialism.