Canada Prepares for War with the U.S.

Canadians are taking Trump's annexation threats seriously

Author’s Note: Since finishing this article, events have unfolded that make its contents even more urgent. During a Super Bowl interview, Donald Trump reiterated his intent to annex Canada, declaring he is "serious" about making it the 51st state. He justified this by citing trade imbalances, doubling down on the economic coercion that has already rattled U.S.-Canada relations.

Canada, fully aware of the implications, responded with a Super Bowl ad that served as both a reassurance and a warning to Americans. "For generations, this ally to the North has been by your side," the ad states, emphasizing Ontario’s economic partnership, energy exports, and critical mineral supply. While framed as a message of unity, the timing of the ad—immediately following Trump’s remarks—underscores the gravity of the moment.

What happens when the U.S. treats its closest ally the same as its adversaries? For most Americans, the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada is absurd. But at the highest levels of the Canadian government, the threat is seen as genuine.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly framed Canada as an extension of the United States. He even referred to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the “governor” of “the great State of Canada.” Trump has openly suggested that absorbing Canada would benefit the U.S. economy. He explicitly stated that military force would be unnecessary, that economic leverage alone would bring Canada to its knees.

While this may sound like more of Trump’s off-cuff ramblings, Trudeau warned political and business leaders behind closed doors that Trump’s ambitions are real. Canadian security analysts, like former national security official Stephanie Carvin, are openly discussing this as an existential threat.

“You don't have to officially become the 51st state,” said Carvin in an interview on CBC. “But if that is the president's goal and ambition, and every day he tries to push that agenda, then how should this country respond? I think the good news is that Canadians are awake to the threat. And they understand that things need to change, that we can't go on with business as usual.”

Americans may dismiss this as impossible, but the Canadian government is actively preparing for an economic war—and perhaps a military one—that could erode its sovereignty. The government is now weighing increased military spending, but its more immediate concern is economic survival.

“To a certain extent,” said Carvin, “we’ve convinced ourselves that nation building is chopping a percentage point off the GDP […] Because meeting other countries where they are is what we need to do if we want to expand our global footprint, [and that’s] going to take investment.”

With Trump’s tariff threats looming, Canada faces the urgent task of securing new trade partners to shift away from total reliance on the U.S. market. Trump’s economic manipulation isn’t just pressure—it’s an attempt to undermine Canada’s autonomy and force the country into having no choice but to accept U.S. control. More than tariffs, Canada could be coerced into an outcome Americans don’t believe is possible.

This isn’t the first time an authoritarian leader has used economic pressure as a tool for eventual territorial control. From Nazi Germany’s pre-war annexation of Austria to Israel’s illegal annexation of the West Bank and parts of Gaza, autocratic leaders have long used trade, financial pressure, and force to subjugate weaker nations.

So why does this crisis barely register in the U.S. media? Why do most Americans remain unaware that Canada is scrambling to defend itself from an existential threat posed by the United States?

Trump’s statements and his economic threats lay the groundwork for deeper U.S. control over Canada. Canadian leaders see this as a true crisis. The historical parallels show us what happens when expansionist rhetoric becomes reality.

Because if Canada is the first line, what comes next?

America’s Blind Spot

The idea of the U.S. strong-arming Canada into submission—whether through economic warfare or outright annexation—feels absurd to the average American. Canada isn’t an enemy, a rogue state, nor a geopolitical threat. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, or even China, there has been no public justification for U.S. aggression.

Americans are conditioned to see Canada as our closest ally, a cooperative partner who helps us when we need it, buys our exports, and follows our lead in foreign policy. The two countries have long shared intelligence networks, military cooperation agreements, and deep economic ties. It is precisely because of this longstanding peaceful relationship that many Americans find the idea of annexation perplexing. If they aren’t a threat, what’s the point?

That’s the disconnect. Most Americans assume Canada already operates under U.S. influence in every meaningful way. Their economy is deeply linked to the U.S. market. Its military, though independent, is small and primarily supplements U.S.-led missions abroad. Their foreign policy has historically aligned with Washington’s.

The notion that Canada could be economically coerced into a position of outright subservience, rather than its current cooperative dependence, is difficult for Americans to process. That difficulty—combined with a general lack of media coverage—creates an information gap. While Canada’s government openly discusses the risks, Americans are largely unaware anything is happening at all.

Of course, part of the disbelief stems from the lack of narrative cohesion necessary to justify economic or military aggression. The Iraq War, for example, required an enormous propaganda campaign. The Bush administration needed to convince the American public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that its government was tied to terrorism. Without that buildup, an invasion was unthinkable.

Trump, by contrast, does not need to frame Canada as a threat because he does not need public support to justify his actions. Americans are accustomed to economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy—but typically against adversaries.

The U.S. has imposed trade embargoes and economic sanctions on countries like Cuba, Iran, and Russia as punitive measures against states framed as hostile to American interests.

