Is Canada’s sovereignty safe in an age of US fascist aggression? Don’t bet on it.

Canada cannot afford complacency. Its future depends upon strengthening its economy, diversifying international relationships, deepening democratic institutions, and upgrading military capabilities. 

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

The decisive rejection of Alberta separatism should remind Canadians that the overwhelming majority of citizens, including Albertans themselves, remain committed to Canada as a united, sovereign, and independent country. It is also a result that was likely greeted with disappointment in certain political circles south of the border. Reports and allegations regarding contacts between American figures and leaders within Alberta's separatist movement raised legitimate questions about whether external actors were attempting to influence a domestic Canadian political debate. Whether those efforts were significant or largely symbolic, Alberta voters delivered a clear message: Canada's future will be decided by Canadians, not by outsiders seeking to advance their own interests.

Yet if there is one broader lesson to be drawn from that episode, it is that threats to sovereignty do not always originate from distant powers. Canadians frequently concern themselves with Russian aggression, Chinese influence operations, and geopolitical instability elsewhere in the world, while often overlooking the possibility that the most significant long-term challenge to Canadian sovereignty may emerge from the country that has been our closest neighbour, ally, and trading partner for more than a century.

This is not to suggest that an American invasion is imminent, nor is it to imply that most Americans harbour hostile intentions toward Canada. Rather, it is to recognize that many Canadians have not fully appreciated the extent to which American political culture, particularly within segments of the Republican Party and the broader MAGA movement, has changed during the past decade. That transformation has called into question assumptions that governed Canada-United States relations throughout much of the post-war era. Principles that Canadians once regarded as settled, including respect for alliances, international institutions, and the sovereignty of close partners, can no longer be treated as permanently secure.

Nor is the issue simply Donald Trump. The larger concern is the emergence of a political movement that increasingly views international affairs through the lens of power rather than partnership. Within this worldview, alliances, trade agreements, and even the sovereignty of neighbouring countries are often evaluated in terms of how effectively they serve American interests. From that perspective, Canada risks being viewed less as an equal partner deserving respect and more as a strategic asset, a source of natural resources, a captive market, and a territory that falls naturally within a broader American sphere of influence.

When combined with repeated rhetoric about Canada becoming the "51st state," such attitudes should prompt Canadians to think far more seriously about the future of their country's independence than many have in the past.

The greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty may not be a military invasion. It may instead be the gradual normalization of a political culture that increasingly views allies, trading partners, and neighbouring countries through the lens of leverage, coercion, and strategic advantage rather than cooperation and mutual respect. If that worldview continues to exert influence long after Donald Trump leaves office, Canada could find itself facing sustained economic, political, and strategic pressure from a neighbour that no longer regards Canadian sovereignty as beyond question.

The end of an assumption

For most of the twentieth century and into the early decades of the twenty-first, Canada and the United States enjoyed one of the most stable and successful bilateral relationships in modern history. Disagreements certainly occurred over trade, lumber, agriculture, defence spending, energy policy, and foreign affairs. Yet these disputes unfolded within a broader framework of mutual respect, shared interests, and a common understanding that both nations benefited from the relationship.

Since the first Trump administration, however, that framework has shown visible signs of strain.

Following his return to office in January 2025, Donald Trump repeatedly revived rhetoric suggesting that Canada should become the "51st state." He argued publicly that Canada depends more on the United States than the United States depends on Canada and suggested on numerous occasions that annexation would solve various bilateral disputes. Statements that once might have been dismissed as provocative humour took on greater significance because they were repeated so frequently and by the most powerful political figure in the United States.

History demonstrates that ideas repeatedly introduced into political discourse often become normalized over time. What begins as a joke, provocation, or rhetorical flourish can gradually evolve into a subject of serious debate once influential political and media figures begin repeating the same themes. While rhetoric alone does not constitute policy, it can help reshape public assumptions about what is politically acceptable.

Trump's treatment of Greenland is equally revealing. He repeatedly argued that the United States should acquire the Danish territory and at various points refused to rule out economic or military pressure to achieve that objective. Even when moderating some of his language, he continued to insist that American ownership of Greenland was a strategic necessity tied to national security concerns.

The significance of this rhetoric is not that Canada and Greenland occupy identical positions. Rather, the significance lies in the fact that senior American political leaders have demonstrated a willingness to discuss acquiring territory from allied countries in ways that would have been almost unimaginable only a few years earlier. The barrier that once separated democratic competition from great-power territorial ambition appears less rigid than many had assumed.

Power rather than partnership

The Trump administration's trade policies offer another warning sign.

