Trump's Canadian Own Goal

The Art of Turning Friends Into Enemies

Team USA shoots puck into own net. Source: Gemini

“Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.”

— President John F. Kennedy, 1961 Address Before Canada’s Parliament

“Hold my beer.”

— President Donald J. Trump

According to Paul Krugman, Donald Trump hates Canada for its decency. Sure, and per George W. Bush, the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Polemical explanations may flatter and smear, but they don’t really explain. For Trump, the personal is political, so animus toward Justin Trudeau likely contributes to his anti-Canadian stance. Yet the deeply unpopular Trudeau announced his resignation in January 2025. Even then, Trudeau’s Liberals were headed for a crushing defeat by Canada’s Conservatives—until Trump’s own actions revived Liberal fortunes. Tariffs and annexation threats have allowed new Liberal leader Mark Carney, an accomplished central banker, to present himself as a crisis manager and anti-Trump patriot. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, increasingly depicted as “Trump lite,” has seen his over-20-point lead vanish. Thus Trump may inadvertently help Trudeau achieve revenge from beyond the political grave.¹

But Trump’s grudge with Canada clearly goes deeper than a dislike of Trudeau (which most Canadians now share). In his own words, “I think Canada would be much better off being the 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada. And I’m not going to let that happen. Why are we paying $200 billion a year, essentially a subsidy to Canada?” Here, Trump is mischaracterizing and miscounting America’s $70.6 billion (in 2024) trade deficit with Canada, which largely reflects American imports of Canadian energy and is not a “subsidy.” For context, Canada has the second-lowest trade deficit among US trading partners (1/8 the size of China’s) and is the largest American export market. In response to Trump’s economic warfare, Canada has imposed reciprocal tariffs on US goods and is seeking stronger trading ties with other countries. Many Canadians are also boycotting American products and avoiding travel to the US. Ultimately then, Trump’s tactics are not leading Canadians to buy more American goods. Instead, they’re triggering a push for economic decoupling from the US and encouraging anti-American sentiment. (That’s in addition to crashing the stock market.)

The US does have some legitimate grievances with Canada, though fentanyl and illegal immigration, Trump’s original excuses for tariffs, are far from the top of the list. Trump is right that Canada hasn’t pulled its weight militarily, spending less than the NATO baseline of 2% of GDP on defense. Canada’s dairy market is tightly controlled, which has been an irritant for American farmers. Canada, under Liberal governments in general and Trudeau in particular, has tended toward “post-national,” multilateralist, self-righteous posturing, which belies the country’s deep dependence on the US. (Though Canada, like other NATO countries, rallied behind America after 9/11 and sent troops to Afghanistan.) From the perspective of an American nationalist, then, it would be ideal to have a pro-American, more ideologically aligned Canadian government with which to negotiate.² And that’s exactly what was likely to happen until Trump himself flipped the narrative. By his own statements and actions, Trump’s made clear that he’s seeking surrender, not negotiations; that causing economic pain to Canadians is a feature, not a bug. Now an anti-Trudeau election has become an anti-Trump election, which the polite Canadian Trump stand-in has a good chance of losing.

Trump called Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine “genius.” But it’s worth recalling that Russia only invaded after protests toppled pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted to abandon a proposed Ukrainian partnership with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia. Putin first invaded Crimea, then later all of Ukraine, because the country was seeking to escape the Russian sphere of influence. Trump, on the other hand, was about to have his own Canadian Yanukovych in charge. Moreover, regardless of who won the Canadian federal election, no serious candidate sought to reduce Canada’s ties with the US. To stretch the comparison further, Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted Russia’s neighbors to be dependent and compliant—like Canada in relation to America. Instead, Ukraine was turning away from Russia and seeking partnerships with other countries. By threatening annexation and imposing punitive tariffs, Trump is engineering the outcome—a hostile neighbor—that Putin went to war to avoid. (Ironically, Trump could even drive Canada, like Ukraine, to seek European Union membership.) Not so genius.³

What about Trump’s fantasy of taking over Canada? Since 77% of Canadians oppose Canada joining the US, annexation won’t happen voluntarily. Of course, America could easily conquer Canada, but at the ironic cost of disempowering the party behind the conquest. Most Canadians—even in the right-leaning West—supported Kamala Harris over Trump. Canadian Conservatives are generally the equivalent of moderate Republicans (that vanishing breed) or centrist Democrats. Thus the “51st state” would be blue, not red, despite Canada’s national colors. Further, to account for its regional diversity, Canada would really need to be divided into at least five states (American Columbia, Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes) plus a territory (East Alaska). The Democrats would thus gain an electoral college majority for the foreseeable future.⁴ In addition to redrawing the political map, Greater America would also inherit a French separatist movement, restive Native tribes, and sundry immigrant factions, from Sikh militants to Chinese Community Party agents to pro-Hamas MENAP arsonists. That’s in addition to the possibility of a broader insurgency, which could spread south of the (former) border and trigger a continental civil war.⁵ Doesn’t the US have enough domestic problems already?

1. More broadly, as Eric Kaufmann observes, Trump’s foreign policy is weakening populism internationally, as he prioritizes divisive political nationalism (by pitting America against other nations) over unifying cultural nationalism (which aligns nationalists of all nations against globalist elites).

2. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade agreement, which Trump himself signed and is now violating, requires joint review by July 2026 and agreement by all three members to continue.

3. Putin’s move was not so “genius” either. By creating a common enemy for Ukrainians to rally against, Putin has been called “the greatest contributor to Ukrainian nationalism since the 19th-century Ukrainian bard Taras Shevchenko.”

4. The US could make all of Canada a territory, rather than a state (or states), to avoid benefiting the Democrats. However, Canada has a population of 40 million, which is more than 12 times that of the most populous American territory, Puerto Rico, with its 3.2 million people. The question then becomes if Americans are ready to shed all pretense of being a republic in favor of empire.

5. Think of the turmoil caused by America’s attempts to defeat the Vietcong and pacify Iraq half a world away. Now imagine guerrilla warfare in North America, with Canadians ambushing occupying troops, blowing up pipelines, aligning with an internal American resistance, and receiving funding from anti-American foreign powers (which, at the rate Trump is going, could soon include most of the world). Around 3 million Canadian civilians are thought to own firearms—a number that could increase when America’s lax gun laws are imposed—while the Canadian Armed Forces has around 68,000 active personnel who could lead an insurgency. How many Americans want to die for critical minerals that could’ve easily been obtained through trade?