This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Subscribe here to get similar stories delivered straight to your inbox.

On Tuesday, President-elect Donald Trump stirred up quite a conversation with his audacious claims about possibly using military force to take back the Panama Canal and exert control over Greenland. He went as far as to suggest that he could pressure 40 million Canadians into accepting their nation as the 51st state of the U.S. Among his more colorful assertions, Trump proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and urged NATO allies to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP, a notable jump from the current non-binding guideline of 2%.

In Trump’s world, such a bold strategy for international relations might not seem far-fetched. It’s as if he is viewing global territories as pieces on a Monopoly board, ready to be claimed. Although his assertions may lack concrete backing, the international community can’t simply brush them off as idle chatter.

If examined individually, each of these declarations would raise alarms among U.S. allies. However, collectively, they indicate a pressing need for a complete reevaluation of the approach to the incoming Trump administration. The strength of global partnerships appears to be under scrutiny, and Trump seems eager to test their limits.

During a press gathering at his Florida resort, Trump expressed self-assurance in his power, even claiming credit for Meta’s recent choice to halt fact-checking posts — a shift he suggested was in direct response to his threats against the company and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

Take, for instance, Trump’s remarks about the Panama Canal, a vital trade route established by the U.S. in 1914 and fully transferred to Panama in 1999. “Jimmy Carter gave it away for a dollar, and they were supposed to treat us well. I thought that was a terrible mistake,” Trump declared, just hours before the late President Carter’s funeral services were set to take place in Washington.

Although often vague, Trump conveyed a desire to reestablish control over the canal and, when questioned about the possibility of military action, he refused to rule it out. “I’m not going to say that,” he replied. “It may come to that. The Panama Canal is crucial for our nation.” (It’s worth noting that Panama does not have a standing army.)

His expansionist rhetoric also encompassed Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark that he previously sought to purchase during his first term. On Tuesday, he threatened to impose high tariffs on Denmark unless it agreed to cede Greenland to the U.S. While Greenland has its own Prime Minister and parliament, Denmark manages its national defense, and the Danish Embassy in Washington represents Greenland’s interests.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reaffirmed on Tuesday that Greenland is not for sale, coinciding with a visit from Donald Trump Jr. and incoming White House personnel chief Sergio Gor to Greenland, which some observers might view as a provocative gesture.

Canada is also feeling the weight of Trump’s rhetoric. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as party leader and left 24 Sussex Drive shortly thereafter. Trump has long poked fun at Trudeau, even suggesting that Canadians might be receptive to the idea of joining the U.S. On Tuesday, he went so far as to endorse hockey icon Wayne Gretzky as a potential leader for Canadians — not necessarily as Prime Minister, but perhaps as their Governor.

Such displays of American bravado are characteristic of Trump’s approach. In a seemingly unrelated comment, he revealed his intention to rename the body of water bordering Texas, Florida, Mexico, and Cuba as The Gulf of America. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a staunch ally of Trump, quickly announced plans to draft legislation to implement the President-elect’s vision.

Furthermore, Trump proposed increasing NATO’s defense spending guideline from 2% to 5% of each member nation’s GDP. He has historically misinterpreted the 2% guideline as a mandatory fee for the 32 NATO members. At present, no country meets the 5% benchmark; Poland leads at 3.9%, while the U.S. hovers around 3.5%. Trump’s ongoing concerns about perceived freeloading among alliance members were a consistent theme during his first term, and he appears poised to continue pressuring allies to contribute more to the organization formed to counter Soviet, and now Russian, threats. (If military action does occur, it raises questions about NATO’s obligations to defend Denmark, a member state.)

This situation reveals an uncomfortable reality: Trump’s targets are not random nations but rather some of the U.S.’s most vital and reliable allies. The relationship between the United States and Denmark has roots in a longstanding partnership, with collaboration in various conflicts, including those in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Panama serves a crucial role in American trade, as U.S. vessels account for around 75% of the canal’s traffic; nearly 40% of all U.S. container ships navigate this essential route. The U.S. also shares the longest border with Canada, fostering a deep economic and cultural interconnection, making the Washington-Ottawa relationship one of the strongest in the Western Hemisphere. Though Trump has made strides in urging NATO allies to boost their spending, his continued confrontational stance raises concerns about the effectiveness of these essential partnerships.

Consequently, witnessing the upcoming President engage in such counterproductive confrontations with allies is both perplexing and alarming. Trump supporters argue that this bravado is simply part of his persona, claiming he acts more reasonably when the cameras are off. However, the messages emanating from Florida on Tuesday were unmistakable, making it irresponsible for foreign ministries to overlook them. For some, Meta’s recent actions may illustrate a strategy of appeasement: yielding to the bully in hopes he will target someone else next.

The United States — represented by Trump in this context — can exert considerable influence over many nations. While this method has historically led to unintended consequences and strained relationships, it can produce results, at least in the short term. Though it tarnishes America’s reputation as a benevolent global leader, such overt displays of power can seem necessary at times. Typically, a simple phone call suffices among allies, but Trump appears determined to turn strength into a public spectacle.

Yet, Trump’s focus is not on smaller nations with limited stakes; he is targeting some of the U.S.’s most critical and steadfast allies. While he may view Greenland as an undervalued asset rich in natural resources, strategic analysts within the National Security Council recognize it as a vital defense stronghold. A U.S. base in Greenland is positioned as the northernmost outpost, serving as a missile defense monitor between Moscow and New York. Similarly, Panama and Canada are integral players in the U.S. trade framework. NATO remains essential for countering Vladimir Putin’s aspirations to restore the Russian Empire.

Unlike his first presidency in 2017, Trump now possesses a clearer grasp of his power and how to wield it. The way he has chosen to utilize this authority, just weeks ahead of his return to the White House, is both revealing and frustrating. With numerous pressing matters on his agenda, engaging in conflicts with allies could quickly become a tiresome distraction. In the meantime, he risks jeopardizing relationships with partners he expects to simply comply with his demands.

Understand the key issues in Washington. Subscribe to the D.C. Brief newsletter.