Successive rounds of tariffs imposed on Canadian steel, aluminium, automobiles, and other exports were frequently justified on grounds that many economists, trade specialists, and policy analysts regarded as politically motivated or economically dubious. Canada responded with countermeasures while attempting to preserve the broader trading relationship. Yet the deeper concern is not the tariffs themselves. It is the mindset that made them possible.

For decades, many policymakers in both countries viewed trade between allies as a mutually beneficial enterprise. Increasingly, however, sections of American political discourse have begun treating economic interdependence as a source of leverage. Integration is valued not merely for the prosperity it creates but for the influence it provides.

Within this framework, economic relationships become instruments of coercion. The central question is no longer how trade benefits both countries but how economic power can be used to secure political or strategic advantages. Shared values become secondary to calculations of national gain.

This logic extends well beyond Canada. Similar patterns can be observed in disputes with European allies, debates surrounding NATO burden-sharing, pressure campaigns against trading partners, and rhetoric surrounding Greenland, Panama, and other strategically significant territories. When relationships are increasingly evaluated through the lens of dominance rather than cooperation, smaller states inevitably find themselves in a more vulnerable position.

Trump is not the entire problem

Many Canadians comfort themselves with the belief that everything will return to normal once Donald Trump eventually leaves office. That assumption may prove dangerously optimistic.

Political movements frequently outlive the individuals most closely associated with them. All you have to do is look to how Nazism still exists more than 80 years after Hitler’s death.

Trumpism did not emerge from a political vacuum. Rather, it reflects broader changes within American political culture that developed over decades. The growth of populist nationalism, increasing political polarization, declining confidence in international institutions, and resentment toward globalization all predate Trump himself. Trump became the most visible embodiment of these trends, but he did not create them alone.

Many of his closest advisers, media allies, ideological supporters, and political successors remain committed to a more nationalist and confrontational vision of American power. While they may differ on tactics, many share the belief that America's interests should take precedence over traditional diplomatic constraints and that international institutions should serve American objectives rather than limit them.

Even if Trump vanished from the political landscape tomorrow, many of the forces that elevated him would remain. Protectionist sentiment would persist, and nationalist politics would continue. The perception that allies have benefited disproportionately from trade with American and its military protection would still exist among substantial segments of the US electorate.

The question Canadians should therefore ask is not whether Trump will eventually leave office. The more important question is whether the political and cultural forces that produced Trump are likely to disappear with his departure from the White House. At present, there is little evidence to suggest that they will.

A Democratic victory may not restore the status quo

Nor should Canadians assume that a future Democratic administration would automatically restore the pre-Trump status quo. The United States is undergoing a broader structural transformation that transcends partisan politics. Canadian policymakers must recognize that the political environment shaping American foreign policy is changing in ways that neither party can entirely reverse.

Since the pandemic years, American policy debates have increasingly focused on supply chains, industrial policy, strategic industries, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, and competition with major powers. These concerns are not confined to Republicans. Democrats generally frame them differently, but both parties are responding to growing public demands for economic security and national resilience.

The United States that emerged after the Second World War largely saw itself as the chief architect and guarantor of a rules-based international order. Today, politicians across the political spectrum face increasing pressure to pursue narrowly defined national interests, even when doing so creates friction with allies or long-established international norms. This shift did not begin with Donald Trump, and it is unlikely to end with his departure from the political scene.

Canadians should therefore recognize that the assumptions which governed bilateral relations for the past 80 years may no longer apply. The deeper economic and political forces reshaping American society remain intact, regardless of which party occupies the White House.

The Austria analogy

History never repeats itself exactly. Nevertheless, it often provides important warnings. Some commentators have compared contemporary developments in American politics to aspects of Europe in the 1920s and 30s, when fascism was on the rise. But while the US is not Nazi Germany the parallels can’t be ignored. While  intense political polarization and growing strains on democratic norms are increasing in the US it still remains a constitutional democracy with powerful institutions, an independent judiciary, a vibrant civil society, and vigorous political opposition.  However, history still offers lessons worth considering as Canada watches democracy under siege south of the border.

During the 1930s, many Europeans struggled to take seriously the increasingly aggressive rhetoric emanating from Berlin. Expansionist statements were frequently dismissed as posturing intended for domestic audiences. Each escalation was rationalized. Each warning sign was minimized. Many assumed that long-established norms would ultimately restrain more extreme ambitions.

Within this context, Austria occupied a uniquely vulnerable position. It shared language, culture, economic ties, and deep historical connections with Germany. Many believed those common bonds would provide security. Instead, they provided opportunities for political pressure and coercion. By the time Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, its options had narrowed considerably.

