U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent actions, including his interest in acquiring Greenland and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, are prompting questions about potential implications for Canada. These moves follow the Trump administration’s vow to assert American dominance in the Western Hemisphere, as outlined in a new national security strategy.

Trump’s Stance on Greenland

The White House stated this week that military force remains an option to obtain Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO ally. Trump has also suggested intervention in Colombia and against Mexican drug cartels.

This raises the question of whether military force against Canada, previously dismissed as speculation, is now a possibility.

Expert Opinions on Potential U.S. Aggression

Bob Rae, former ambassador to the United Nations, suggests Canadians would be wrong to think their country is not “on the menu” for U.S. aggression.

“The Trump administration doesn’t take Canada’s sovereignty seriously,” Rae told the Globe and Mail on Tuesday.

Adam Gordon, a visiting fellow of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University, believes there is a real risk of the Trump administration using military coercion against Canada. Gordon served as a senior adviser to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and her predecessor Mélanie Joly.

“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,” Gordon told CBC News on Wednesday.

Gordon pointed to Trump’s calls for Canada to become the 51st state, the national security strategy, and the administration’s attitude toward international law.

Counterarguments and Alternative Perspectives

Other observers caution against concluding that Trump’s actions elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere put Canada in the crosshairs of U.S. military action.

Gerald Butts, vice-chair of the Eurasia Group and former adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, predicts the administration will seek leverage over Canada in trade talks and potentially influence Canadian politics. He does not anticipate military action.

“I don’t think we’re going to see any kind of kinetic intervention in Canadian life, but we’re going to see a lot of threats, and we’re going to see a lot of seeding of pro-American activity by the Americans in Canadian life,” Butts told the CBC podcast Front Burner this week.

Arctic Sovereignty and U.S. Interests

Christopher Hernandez-Roy, deputy director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the U.S. push to control Greenland has implications for Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic.

• Trump’s stated reason for wanting to acquire Greenland is to deter U.S. adversaries in the region, chiefly Russia and China.
• Increased U.S. military presence in and around Greenland could draw in more Russian and Chinese vessels.
• This could trigger the U.S. to push for increased use of the Northwest Passage, further pressuring Canada’s sovereignty over its Arctic waters.

Hernandez-Roy suggests Canada needs to demonstrate its ability to patrol its own Arctic to avoid the U.S. feeling the need to intervene.

Navigating Tensions

Imran Bayoumi, associate director with the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, doubts there is imminent risk of U.S. military action towards Canada. He suggests the U.S. should work with Canada, Greenland, and Denmark to build an allied approach to Arctic security.

“The U.S. approach toward Greenland is not constructive. There are ways to bolster co-operation and partnership without threats,” Bayoumi told CBC News.

Why This Matters

The debate surrounding Canada’s vulnerability highlights the complex relationship between the two countries under the Trump administration. While direct military action may seem unlikely to some, the potential for increased pressure on trade, Arctic sovereignty, and political influence remains a significant concern. Canada must navigate these challenges strategically to protect its interests and maintain its sovereignty in a changing geopolitical landscape.