Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Special interview: Canadians head to the polls — and into the Trump vortex
With just over a week until the Canadian election, GZERO’s Tasha Kheiriddin sat down with two senior advisors at Eurasia Group to get their take: Vice Chairman Gerald Butts, who is a former advisor to Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and John Baird, former Cabinet minister under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Here’s what they had to say:
Why is Canada in an election campaign? “The prime minister needed a mandate from the people, not just his party,” said Butts, referring to newly minted PM Mark Carney, who took over from Trudeau in March.
Baird was more blunt: “Carney wanted to separate himself from the NDP–Trudeau era.” Which he seems to be doing: Under his watch the Liberals have soared nearly 20 points in the polls and are currentlypredicted to form a government.
Who are the main players? Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, presents “a safe, fiscally responsible concept” in Butts’ view. His main rival, populist Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, brings “a fresh approach” according to Baird, who served with Poilievre in Parliament. He sees Poilievre as “best able to speak to US President Donald Trump and his administration.”
What’s really on the ballot? Themain issue is who can most effectively deal with Trump, whose tariffs and musings about making Canada the “51st state” have enraged Canadians. So far, voters givetop marks to Carney on that question. But whichever party wins, Butts and Baird agree that the next PM faces a hostile White House. “We’re starting from scratch,” warned Butts, citing the breakdown in what used to be one of the world’s closest bilateral relationships.
Minority or majority? Both men think that a minority government would be a bad outcome. “You don’t want to be checking in with a party leader with 8% in the polls before talking to the president of the United States,” said Butts, referring to Canada’s smaller parties, the NDP and Bloc Québécois. “It’s the tail wagging the dog,” added Baird.
Advice to the next PM for dealing with Trump? “Don’t get ‘Zelenskied’ — and be prepared,” they agreed. And to the victor go the spoils, even if that victor will take over at one of the most fraught moments in Canada’s history.
“The worst day in government,” Baird quipped, “is still better than the best day in opposition.”
Watch the full interview above.
US-Canada trade war helps Mark Carney's election prospects
With recent tensions between Zelensky and Washington, how likely are the Saudi-hosted peace talks to yield real progress?
Well, we'll find out real soon. Zelensky has certainly made his efforts to make nice on the critical minerals deal, on apologizing to the Trump White House for a meeting that frankly he has very little to apologize for, and that certainly has helped with getting this engagement going. Also, he's not attending personally, rather, his key envoys and advisors meeting with Secretary of State Rubio and National Security Adviser Waltz. I suspect that the meetings will end up being just fine, but they are unlikely to lead to a ceasefire because what the Ukrainians are prepared to accept, the Russians are not close to accepting. So either Trump is going to have to be willing to take some time, bring it to the Russians and see that the Russians are not playing full ball, or he's going to have to throw the Ukrainians under the bus more and make greater demands that they're not prepared to accept. I don't think either of those things are likely to happen today, but that's I think, the direction of travel.
Are we on the cusp of a nuclear proliferation era as Poland and Germany talk of acquiring nuclear weapons?
Germany's talking more about sharing in the nuclear umbrella with France. Poland's talking about getting its own. These things are all harder. They will take longer than these countries have. It's not like France's nuclear umbrella is deep or easily extendable. In order to have anyone believe credibly that a French deterrent would apply to other countries, a lot of things have to happen in terms of coordination and infrastructure and building up those capabilities that will take frankly years. So, I think it's important that these conversations are happening. I think that many countries around the world are moving towards establishing their own nuclear capabilities in, around, the Middle East. I can certainly see over time as Iran gets closer, the Saudis thinking about it, the Turks thinking about it, in Asia, South Korea and Japan. In Europe, a number of countries needing to have collective security because they don't feel like the Americans can provide for them. But I don't think those things are happening overnight. The global order is changing. It is really past the tipping point, but these things are slow moving processes.
Does Justin Trudeau's replacement, Mark Carney, have a shot of winning Canada's general election?
