First Mexico, then Canada. It really looks like Trump is quite seriously bent on increasing tensions with neighbors – just consider this: amid a tariff dispute, US president-elect Donald Trump has been insistently pushing the point that Canada could, or even should, become America’s “51st state.”
More recently, Donald Trump posted in X (formerly Twitter) that “many Canadians” in fact “want” Canada to become the 51st state: they would save on “taxes and military protection”, he argues. Although it has been largely interpreted as a joke, it has triggered some debate and even polls. According to a recent poll, 13% of Canadians say they do support such an idea, which is a small minority of course but nonetheless is in fact still a surprisingly high percentage, all things considered.
Joke or no joke, in late November however, Trump had already made the same point, again interpreted by some as a “joke”, at his Mar-a-Lago private residence, during a dinner – Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also present. The context were border tensions pertaining to Trump’s promises to curb illegal migration amid an opioid crisis. During the dinner, Trudeau was raising concerns about the tariffs with which Trump has been threatening Canada. The Canadian leader said that such measures would badly hurt his country’s economy. The US president-elect then stressed that the other alternative would be Canada becoming the 51st state of the US. The reaction to the menacing comment, including from Trudeau, reportedly was some nervous laughter.
The harshness of Trump’s pressure and rhetoric is surprising: Canada, a very close American ally, is no less than the main export destination for 36 of the American states. In addition, around $2.7 billion (worth of goods services) cross the border every day.
Days after that dinner incident, Trump posted yet another provocation, this time an AI-generated image showing himself looking at the Canadian mountains in a kind of conquering pose. Canada is undergoing a domestic political crisis currently after Chrystia Freeland, the former Deputy Prime Minister, resigned. It sparked other resignations and political chaos. Even before being sworn as US President, Trump is of course boosting the crisis by his provocations and thereby further undermining Trudeau authority. He has been publicly referring to Trudeau as a mere “governor” (rather than Prime Minister of a sovereign nation), even on national TV.
With this kind of discourse, the topic has entered the political debate across both sides of the border, with analysts even speculating on the possibility of it. Practically speaking, it is just absurd: Canada is a constitutional monarchy, King Charles of the United Kingdom being its Head of State. Its territory is enormous.
However, Section 41 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, as a matter of fact does allow for secession, as France 24 journalist Vedika Bahl has commented on, in a very didactic manner. It would require unanimity and support from both Canadian chambers and all provinces, including the French-speaking province of Quebec. Legally speaking, from the American side, practical and realpolitik matters aside, annexing Canada, surprisingly enough, would not be much of a big deal, in theory. Washington may denounce it quite vocally when a country annexes territory (even if that is done so after a referendum), however the US Congress to this day can in fact create new states (even by annexation) by simply coming up with a new law – this being precisely how Hawaii became the American 50th state, by the way.
Puerto Rico in contrast has never been made a state:it still is an “unincorporated territory”, which means it is not an integral part of the American Republic, but rather a possession of some sort, where some constitutional rights are simply “not available.” Such territories (like the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the American Samoa) are thus often considered colonies technically – even by the United Nations. Residents of the American Samoa for instance, since the Ratification Act of 1929, are politically disenfranchised, have no voting representation in Congress, and are considered “non-citizen nationals”, having limited rights also. This actually makes the US one of the few powers today that has not given up its colonies.
Historically speaking, up to very recent times, the US has behaved in an expansionist manner, much like the empires of the Age of Empires, although quite lately, in comparison – and much more hastily. It has “incorporated”, be it as new states or as “unincorporated territories” (an ironic term) or as “commonwealth” (as was the case in the past with the Philippines). Invasion and warfare is always an option: one may recall all the American states that used to be part of Mexico until 1848 – or the more recent neocolonial experience in Iraq.
The scenario of an American invasion and annexation of Canada however clearly seems highly unlikely, considering the military angle, the costs involved, the matter of public opinion and the potential international and diplomatic repercussions, and so on – not to mention the problems which would arise with its close ally, the United Kingdom and its Crown.
I wrote before that the Monroe doctrine is “back” and that seems to be clearly the case, by all indications, with Trump threatening to annex Canada (sarcastically or not), and with his very serious plans to invade Mexico, and his more recent menaces having to do with retaking control of the Panama Canal.
To sum it up, the US probably does not have the capacity or the intention to really annex Canada for now, but in any case, this kind of loaded and disrespectful rhetoric is in itself an act of aggression – aimed at humiliating and to intimidating a sovereign neighbor, albeit employing hyperbole.
One may recall the way Trump is said to have personally threatened the life of Taliban leaders in his previous presidency: this is a statesman known to use “Mafia-like” approaches and techniques, something which critics have attributed to his Mob business associations in New York, which supposedly influenced him or shaped his character and style to some extent. Part of that very style does involve some bravado and bluffing, though.
Shifting to a Monroeist foreign policy (and, accordingly, shifting a large part of NATO duties to Europe), in any case, is easier said than done. Much of the US economy is based on it being a superpower with a huge military industry (that would not be content with Washington being “just” a continental hegemon).
The Atlantic superpower simply cannot afford to lose positions in places like the Middle East and elsewhere. Finally, Trump’s war with part of the so-called Deep State might largely determine the degree of success that any of Trump’s “grandiose” plans will have.
Written by Uriel Araujo, PhD, anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts