This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to receive stories like this directly in your inbox.

On Tuesday, President-elect Donald Trump stirred controversy with his audacious assertions about possibly leveraging U.S. military might to regain control of the Panama Canal and to assert dominance over Greenland. He even went as far as to suggest coercing 40 million Canadians into joining the United States. Amid his vivid rhetoric, he proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and called on NATO allies to boost their defense spending from the current 2% of GDP to 5%, a significant leap from a guideline that lacks enforceability.

In the realm of Trump’s worldview, these brash suggestions may appear feasible. It’s as if he perceives the global landscape as a game of Monopoly awaiting conquest. Although his statements may lack depth, they carry weight that the global community cannot easily dismiss.

Individually, each of these remarks could raise alarms among America’s allies. Yet, collectively, they underscore an urgent need for a thorough reevaluation of how to interact with the forthcoming Trump administration. The stability of global alliances is evidently under scrutiny, and Trump appears to take a certain delight in testing their limits.

During a press event at his club in Florida, Trump exuded confidence in his influence, even taking credit for Meta’s recent decision to halt fact-checking posts—a change he claimed was a result of his previous threats against the social media giant and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

Trump’s comments about the Panama Canal, a vital shipping route that was established by the U.S. in 1914 and fully transferred to Panama in 1999, are particularly notable. He lamented, “Jimmy Carter gave it away for a dollar, and they were supposed to treat us well. I thought that was a terrible mistake,” just hours before the late President Carter’s remains were to arrive in Washington for his funeral.

While his statements often lack clarity, Trump articulated a desire to re-establish U.S. control over the canal, and when questioned about ruling out military intervention, he hesitated. “I’m not going to say that,” he replied. “It may come to that. The Panama Canal is crucial for our nation.” (Notably, Panama lacks a standing military.)

His imperialistic views also included Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark that Trump previously attempted to purchase during his first term. On Tuesday, he threatened to impose steep tariffs on Denmark unless it ceded Greenland to the U.S. While Greenland operates with its own Prime Minister and parliament, Denmark oversees its national defense, with the Danish Embassy in Washington representing Greenland’s interests.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated that Greenland is not for sale, coinciding with Donald Trump Jr. and incoming White House personnel chief Sergio Gor’s visit to Greenland, which some might view as a provocation.

Canada has also been a target of Trump’s rhetoric. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as party leader and exited 24 Sussex Drive shortly thereafter. Trump has long ridiculed the Canadian Prime Minister and suggested that Canadians might welcome the idea of becoming the U.S.’s 51st state. On Tuesday, he even humorously endorsed hockey legend Wayne Gretzky as a potential leader for Canadians—not necessarily as Prime Minister, but as their Governor.

Such expressions of American strength are characteristic of Trump’s stance. In a seemingly unrelated comment, he proposed renaming the body of water that borders Texas, Florida, Mexico, and Cuba as The Gulf of America. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a fervent Trump supporter, quickly announced plans to draft legislation to align with the President-elect’s vision.

Additionally, Trump suggested increasing NATO’s defense spending requirement from 2% to 5% of each member country’s GDP. He has historically misunderstood the 2% guideline, mistakenly believing it to be a mandatory fee for the 32 NATO members. Currently, no country meets the 5% threshold; Poland leads at 3.9%, while the U.S. is around 3.5%. Trump’s ongoing concern about perceived freeloading by NATO allies was a prominent theme during his first presidency, and he appears poised to continue pressing allies for increased contributions to the alliance formed after World War II to counter Soviet—and now Russian—aggression. (Should Trump pursue military action, it raises questions about NATO’s commitment to defend Denmark, a member nation.)

This brings us to a troubling reality: Trump’s targets aren’t arbitrary; they include key U.S. allies. The U.S. and Denmark have maintained a robust partnership, collaborating in various conflicts, including those in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Panama is crucial for U.S. trade, with American vessels accounting for around 75% of the canal’s traffic; nearly 40% of all U.S. container ships navigate this essential passage. The U.S. shares the longest border in the world with Canada, and their economies and cultures are deeply intertwined, making the Washington-Ottawa relationship one of the most resilient in the Western Hemisphere. While Trump has historically pushed NATO allies to increase their spending, his continued antagonism raises concerns about the effectiveness of these alliances.

Thus, witnessing the incoming President engage in such counterproductive confrontations with allies is both perplexing and alarming. Supporters of Trump argue that this bravado is simply part of his persona, claiming he acts more pragmatically when the cameras aren’t rolling. Nevertheless, the signals emanating from Florida on Tuesday were unmistakable, making it reckless for foreign ministries to disregard them. For some, Meta’s recent actions may reflect a strategy of appeasement: yield to the bully and hope he targets someone else next.

The U.S.—and in this instance, Trump embodies the nation in its foreign relations—can indeed exert considerable influence over many countries. This approach has historically led to unintended consequences and strained diplomatic ties, yet it can produce results, at least in the short term. While such tactics may tarnish America’s image as a benevolent global leader, there are times when overt displays of power seem unavoidable. Typically, a simple phone call suffices among allies, but Trump appears intent on creating a public spectacle of strength.

However, Trump’s sights are not set on smaller nations with minimal stakes. He is targeting some of the U.S.’s most critical and steadfast allies. While he may view Greenland as a neglected asset laden with natural resources, strategic analysts within the National Security Council recognize it as a vital defense outpost. A U.S. base in Greenland serves as the northernmost station, acting as a missile defense monitor between Moscow and New York. Likewise, both Panama and Canada are essential components of the U.S. trade network. NATO remains a pivotal force in countering Vladimir Putin’s aspirations to revive the Russian Empire.

Unlike his initial presidency in 2017, Trump now possesses a clearer understanding of his influence and how to leverage it. The way he is choosing to exercise this power, just weeks before returning to the White House, is both revealing and frustrating. With numerous pressing issues on his agenda, engaging in conflicts with allies may soon become a tiresome distraction. In the meantime, he risks undermining relationships with partners he expects to comply with his demands.

Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.