Certainly does, and three months ago would've had no shot at all. There's been an extraordinary bounce back for the Liberal Party, in part because they're now represented by someone that is not an incumbent. Think about what would've happened in the US if it hadn't been Biden or Kamala Harris, but had been an outsider after general primary, better shot of winning. That's exactly what the Canadians have now done. Trudeau forced down, Chrystia Freeland, his deputy prime minister, getting 8% in the Liberal caucus vote, and Carney getting almost 86%. So he's a centrist. He's in much better position to give a serious run against Pierre Poilievre of the Conservatives. The big question is how is Trump going to respond? Because on the one hand, it's very easy for Trump to now say, "Trudeau's gone because of me, and I'm now willing to work with somebody who is more reasonable," and the markets would certainly appreciate that. On the other hand, short of him doing that, and I think it's unlikely that he's going to reach out and extend a hand to the Canadians, then Trump beating on Canada more gives Carney a better shot of winning because he's the guy that can manage an economic crisis and also because the Canadians are so united in their anger with the United States, kind of like Mexico is right now, kind of like a number of European countries are right now. So Trump is definitely a uniter, just not inside the US, more inside other countries.
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waves as he leaves after testifying at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Nov. 25, 2022.
Au revoir, Justin Trudeau
But Trudeau’s tenure was also marked by multiple controversies, including the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the WE Charity affair, and accusations of foreign interference. He failed to make major progress on Indigenous issues and his signature environmental policy, the national carbon tax, became a lightning rod for Conservatives. His generous pandemic aid programsdoubled the national debt, and his invocation of the Emergency Act to remove the so-called “Freedom Convoy” from Ottawa in 2022 was found to beoverreach by the courts.
By late last year, Trudeau’s Liberals had sunk so low in the polls that most assumed a Conservative government was inevitable. Since Trudeauannounced his resignation in early January, however, his party’s numbers have soared, due both to the prospect of a new leader and antipathy towards Trump’s comments about making Canada the “51st state.” Ironically, Trump gave the unpopular Trudeau a last-minute shot at redemption, rebranding himself as the champion of Canadian values and defending democracy at home and abroad. A high note to leave on after a tumultuous term.Canada at risk: Janice Stein warns of erosion of sovereignty under Trump
Janice Stein, founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto, is one of Canada’s most important public intellectuals, with decades of experience working at the highest level with policymakers in Canada, the United States, and around the world.
GZERO’s Stephen Maher spoke to her on March 5, the morning after Donald Trump’s address to Congress, to discuss the president’s annexation threats and Canada’s economic, political, and military vulnerability. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Maher: It appears that Canada is in a position of great vulnerability because of the new relationship between Washington and Moscow. What do you think?
Stein: Canada faces a challenge of unprecedented proportions. The vulnerability comes because we share a continent with the United States and Mexico, and there are enormous disparities of power between the United States and its two neighbors. We live next door to the most powerful dynamic economy in the world and the strongest military in the world. Geography is not destiny, but it comes very, very close.
You look at the near neighbors of other great powers, and you get a sense of what it’s like to live next to one of these giants in a period where they are looking outward, acquisitively at their neighbors. That’s what we’re seeing now in the Trump administration, and that, more than anything else, is what makes it risky for us. If there were no softening of US attitudes toward Russia, but Trump still talked about Canada and about Mexico the way he does now, we would still be at enormous risk.
I have been talking to experts about Trump and the Canada relationship for a long time, and they have all been wrong, and for good reasons, but they have all been suffering from normalcy bias. Why?
All of us had some normalcy bias, including me. There were boundaries to how far I thought Donald Trump would go, and I was wrong. He’s gone much farther than I thought he would go. So it’s important to think about the worst case.
What would the worst case be for Canada? A version of these 25% tariffs would stay. There would be tariffs on top of the 25% on aluminum, steel, and lumber, and then layer on top of that, whatever this administration means by reciprocal tariffs, and the president was explicit in his address to Congress that that would include and account for non-tariff barriers, such as, for example, the Goods and Services Tax.
Well, if you do the math, you can get up to 50% or 60% without trying very hard. That would deliver a crushing blow to the Canadian economy. And that’s what the prime minister was warning about when he was talking about the use of economic force to make us weak and vulnerable.
I don’t think we can take that kind of catastrophic scenario off the table. We need to think about it, and we need to do our best to make ourselves as resilient as possible against it, although it’s a tough hill to climb.
Do you think we will be forced to accept new limits on our sovereignty in the next four years?
Sovereignty is an evolving concept. There’s mythical sovereignty, where the state has full control over its territory and the population that lives within its territory. But it’s never been absolute, and it waxes and wanes. We signed the auto pact long before we signed the free trade agreement. So sovereignty is always a question of degree. When we had the free trade debate in this country, we debated whether we would be able to retain cultural sovereignty and sovereignty over health care if we agreed to a much deeper trading regime. We’ve managed to do that. Are we as sovereign today as we were in 1980? No, but nor is anybody else. So yes, I can see where we are going to have to partner in different ways — and that word is well chosen on my part — we’re going to have to co-invest in different ways. We’re going to have to co-produce in different ways, because we live next to the most dynamic economy in the world that is led by a president who thinks in regional terms, who thinks big powers make the rules and their near neighbors take the rules.
I keep thinking about Thucydides, who wrote, “The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.” Is that Canada’s position now? Will we have to suffer what we must?
Yes, because we live next door to the United States, which has a president who talks like President McKinley at the end of the 19th century, who is openly aggressive toward near neighbors. I think the prime minister was right when he used the words trade war, and the president said it himself: I will not use military force, but I will use economic force to coerce you.
It is economic warfare. We have to understand that, and that’s what all of us got wrong, including me. We expected a version of this, but what we did not anticipate was that it would be framed within a broader context of economic war, and that became apparent during that first trip to Mar-a-Lago when Trump talked about Canada becoming the 51st state. And he understands it’s not coming through the use of military force and formal annexation. But, again, pay attention to what he said Tuesday night about the Panama Canal and Greenland: We’re going to do it one way or the other.
He is not quite saying that about Canada.
It is not in the same category. And that should be some small comfort to all of us. I listened very carefully to the speech. We are not in the category of Panama and Greenland.
I was impressed by Claudia Sheinbaum, who I thought, in contrast to Trudeau during the first tariff showdown, was able to keep her cool, and she didn’t have regional leaders undercutting her.
Let me talk about the challenges leaders face when they deal with Donald Trump because a courageous leader like Volodymyr Zelensky found himself in an absolutely unprecedented situation in the White House [last Friday]. So let’s talk about the difference between Zelensky and Sheinbaum. Sheinbaum has exercised iron self-discipline. She does not rise to the bait. She’s very deliberate. She makes it absolutely clear that Mexico is going to retaliate, but she always puts some time between when she says — in very deliberate, very controlled language — we are going to retaliate, and the date at which that retaliation is going to take place.
Zelensky was deliberately baited in that meeting, and he, tragically for him, took the bait and argued with the president and with the vice president. And very interestingly, there were two reactions in Canada to that. One was, “I’m really glad that somebody had the courage to stand up to that bully.” That is a very human reaction, and it actually channels the anger that Canadians are feeling toward Trump. The other was, “What a disaster. What a disaster.” He needed to sit there stone-faced and not rise to the bait because there’s a larger picture here.
That’s an object lesson for all Canadian leaders going forward, and it’s going to be very hard on the Canadian public. The outgoing prime minister did that for four years, with one exception, in Donald Trump’s first term. All of us are going to have to watch our leader, whoever it is, sit there stone-faced, not rise to the bait, and think about the longer term and what has to be done for this country, and not provide the emotional satisfaction of arguing back, even though it’s entirely justified.
So, in the election ahead, Canadians are going to have a choice between someone (Pierre Poilievre) who gets MAGA and might be better able to work with the Americans, and someone (Mark Carney) who will likely have more of a focus on maintaining sovereignty. Do you think that that’s the central question?
I think a ballot question is: How worried are you about Donald Trump? If you’re reasonably sanguine, and you have faith in American institutions, and you see this nightmare as a two-year thing, you’re in one world. And I would suspect then you’re going to consider Poilievre on the basis of the campaign on which he ran before Donald Trump. And you’re going to say, “Is this important to the Canadian future?”
But if you’re really worried about what Trump is going to do, if you’re scared, if you’re deeply worried about the future of the economy, you’re going to say, “Well, there’s a candidate who spent his life managing crises in the economy.” I think it’s going to come down to that. I think it’s all about the level of fear and anxiety.