The comparison to Canada has obvious limits. The circumstances are fundamentally different. Yet one lesson remains relevant. Familiarity and integration do not automatically guarantee security. Like Austria, Canada exists beside a much larger and more powerful neighbour. Like Austria, it is deeply integrated with that neighbour economically, culturally, and socially. And like Austria, Canada sometimes assumes that those close connections are all the protection it requires.

History suggests otherwise.  Some of the loudest voices within contemporary American nationalism increasingly speak about North America as though it were a naturally integrated geopolitical space that should be organized under American leadership. Within that worldview, Canada possesses resources America desires, territory America values, water resources that may become increasingly important in the future, and strategic Arctic access that is growing in significance as climate change reshapes the region.

Greenland is often discussed in similar terms because of its geography and mineral wealth. Mexico is frequently framed less as a sovereign partner than as a security challenge requiring unilateral American solutions. None of this means annexation is official American policy. But it does reveal an underlying mindset in which power increasingly creates a perceived entitlement to influence, shape, or direct the affairs of others.

History teaches that when powerful nations begin thinking this way, smaller neighbours should pay attention.

What Canada must do

Most Canadians still see ordinary Americans as friends, allies, and partners. Canada's prosperity remains deeply connected to the United States, and that relationship will continue to matter enormously in the decades ahead. Friendship, however, does not eliminate the need for prudence.

The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney has taken important steps toward diversifying Canada's economic relationships. Expanding trade with Europe, the Indo-Pacific region, and emerging markets is no longer simply a matter of seeking new opportunities. It has become a strategic necessity.

However, a country that depends too heavily upon a single market inevitably becomes vulnerable to political and economic pressure. Greater diversification provides Canada with more freedom to pursue independent policies and defend its interests without fear of excessive economic retaliation.

Canada must also move much more quickly to remove internal trade barriers that continue to fragment its own domestic economy. These barriers increase costs, reduce productivity, limit competitiveness, and undermine national economic resilience. Strengthening east-west economic integration should be treated as both an economic and a nation-building priority.

Beyond trade, Canada’s move to deepen strategic partnerships with democratic middle powers that share an interest in preserving a rules-based international order is also a step in the right direction. Economic resilience and diplomatic diversification are essential. But they are not sufficient on their own.

Additionally, a sovereign country cannot indefinitely maintain full strategic independence if it lacks the capacity to defend itself. Canada must therefore begin treating national defence as a genuine priority once again, and it must be acknowledged that, in its current configuration, the Canadian Armed Forces could not defeat the United States in a conventional military conflict. Matching American military capabilities would require expenditures and levels of mobilization not seen since World War Two.

Fortunately, deterrence has never depended upon parity. Throughout history, smaller countries have preserved their independence not by matching the military strength of larger powers but by ensuring that aggression would carry unacceptable costs. Deterrence works when conflict becomes too expensive, too uncertain, and too risky to justify.

Recent confrontations involving Iran illustrate this principle. Although Iran possesses only a fraction of America's military capabilities, policymakers in Washington have repeatedly had to weigh the substantial costs that a large-scale conflict would entail. Military superiority alone does not guarantee favourable outcomes if an adversary retains the capacity to impose meaningful costs. That is the essence of deterrence.

Canada does not need a military capable of conquering the United States. It needs a military capable of making coercion costly, unpredictable, and politically unattractive. The objective is not victory in an offensive war but the preservation of sovereignty through credible defensive capability.

The danger of complacency

The greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty is not thousands of US soldiers and tanks crossing Canadian land borders or an armada of US military jets controlling the skies over Canada. It is the persistence of outdated assumptions. For generations, Canadians assumed that economic integration guaranteed security, that shared values guaranteed respect, and that American power would always operate within predictable bounds. Recent developments suggest those assumptions deserve far greater scrutiny than they once did.

Repeated discussions of Canadian annexation, escalating tariff disputes, coercive trade measures, territorial ambitions regarding Greenland, and a broader political culture that increasingly equates power with entitlement should compel Canadians to rethink old certainties. The issue is not whether every provocative statement made by Donald Trump represents concrete policy. The issue is whether Canada is prepared for a world in which such statements are no longer politically unthinkable.

The reality is that a sovereign nation cannot afford complacency. Canada's future depends upon strengthening its economy, diversifying its international relationships, deepening its democratic institutions, and maintaining credible military capabilities. The lesson of history is straightforward: countries that assume powerful neighbours will remain permanently benevolent often discover their mistake too late. Canada should not be one of them.

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