The hostility of Donald Trump and his administration toward Canada and Europe is a destructive head-scratcher. These are the countries with which the United States has the deepest shared heritage and the broadest shared values.
Pace Trump and pre-Trump, these are also the countries with which the United States has had the most productive, freest, and fairest economic relationships. There was robust trade in all directions, with average tariffs of less than 3% in all directions. There were trade irritations, but nothing of significant or serious consequence.
Trump is a mercantilist and views trade balances as a scorecard. So, he regards our trade deficits with Canada and Europe as evidence of unfair trade practices. In reality, they are a reflection of the United States being richer and having a more consumerist culture than other developed Western democracies.
And with Canada, not even that. Our trade deficit with Canada is almost wholly a result of importing Canadian crude to U.S. refineries. That’s not an unfair trading practice. It is the functioning of a mutually beneficial bilateral energy market.
The economic consequences of the hostility of Trump and his administration to Canada are widely discussed in this country. The potential national security consequences are not. But they are considerable.
The economic consequences of Trump’s latest tariff tantrum directed at Canada will be a disruption in supply chains throughout the North American auto industry and higher prices for cars and trucks in the United States. It is highly unlikely to result in any meaningful increase in auto sector employment in the United States.
The potential national security consequences were adumbrated by one of the reasons Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney gave for calling off trade negotiations. According to Carney, one of the Trump administration’s demands was some sort of American veto over trade deals Canada could reach with other countries.
This insult to Canada’s sovereignty is part of a pattern by Trump and his administration that reverberates strongly and widely among Canadians. Trump and his administration treat Canada as a vassal state and seek constraints to render it such and keep it such.
In regard to security, Trump is right that European countries have been too much freeriders, with the United States assuming a disproportionate burden in managing regional conflicts and deterring Russia. However, an argument can be made that Canada is assuming disproportionate risks for the protection of the United States, exactly the opposite of Trump’s claims.
Through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the eyes and ears of American national security are, in significant part, radar arrays located in Canada. A major missile attack on the United States would probably come over the Arctic and Canada. NORAD also includes coordinated Canadian and U.S. response forces.
Now, Canada, by itself, is not a threat to any other country and would be very unlikely to be a target of attack by any other country. It could be the Switzerland of North America.
Canada, however, has made itself a potential target by its involvement and integration into the U.S. command and response capabilities for continental defense. It has also increased its risk profile by being a member of NATO. And it committed military forces to the war in Afghanistan after 9/11.
All this was to tie its security interests to what it regarded as a friendly and powerful neighbor, the United States, on the basis of mutual respect for shared sovereign interests. The treatment of Canada as a vassal state undermines this premise.
The Trump administration has expanded the hostility and vassal state treatment to the national security arena. Canada initially sought to purchase a large number of U.S. made F-35 fighter jets. Carney limited the commitment to consider other options. The American ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, publicly said that if Canada didn’t go forward with the fuller F-35 purchases, the United States would just treat Canadian air space as its own.
In addition to NORAD, there is a Permanent Joint Board on Defense established in 1940, for U.S. and Canadian officials to discuss continental defense issues. In May, Elbridge Colby, a Pentagon official, announced on X that the United States was suspending its participation in the board. Among other things, he cited Carney’s Davos speech, in which the prime minister made the case for middle powers to coordinate to avoid becoming pawns in the revival of great power politics.
The national security implications of the hostility toward Canada and disrespect for its sovereignty have received little attention in the United States. Not so in Canada.
As illustrated by the F-35 pause, the Carney administration is seeking to diversify where it purchases its military kit to reduce dependence on the United States. Canada has also joined a new purchasing pool and process established by the European Union for the same purpose.
There is also the beginnings of a discussion in Canada about the extent to which the security interests of Canada are still aligned with those of the United States. And that includes questioning continued participation in NORAD.
If the choice is between being a vassal state of the United States or becoming the Switzerland of North America, I suspect the people of Canada would choose the latter. Of all the shortsightedness of Trump and his administration, moving the people of Canada toward making that choice is one of the most unremarked but also one of the most potentially consequential.
Our relationship with Canada should be informed by the national security value of having Arctic eyes and ears and an integrated and coordinated North American defense capability. The inexplicable hostility of Trump and his administration toward Canada is putting that at risk.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.