From renaming New Mexico to threatening allies: How Trump’s pressure campaign is reshaping the world

The proposed name change would be the latest America-themed renaming by Trump. He had already ordered the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario to be renamed the Gulf of America and Lake America. Trump renamed the Gulf of America after returning to office in January 2025, saying the change would “honor American greatness.” The Lake Ontario order came late last month during a trade dispute between the US and Canada, the two countries connected by the lake.

Trump’s series of posts also included a photo of his face placed over wrestler Hulk Hogan, with a “MAGA” bandana added to his head. Another post showed the borders of Iran reshaped into the outline of Trump’s own head as the US war with the Middle Eastern country continued for more than six months. The posts also included several graphs claiming to show the administration’s economic gains.

The backlash that followed

Democratic lawmakers quickly criticised the idea of renaming the state. Many said it was part of a pattern that began with the Gulf of Mexico and continued with Lake Ontario.

“Three things I will always call by their actual names,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) wrote on X. “The Gulf of Mexico. Lake Ontario. New Mexico.”

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) responded more strongly. “Oh hell no!” she wrote, adding separately, “Our state’s name carries generations of history, culture, and family — and it belongs to us. We’re New Mexicans. Period.”

Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) told Trump directly that he doesn’t “get to erase New Mexico. Not our name. Not our history. Not our culture. The President may want to call us ‘New America,’ but we know who we are.”

Only one Republican lawmaker publicly commented. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said “New America” was “kind of catchy.”

The naming disputes have also moved beyond the US. Mexico’s government sued Google last year after the company changed the Gulf of Mexico’s name on Maps. President Claudia Sheinbaum accused the company of violating Mexico’s sovereignty.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Lake Ontario’s name still applied to “Canadians and the rest of the world. Now and forever.” He pointed to the name’s roots in the Wendat phrase meaning “the lake is beautiful, the lake is big.”

House Democrats have introduced legislation to block the Lake America order and prevent the renaming of other Great Lakes. Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), whose district includes part of Lake Ontario’s shoreline, told TMZ she was “pretty sure” the order was just “a troll” aimed at Canada.

Tariffs and threats

The naming disputes are happening alongside much more serious trade threats.

During an Oval Office media event on September 4, Trump raised the possibility of completely cutting off trade with Mexico. He linked the idea to the US trade deficit. “We lose with Mexico $195 billion a year,” he said. “If I don’t trade with Mexico, they have nothing that we have to have. I mean, hot tamales, tomatoes, a couple of things. But basically, they have nothing that we need. We have oil. We have everything. I don’t want to do that because we get along very well with the President. We like the President, respect her a lot.”

Trump also said that cutting trade with Canada could save the US “$60 to $90 billion a year.”

He has linked possible future tariffs on Mexico and Canada to pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. Markets are currently expecting a quarter-point rate cut ahead of the Fed’s mid-September meeting. At the same time, talks over the USMCA trade agreement are continuing, making tariff threats another form of pressure in those negotiations.

Cartels, boats and a warning about land

The more serious escalation involves military action. US forces have spent months striking alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. Days before the New Mexico post, a US operation inside Venezuela led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro.

Trump said the US has “knocked out 97% of the drugs coming in by water” and is now going to “start hitting land with regard to the cartels.” He also said that “the cartels are running Mexico” and that it is “very, very sad” to watch what has happened to the country.

Officials say at least 115 people have been killed in more than 30 boat strikes since last September. Drug trafficking has been given as the reason for the operations.

Trump did not give a timeline or explain what “hitting land” would mean. Any military strike on Mexican territory without permission from Mexico City would violate international law and would be an extraordinary move against a close US ally and major trading partner.

Trump had raised a similar idea in November, saying he would be willing to strike inside Mexico “whatever we have to do.” Sheinbaum pushed back at the time and has continued to do so, saying there will be no US military action on Mexican soil without her permission.

Canada says the old relationship is over

Canada may be the clearest example of how Trump’s policies are pushing countries to rethink their relationship with Washington.

Trump has openly spoken about the possibility of Canada becoming part of the US. During a Pentagon commanders event, he told Canadian officials, “why don’t you just join our country? Become 51, become the 51st state and you get it for free.”

Whe asked whether he was trolling, Trump said he “wouldn’t mind” being remembered as the president who expanded US territory.

He has also made a distinction between Canada and Greenland when discussing the use of force. “Something could happen with Greenland, I’ll be honest,” he said. On Canada, however, he said, “I don’t see it… I just don’t see it.”

Carney has responded by taking Canada in a different direction. After Trump’s auto tariffs, he said Canada needed to “fundamentally reimagine our economy” and declared that the “old relationship” between Canada and the US was “over.”

Carney has also accused Trump of trying to divide Canada through his words and actions. Since then, he has travelled to Beijing to improve Canada’s historically difficult relationship with China and has gone to Europe in search of new economic partners.

The trade war escalated as Canada turned to Europe

The clearest recent signs of countries moving closer together have come in the past two weeks.

Trade talks between Washington and Ottawa collapsed in late August. Trump then imposed a 50 percent levy on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods.

Carney responded within days by announcing retaliatory tariffs that would “match Washington’s new tariffs dollar for dollar” from September 8. The measures cover US steel, dairy, electronics, appliances, farm equipment, and pulp and paper.

