CNN is facing heated criticism for what many observers are calling its surrender to ‘sane washing’ Trump’s invasion rhetoric. Trump’s bizarre comments ranging from “buying” Greenland to annexing parts of Panama and Canada have been framed by the network as mere policy proposals, critics charge, rather than threats of aggression and violations of international law. Viewers and media watchdogs alike are blasting CNN for normalizing this dangerous narrative, accusing the influential cable news giant of intentionally downplaying Trump’s outlandish claims.
Over the weekend, Trump railed against the Panama Canal’s tolls, calling them a “ripoff” and insisting that the United States should “take back” the canal. Such a move would involve tearing up a 1977 treaty and conducting a military invasion of an ally an undeniably radical plan that drew immediate condemnation. Meanwhile, the notion of “buying” Greenland echoes a fixation Trump allegedly harbored for years, according to New York Times reporting. Despite seeking to cut the federal budget by $2 trillion, Trump reportedly wants to shell out huge sums to acquire or annex Greenland, comparing the autonomous Danish territory to a store “on the corner.”
Things took an even stranger turn when reports surfaced that Trump continues to suggest to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Canada could become a new U.S. “state.” Such talk points to a pattern of imperial ambition reminiscent of the Louisiana Purchase—except, critics note, that purchase was a legal transaction between governments, while invading a sovereign nation today would constitute an illegal act of war.
Detractors argue that by portraying Trump’s plans as a potential “expansion,” CNN is effectively “manufacturing consent” for an agenda that includes possible military invasions. This approach, critics say, leaves viewers with the false impression that such territorial grabs are akin to historical land sales rather than reckless schemes. Many on social media call CNN “hopelessly broken” for seemingly surrendering to a narrative that camouflages extremist ideas, warning that the network’s coverage risks legitimizing policies that are both dangerous and deeply misguided.
