US at “war” with Canada (Part II): Preparing to live beside a hostile neighbour

Canadians must recognize that the US, under Trump, is an adversary led by someone whose increasingly erratic, coercive, and hostile behaviour towards Canada is an existential threat.

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can also be found on Substack.

Part I discussed why Canada was right to walk away from trade negotiations with the United States. Part II confronts a more sobering reality. Canada must now treat the United States, under Donald Trump, as a hostile power, a coercive state seeking to subordinate a neighbour rather than negotiate with an ally.

The erosion of trust between Canada and the United States is not a diplomatic misfortune—it is the predictable outcome of Trump’s approach to governance. His administration has repeatedly violated CUSMA, imposed unilateral tariffs, threatened annexation, supported the separatist movement in Alberta, and used propaganda to portray Canada as dependent on American “benevolence.” These actions collectively demonstrate that Trump does not view Canada as a sovereign partner but as a subordinate entity whose economic and political choices should be dictated from Washington.

The first clear signal of how Trump viewed Canada emerged immediately after his election in November 2024, when he casually suggested that Canada should become the “51st state.” Although this remark was initially dismissed in the American media as a joke—and brushed off by Trump allies on Capitol Hill—it quickly took on a more ominous tone in Canada as it became a recurring talking point in Trump’s public appearances. By early 2025, the comment was no longer an isolated quip but a repeated assertion, echoed by figures within Trump’s inner circle, prompting Canadians to interpret it not as humour but as an expression of intent. The shift in perception was driven by the recognition that these statements aligned with Trump’s broader pattern of coercive behaviour during his first administration. His habit of referring to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a “governor” following his re-election—a label he later applied to Prime Minister Mark Carney—reinforced the sense that Trump viewed Canada not as a sovereign nation but as a subordinate jurisdiction. This impression was further strengthened when Trump threatened to block the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge unless Canada offered concessions in ongoing trade discussions. These were not idle remarks or empty bluster. Ttaken together, they formed a coherent pattern of rhetoric and pressure that Canadians increasingly understood as a signal of intent.

Political observers and security experts have warned that Trump’s ambitions toward Canada may not be limited to economic pressure. American political analyst Eric Ham has described Trump’s actions in Venezuela—economic strangulation followed by military intervention—as a “clear warning shot” for Canada. The precedent is chilling because the United States used sanctions, propaganda, and military force to install a government more aligned with its interests. The logic behind such actions is straightforward. When a smaller state resists American pressure, Trump has shown a willingness to escalate beyond economic tools. The question is no longer whether Trump would consider using military pressure against Canada, but whether Canada is prepared for that possibility.

Adam Gordon, a visiting fellow at the Cascade Institute and former senior legal and policy adviser to Canadian foreign affairs ministers, warned in the wake of the Venezuela operation, “We can’t take off the table anymore the idea that it is at least plausible that there would be some use of force or threat of use of force, and we need to be prepared for that.” His warning reflects a growing recognition among Canadian security experts that Trump’s unpredictability and disregard for international norms make previously unthinkable scenarios plausible. Trump’s foreign policy record reinforces this concern. His administration has taken military action in Venezuela, launched an unprovoked war against Iran, illegally blockaded Cuba, and asserted territorial ambitions over Greenland and the Panama Canal. These actions demonstrate a willingness to use force to achieve political objectives and a belief that American power should be exercised unilaterally, without regard for international law or long‑standing alliances, and this should have Canada’s political establishment very worried.

Canada’s vulnerability is not simply a matter of military imbalance. It is the combination of economic dependence, geographic proximity, and resource wealth. Canada possesses vast reserves of oil, critical minerals, and fresh water—resources the US increasingly covets. In a world of increasing demand, these assets make Canada a strategic target. Trump’s supporters have openly discussed Canada’s resource wealth as justification for annexation, arguing that American access to Canadian oil, minerals, and water is essential for America’s national security, despite the fact that a strong majority of American have no interest in Canada becoming the 51st state. However, this rhetoric, amplified on social media and in nationalist circles, reflects a growing sentiment within parts of the American political landscape that Canada’s resources should be controlled by America.

In this context, Canada must adopt a posture of strategic resistance. Economic countermeasures are one component of this strategy. Canada has already imposed retaliatory tariffs, and Canadians have launched widespread consumer boycotts of American products.  In addition, Canadian travel to the US has plummeted since Trump took office, declining by 25% to 30%.  These actions have had measurable effects on the US economy in the areas of tourism, agriculture, alcohol, and manufactured goods. Canadian tourism alone accounts for over $20 billion annually, and has declined by $12.5 billion in 2025 with a larger decline expected for 2026. These measures reflect a national resolve to resist economic coercion and demonstrate that Canada is willing to endure economic pain to protect its sovereignty.

Diplomatic realignment is another essential component. For Canada to survive and economic war with the US it must deepen ties with Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America to reduce dependence on American markets. This diversification is not a rejection of economic ties to the United States but a recognition that Canada cannot rely on a partner that repeatedly violates agreements and uses economic tools as weapons. Strengthening trade relationships with other regions will help insulate Canada from future American coercion and ensure that Canadian industries have alternative markets.

Military preparedness is perhaps the most sensitive and difficult aspect of Canada’s response. Canada must prepare for scenarios once considered unthinkable. Hardening the land border, expanding intelligence operations against the US, increasing defence spending, and considering nuclear deterrence options, as some experts have suggested, may be options Canada will have to consider. These measures are not signs of aggression but signs of realism. Canada’s current defence posture is built on the assumption that the United States is a reliable ally. That assumption is no longer valid and Canada must therefore develop independent capabilities to deter coercion and protect its sovereignty.

Public mobilization is also a strategic asset. Canadian public opinion has shifted dramatically. Canadians overwhelmingly reject annexation, support boycotts, and view the United States as the top security threat. This unity strengthens Canada’s ability to resist American pressure and signals to Washington that Canadians will not accept subordination. The surge in national pride and the widespread rejection of Trump’s rhetoric reflect a population that understands the stakes and is prepared to defend its sovereignty.

Finally, Canadians must recognize the new reality—the United States, under Trump, is not a partner. It is an adversary led by someone whose increasingly erratic, coercive, and hostile behaviour towards Canada is an existential threat. Trump’s policies are not designed to strengthen alliances but to destroy them. His approach to international relations is transactional, coercive, and driven by short‑term political gain rather than long‑term strategic stability. Canada must therefore abandon the illusion that diplomacy alone can resolve the crisis. The collapse of trade negotiations was the first step. The next steps will determine whether Canada emerges from this crisis as a sovereign nation or as a vassal state.

Canada wasn’t looking for this war, but it is one that it is willing to fight to protect its sovereignty and the Canadian economy. The path forward will be difficult, but the stakes could not be higher. Canada must act decisively, strategically, and with unwavering resolve, because the future of the nation depends on it.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.