Canada also doubled its steel and aluminium duties to 50 percent to match the US move. Trump escalated the dispute again over the weekend, writing that “Canada’s (currency) Dollar imbalance with the US is unacceptable… but no longer!”

Around the same time, Canada moved closer to the European Union. The EU’s trade chief, Maroš Sefcovic, said the European Commission was ready to explore “all possibilities” to deepen cooperation with Ottawa as Carney pushed for a closer partnership.

Carney is now expected to attend Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union address in Strasbourg this month. A full EU-Canada summit is planned for later this autumn.

Canada and the EU are working towards a digital trade agreement covering data, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. Šefčovič has suggested that the deal could be signed before the end of the year.

There is also movement towards Canada joining the CPTPP Pacific trade bloc, which does not include the US. Canada formally joined the EU’s SAFE defence-procurement programme in February 2026.

This builds on the existing CETA trade agreement, which has helped increase two-way EU-Canada trade by 75 percent since 2017. One headline summed up the situation clearly: “As relationship with US turns sour, Canada chooses Europe.”

Trump appears to have expected this kind of cooperation and tried to stop it. In a Truth Social post, he warned, “If the European Union works with Canada in order to do economic harm to the USA, large scale Tariffs, far larger than currently planned, will be placed on them both.”

Brussels, however, is moving carefully. Sefkovic said the EU would not mediate between the US and Canada. He also said that any deeper relationship “would very much also depend on how comfortable the Canadian side would feel.” Europe appears to see an opportunity, although it is not rushing into a new alliance.

Europe debates strategic autonomy

Europe’s response has taken two forms. European leaders have publicly clashed with Trump while also debating whether the continent can become more independent from the US.

The disagreements have played out openly. When Trump threatened new tariffs over Greenland, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called it “a mistake especially between long-standing allies.” She also said, “a deal is a deal. And when friends shake hands, it must mean something.”

She later warned that “our response will be unflinching, united and proportional.” French President Emmanuel Macron used stronger language at Davos, saying he preferred “respect over bullies.” A larger debate is also taking place over defence spending and European independence.

At a March 2026 summit in Brussels, von der Leyen called the EU’s joint defence plan a “watershed moment for Europe.” Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis went further, saying “the strategic autonomy of the European Union must be a non-negotiable priority.”

Macron has suggested extending France’s independent nuclear protection to other European countries. The idea is aimed at addressing growing doubts about the US security umbrella.

Not everyone believes Europe is becoming truly independent. One strong criticism of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described a year of European deference to Trump as “a year of toe-curling groveling.” The criticism argued that Europe had “persistently failed to take the steps needed… to be safe without the help of the US.”

Another analysis noted that some of the strongest supporters of strategic autonomy, Starmer, Macron and Merz, are unpopular at home. France and Germany also continue to disagree over who should lead European defence.

Asia’s summit handshake

At the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin, the leaders of China, Russia and India were photographed together and pledged closer cooperation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised “positive momentum” in relations with China. He also described friendly ties with Russia as important for global prosperity.

Trump imposed tariffs on both China and India, two countries that have historically had a difficult relationship. He also increased India’s tariff rate specifically because of its purchases of Russian oil.

 Latin America looks elsewhere too

Brazil shows a similar pattern.A 40 percent US tariff on Brazilian exports has added urgency to Brazil’s efforts to find new markets.

Mercosur, the South American trade bloc, signed a free-trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association last year.

One regional analyst said Brazil, caught between its two biggest trading partners, the US and China, is responding by investing more heavily in its relationship with Europe. The country is also expanding ties with Gulf states and India.

Where allies still line up with Washington

The situation is not completely one-sided. On some issues, US allies have continued to work closely with Washington.

European and British sanctions on Iran have moved back into line with US policy. The EU, UK and US have also coordinated sanctions against Russian oil producers.

All three have also worked together to ease sanctions on Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad.

Trump’s pressure campaign has therefore not pushed every country and every relationship in the same direction.

A Forbes analysis argues that the situation may be less of a planned strategy and more the result of Trump putting pressure on many countries at the same time. Tariffs, visa policies and security threats are all being used simultaneously.

According to this argument, the approach is straining relationships with even close partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. It also raises questions about whether trying to dominate other countries in this way is economically sustainable for the US.

There is also an argument that the apparent cooperation between countries may not be as deep as it seems.

Photographs, handshakes and summit statements do not automatically mean lasting political alignment. China, Russia and India still have serious disagreements, including border disputes and competing interests. Tariffs alone are unlikely to remove those tensions.

A trade-policy analysis from the Centre for Economic Policy Research presents another view. It argues that the trend towards greater cooperation may be inevitable rather than the result of a deliberate Trump strategy.

The analysis says that because the US under Trump no longer wants to act as a constructive member of institutions such as the WTO, the UN, the WHO and the Paris Accord, other countries may need to work more closely together simply to keep the international economic system functioning.

There is clear evidence that unpredictable and aggressive pressure from Washington is pushing some countries that would normally compete with or distrust each other towards greater cooperation.

China, India and Russia appeared together in Tianjin. Canada is moving towards a digital trade deal with Europe and considering a Pacific trade bloc that does not include the US. Europe is openly debating whether it can finally become more independent. Whether these changes will create a lasting global realignment or simply lead to short-term political positioning remains a matter of debate.