Now, Canada is subjected to the same treatment as China—with Trump applying the same economic warfare strategy to an ally as he does to a rival superpower. If Trump considers China’s trade practices to be a national security threat and uses tariffs as a form of economic retaliation, then Canada—receiving the same treatment—must therefore also be regarded as an adversary.

Even when Americans do hear about Trump’s statements, many dismiss them outright. There is an assumption that he does not have the power to make this happen, or that if he tries, the system will stop him.

But that assumption ignores how much Trump has already done outside legal norms, how many precedents have already been broken with little or no resistance. He does not need to annex Canada in the literal sense to achieve his goal. If economic pressure forces Canada into a position where they have no choice but to accept U.S. control over their resources, then the result is the same.

This is why the lack of media coverage is significant. The issue is covered—but only in the language of a tariff war. The American media presents it as a dispute over trade policy, a negotiation tactic, a typical economic standoff.

But in Canada, the conversation is about war.

Trudeau and Canadian national security officials are openly considering that Trump’s stance treats Canada not as a trade partner but as an enemy state. The possibility of actual conflict is on the table in Canadian political discussions, yet the American media omits this entirely, filtering the crisis through the familiar and relatively non-threatening framework of economic disputes. By the time the American people realize what’s happened, it may be too late.

Canada's foreign and economic policies are enmeshed with the United States’ own interests. As a NATO member, Canada’s national security is deeply rooted in its alliances, but this dependence on foreign powers has become its greatest weakness.

The Trump Administration is applying economic sanctions on Canada similar to those imposed on China, treating Canada as an adversary rather than an ally. The shift sent Canada’s government scrambling to increase funding for its military and find new trade partners to resist the increasing pressure from the U.S.

Canada's Military & Shifting NATO Priorities

The Canadian Armed Forces are not structured to wage war with a global superpower. They have always focused on peacekeeping and international operations, assuming instead that NATO would guarantee Canada's security.

The Trump administration, however, quickly deprioritized its NATO commitments, with reports the U.S. plans to withdraw approximately 12,000 troops from Germany, suggesting traditional U.S. security guarantees for its allies, including Canada, may no longer be reliable.

European nations have responded to an increasingly erratic Trump administration by expanding their defense budgets and shifting to a wartime mentality. Trump pressured NATO allies to increase military spending to 5% of GDP, far beyond the current 2% target, while simultaneously reducing U.S. military commitments to Europe.

In addition to troop withdrawals, reports indicate the U.S. may cut back on tanks and A-10 aircraft and redirect military focus toward the Pacific. Meanwhile, France and the UK have deployed troops to Greenland—possibly in response to Trump’s renewed interest in annexing the territory—signaling that NATO allies are preparing for a shift in North American security dynamics.

Tariffs for Control

Canada's economy is deeply enmeshed with the United States, making it highly vulnerable to tariffs, trade restrictions, and economic coercion. The threat of heavy tariffs on Canadian goods is not a simple negotiating tactic but part of a broader strategy to weaken Canada's economy until it has no choice but to comply with U.S. demands.

Canada is scrambling for alternative trade partners, particularly in Europe and Asia, to reduce its dependence on the U.S., but this realignment will take time and require new infrastructure. In the near term, Canada remains highly exposed to economic blackmail from Washington.

In a similar fashion, Trump recently demanded Ukraine provide access to its rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. security guarantees. Ukraine, however, swiftly agreed.

The Greenland Strategy

In 2019, Trump attempted to purchase Greenland from Denmark. Greenland's vast mineral wealth and strategic location in the Arctic make it essential for U.S. interests, but Denmark refused. Trump's reaction was hostile, escalating tensions with the Danish government.

Now, with French and British troops in Greenland, it is clear the island is seen as a critical front in the shifting power balance. While the deployments are officially part of a defensive measure against Russian influence in the Arctic, they also serve as a potential counterbalance to U.S. ambitions in the region.

Trump's interest in Greenland appears to be driven by mineral extraction and port access near shipping lanes newly formed by melting Arctic sea ice. If that is the case, his economic pressure on Canada may be part of a larger strategy to consolidate U.S. control over Northern territories.

The Anschluss Parallel

In March 1938, Austria ceased to exist. Known as the Anschluss, Hitler’s annexation was swift and bloodless. Politically divided and economically weak, the Austrian government offered no resistance.

The expansion into Austria received little international backlash, normalizing Hitler’s land grabs and emboldening him to move against Czechoslovakia and later Poland. France and Britain issued condemnations but did not act. And so Austria’s industries, financial reserves, and military were absorbed into the German war machine, strengthening Germany’s economy and fueling further expansion.

Austria’s fate was not sealed overnight. Its leaders assumed their alliances would protect them but realized too late that this was not the case. If Canada suffers the same fate, Trump’s own territorial expansion will be normalized, and he will feel emboldened to move against other territories, absorbing new economic and military assets as he goes.

If Trump successfully cripples Canada’s economy and exerts control over its policies, then traditional alliances are no longer a safeguard for international peace. If NATO cannot prevent the U.S. from undermining Canada, its other allies will question their security as well. The era of U.S. soft power will end, replaced with direct imperial aggression.

