When Justin Trudeau visited Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in November, the newly elected president’s proposal that Canada should become a US state seemed little more than a joke.
“I started to suggest that maybe there could be a trade for Vermont or California,” the Canadian prime minister told MSNBC. “He immediately decided that it was not that funny any more and we moved on to a different conversation.”
A month since Trump’s return to the White House, Trudeau’s levity has vanished. The annexation threats are “a real thing”, he was caught saying on a hot mic last week as Washington ratcheted up the rhetoric. Trudeau added that Trump had designs on Canada’s mineral wealth.
“I think Canada is going to be a very serious contender to be our 51st state,” Trump said on Thursday, referring to Trudeau as “governor”. “They need our protection.”
The breakneck pace of Trump’s bid to reshape America’s relationship with the world has shocked even the most seasoned international relations expert: from bringing North America to the brink of a trade war and gutting aid to developing nations to kick-starting negotiations with Russia over the war in Ukraine and proposing a US takeover of the Gaza strip.
But even amid the flurry of announcements, Trump’s insistence that Canada should join the union has stood out, triggering a mix of outrage and confusion, as Ottawa struggles to work out the US strategy.
Those in Trump’s orbit insist his designs over America’s northern neighbour are serious.
“People that think he’s trolling are missing the point,” said Steve Bannon, one of the architects of Trump’s initial rise to power. “The predicate for how serious it is — and I’m telling you, it is extremely serious — is about hemispheric defence.”
Bannon said the president saw the annexation of Canada as part of a strategic defence plan, tied to his demands for control over Greenland and the Panama Canal, to give the US a dominant security position stretching the length of the continent.
“He’s already said the new Great Game of the 21st century is the Arctic. It’s a great power struggle with China and Russia and we’re going to be very involved,” said Bannon.
“Formerly Canada’s most secure part was their northern border in the Arctic. It’s now their vulnerability. It’s a soft underbelly and they literally can’t compete.”
Elliott Abrams, who previously served as Trump’s special representative to Venezuela and Iran, cautioned that the remarks risked undermining US relationships with its allies but said the president had strong convictions on the issue.
“This is what Trump believes. He’s not just positioning here,” said Abrams, who also served in the administrations of George W Bush and Ronald Reagan. “The question is . . . how far he goes with it. To what extent is it, among other things, a negotiating position?”
Many see the threats as typical of Trump’s strategy — taking an outlandish position on an issue to grab attention and provide a strong hand at the outset of any negotiations.
“Trump’s style is to take a maximalist position that stretches his leverage as far as possible,” said Kevin Madden, senior partner at advisory group Penta, and a former adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
“The 51st state jibe . . . also ensures his position dominates the headlines in a way that makes it harder for his opponents, critics or negotiating competitors to break through,” he added.
“That messaging still has a core policy goal at its root foundation. The America First focus on enhancing US leverage, particularly around tariffs and trade policy, is a core belief.”
Others suggest Trump is merely needling Trudeau, a lame-duck prime minister due to be replaced as leader on March 9, and an opportunity to flex US muscle.
“This is Trump being Trump and toying with Trudeau — it’s like a bargaining chip,” said Richard Shimooka, a defence expert and senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an Ottawa-based think-tank. “While there is clear animosity, it’s more about Trudeau being in a politically weak position.”
The US National Security Council declined to provide further detail on the administration’s approach.
Representatives for Trudeau and other Canadian ministers acknowledge the matter has shifted from a flippant remark to genuine concern, but are uncertain how Trump’s threats could evolve.
The president has suggested he could employ “economic force” to coerce Canada — a tool he has deployed in recent weeks as he threatened to hit the country with tariffs over what an “invasion” of migrants and drugs at the northern border.
In response, Canada agreed to spend C$1.3bn to beef up border security and created a fentanyl tsar to tackle drug smuggling.
Trudeau also suggested stepping up defence co-operation, such as the North American Aerospace Defense Command. In 2022, Ottawa announced a C$38.6bn plan to modernise Norad capabilities over the next two decades. But none of this has stopped talk of annexation.
Trump’s threats have been met with hostility in Canada and Trudeau has repeatedly insisted there is not a “snowball’s chance in hell” of any union. A wave of patriotism has erupted across the country, with Canadians starting initiatives from buying locally-made goods to cancelling US trips.
“Bannon can say these things but in reality it is not going to happen,” said Shimooka.
Rising costs for US businesses and consumers owing to tariffs, coupled with pressures around midterm elections, should keep Trump’s ambitions in check, he added.
But in Washington, members of the Trump administration continue to insist that the president’s threats should not be dismissed.
“When the US was founded how many states did we have? And how many do we have now?” asked Ken Hassett, Trump’s National Economic Council director on CNBC.
“Is it outlandish to dream of a bigger United States? I don’t think so.”