The Canadian government is pushing to accelerate trade diversification, but that process may be lengthy. The country must immediately secure stronger economic agreements with the EU and Asia to mitigate Trump’s use of trade as a weapon. If Trudeau and his parliament move quickly, they can secure independence. Any delay risks being economically and politically absorbed, just as Austria was in 1938.

What If Canada Falls?

In the modern era, the idea of an American-led annexation of a developed Western democracy has been unthinkable. The United States—despite its long history of funding right-wing militias, orchestrating coups, and toppling democratically elected leaders in the name of Western interests—has avoided direct territorial expansion since the early 20th century.

But if Canada—a long-time ally, NATO member, and trading partner—is economically dominated or politically absorbed by the U.S., the global order will be permanently altered. If Canada falls, it may be the first domino in a larger push for American imperialism.

And Then What?

Mexico is equally locked into a heavily asymmetrical economic relationship with the United States. With mass deportations already escalating under Trump, along with the intensification of racist rhetoric toward immigrants and an increasingly militarized border, Mexico may soon face even harsher economic retaliation.

Meanwhile, reports have surfaced that cartels have deployed drones in skirmishes with U.S. border forces, hinting at an evolving security crisis. If Trump’s administration escalates trade pressure or introduces a more aggressive military posture at the border, Mexico could become the next flashpoint.

Once a nation as powerful as the United States embraces Nazism and begins an expansionist project, it does not stop. The logic of fascist imperialism demands constant escalation. Nazi Germany did not stop with Austria because it could not stop.

Expansion was not simply a means to an end but an ideological imperative. It was rooted in capitalism’s grow-or-die imperative and driven to its extreme by delusions of national destiny, racial supremacy, and the pathological need for conquest.

America under Trump has fully embraced that ideology. The United States is no longer just a dominant superpower—it is the Fourth Reich. As long as it remains unchecked, it will continue its expansion, dominating weaker nations with economic, political, and, eventually, military force. The question is no longer whether this is happening—it is whether anyone can stop it before it is too late.

The Future of Resistance

The notion that Donald Trump was popularly elected is a misconception. In the 2024 presidential election, 44% of Americans abstained from voting, meaning that only about one-third of the population actively voted for him.

Low voter turnout reflects widespread disillusionment with a two-party system that often presents two candidates who uphold similar policies, such as the continuation of the widely unpopular genocide in Gaza—a policy opposed by 67% of Americans. This lack of genuine choice contributes to the voter apathy and disengagement that give widely unpopular candidates like Trump an opening.

Project 2025, an alt-right governance blueprint, exemplifies the bipartisan nature of certain policy initiatives. Project 2025’s proponents have a vendetta against FEMA and aim to gut the program. In August 2024, FEMA faced a significant budget shortfall, with projections indicating a $4.3 billion deficit by the end of September.

This financial strain was exacerbated by back-to-back disasters. Hurricane Helene in August and Hurricane Milton in early October quickly drained FEMA’s available funds.

At the same time, the Biden administration notified Congress of a proposed $8 billion arms sale to Israel, including munitions for fighter jets and attack helicopters. This juxtaposition of domestic financial constraints and substantial foreign military aid has led to discussions about the prioritization of federal resources.

The American political system has masqueraded as a republic for over a century but, in many ways, functions as a de facto dictatorship. Power is concentrated among a select few, and policies are enacted without meaningful public input. Trump's administration has merely laid bare these realities, doing publicly what democrats have often done in secret.

For example, the proposal to relocate 1.5 million Palestinians to Egypt—a plan initially conceived in secrecy during prior administrations—was openly advocated by Trump, highlighting a continuity in policy across administrations.

The American left is often perceived as fragmented, primarily due to ideological divides between liberals and leftists. While the state is well-armed, there is a likely possibility that it will overextend itself, creating opportunities for organized resistance.

Currently, no large-scale revolutionary forces exist to counter U.S. imperialism domestically. However, localized acts of resistance could provide support to international movements opposing imperialism.

Elon Musk's political activities have also drawn attention. His $250 million contribution to Donald Trump’s campaign, alongside contributions to Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and the Reform Party in the U.K. have been widely reported.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, Musk made public endorsements, engaged with right-wing party leaders, and spoke at events, replete with sieg heils. This involvement has led to significant backlash, including a notable decline in Tesla's sales across Europe, as consumers react to Musk's nazism.

The delusion of American democracy has ended. Both parties orchestrated its demise, not as adversaries, but as co-conspirators, acting under the orders of ultra-wealthy elites like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Andreeson, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and, of course, AIPAC.

The collapse of democratic choice was no accident—it was the intended outcome of a system designed to serve the interests of the powerful while keeping the public distracted through the theatrics of electoral politics.

Resistance will be difficult—but what struggle against fascism has ever been easy? The question is not whether Americans can afford to fight back; can we afford not to? If Canada falls, it will not be the end but the beginning of unchecked imperial expansion. The Fourth Reich’s appetite will not be satiated with Canada.