Trump brings Canadian Liberals back from the dead
Mark Carney laid out his case for governing Canada on Saturday during a friendly interview with former Tony Blair spin doctor Alastair Campbell and short-lived Trump spokesman Anthony Scaramucci on "The Rest Is Politics" podcast.
Carney is likely to become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada on March 9 and then take over from Justin Trudeau for two weeks before calling an election in which he must convince Canadians that he, not Pierre Poilievre, is the right person to handle President Donald Trump.
He is taking a harder line than the Conservative leader.
“What had been our closest friend and ally now is just our neighbor,” he said. “The Americans are just our neighbor. It’s geography as opposed to kinship.”
In a flag-festooned rally in Ottawa on the same day, Poilievre struck a different tone. He said Canada “will bear any burden and pay any price to protect our sovereignty and independence” — while also extending an olive branch.
“We’ve always loved you as neighbors and friends. There is no country with whom we would rather share a border — the longest undefended border in the world.”
Not a professional politician
Poilievre is not free to take as hard a line as Carney because about half of his party’s supporters approve of Trump, and his approach to politics is influenced by the MAGA movement.
Carney attacked Poilievre for that in the podcast.
“Do you really believe in these elements of Canada, or have you been mouthing MAGA talking points with a Canadian twist for the past three years, and don’t buy into them and wouldn’t protect them?”
Campbell, a savvy political messenger, gave him some friendly advice.
“I think if you are a full-time experienced politician, you left that hanging, Mark,” he said. “I’d have gone straight for the jugular. You were setting it up and then you pulled your punch.”
“You’re right,” Carney said with a grimace and a smile. “Fair enough.”
Campbell, who wants Carney to win, is right. Carney is not a “full-time experienced politician.” He doesn’t know how to land a punch. Poilievre, in contrast, has an unerring instinct for his opponent’s weaknesses, and never misses an opening.
No longer a slam dunk
The election ahead was supposed to be a slam dunk. Poilievre has been leading in the polls for three years, usually by double digits. The 9-year-old Trudeau government had wandered to the left of the mainstream, leaving Canadians fed up with the cost of living, a housing crisis, mismanaged immigration, and an activist, woke approach to social issues.
All the pieces were lined up for a massive Conservative election victory until Trump started threatening to annex Canada. In the fallout, the unpopular Trudeau was forced to resign, and Carney — who had been biding his time on the sidelines — stepped forward.
The former governor of central banks in Canada and the UK, Carney has unparalleled economic and crisis-management credentials. Canadians have taken notice. He is raising money and filling halls. The one issue where the Liberals have a brand advantage — managing the relationship with the Americans — is now likely to dominate political debate.
New challenge for Poilievre
Poilievre is still ahead in the polls, but the Liberals have surged. A poll last week from Leger, Canada’s best-rated pollster, found that the electorate would be evenly divided when Carney is leader.
The result was not a complete shock to Leger because a poll the week before found Quebec’s leaderless provincial Liberals surging at the expense of nationalist Quebec parties, says Leger Vice President Sébastien Dallaire.
“There clearly is a generalized Donald Trump effect, so the voters are galvanizing, trying to show national unity against what’s happening in the United States, against Donald Trump more specifically, and parties whose brands are more aligned with defending national unity are certainly benefiting from this.”
Poilievre had planned for the election of 2025 to be a referendum against Trudeau and the carbon tax, but Trudeau is headed for the exit and Carney has promised to kill the consumer carbon tax.
The parties are converging on policies as Liberals discard unpopular Trudeau-era positions and wrap themselves in the flag after a decade in which they held more ambiguous feelings. Poilievrecan complain about their death-bed conversion, but voters are focused on the future, so he has to thread the needle, backing his country against American threats while also not sanctioning the Liberals’ response.
“You want to be heard, but you don’t want to be seen to be a bit tone-deaf or out of touch with what’s happening,” says Dallaire. “So that’s the big, big challenge for Pierre Poilievre right now. And it goes a little bit against his style of politics as well, to find that softer tone a little bit.”
Trump, who seems to despise Trudeau, has thrown the Liberal Party a lifeline — and increased the possibility that the United States will face an unfriendly new government on its northern border this spring.
Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre; Mark Carney, former Governor of the Banks of England and Canada; and Canada's former Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.
Hot heads, cold comfort: How Trump is upending the race in Canada
There’s an old saying: “If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.” With the changing of the guards in both the US and Canada, where are these two countries headed?
The short answer? They’re headed for a hot trade war, one made hotter by Donald Trump’s threats to take over Canada by escalating counter-threats from patriotic Canadian leaders who are locked in their own election cycle. The political barometer is rising.
This has upended conventional wisdom about the political landscape in Canada, where the Liberals are in a leadership race (former Banks of Canada and England Governor Mark Carney announced his leadership bid in Edmonton today), and a federal election is likely to kick off at the end of March.
Just weeks ago, it was all about Justin Trudeau and his legacy. The Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, have been up in the polls, with a lead ranging from 20 to 25 points. That may well hold, but the election is no longer only about Trudeau. It is also about Trump’s threat to take over Canada and which leader has the best response.
Outside threats have a way of healing some internal divisions and, already, we’ve seen two long-time former prime ministers, Stephen Harper, a conservative, and Jean Chretien, a Liberal, speak out forcefully against Trump’s threat. That catalyzed all political leaders to boost their own tough patriotic talk aspolls show the vast majority of Canadians reject Trump’s expansionist dream.
A common outside threat doesn’t help an opposition party looking to focus on domestic issues, but it also creates new internal divisions.
For example, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford believes Canada must retaliate against the US with every weapon possible, including cutting energy supplies, while Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says cutting off energy exports will spark a national unity crisis. She wants it off the table. Smith went to visit President-elect Trump in Mar-a-Lago to get an exemption for Alberta energy, where she was joined by the self-appointed champion of Trump’s Canadian union strategy, Kevin O’Leary.
Will Poilievre side with Smith on the energy issue, and if so, does that risk being linked to O’Leary, who openly supports an economic union between the US and Canada? Or, will a new Liberal leader side with Ford and drive the old East vs. West internal tensions at a time when unity is needed?
The Canadian federal election cycle and the Liberal leadership race are now being driven by three factors:
Change. The Economy. And Trump.
All of Canada’s leadership candidates are pitching themselves as a change from Trudeau, especially the Liberal contenders, which is a harder case to make than it is for Poilievre.
On Monday, Mark Carneysoft launched his campaign on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” calling himself an “outsider” and talking about his long economic experience in dealing with serious disruptions like the 2008 financial collapse. (Disclosure: Carney is a close family friend, and Diana Fox-Carney is an adviser at Eurasia Group, our parent company). Former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland is also expected to launch her bid, with reports saying she will try to position herself as a change candidate by scrapping the carbon tax, a policy she long championed that has become controversial.
So defining yourself as a change candidate is vital. When it comes to the economy, inflation and home prices are still crucial to the domestic agenda, but will these drop back as the impact of the Trump tariffs is felt? Expect the tariffs to dominate the economic agenda if they come next week.
Does changing the focus of the upcoming federal election to an outside threat change the current polls? That will be the most critical question in the next Canadian federal election. Trump is now the most disruptive and important political figure in Canada, and every day he makes that more clear.
For example, as the California fires raged, the president-elect talked covetously about water from Canada, claiming – erroneously – that water from Canada would have prevented the California fires. “When I was President, I demanded that this guy, the governor (of California), accept the water coming from the north, from way up in Canada,” Trump told Newsmax, likely referring to the Columbia River. “It flows down right through Los Angeles … They would have had so much water they wouldn’t have known what to do with it. You would have never had the fires.”
Like Trump’s claims about the US subsidizing Canada to the tune of $100 billion – most recently debunked by economist Jim Stanford inthis report from the Center for Future Work – this is provocative but false. The Columbia River flows through Washington state and parts of Oregon before emptying into the Pacific Ocean, but it never reaches Los Angeles. And this water issue isn’t some new thing either. In 1961, the US and Canada signed theColumbia River Treaty, a treaty that has been under renegotiation since 2018. Those 15 rounds of negotiations have never included bringing water to LA.
Still, these kinds of jabs, taunts, and threats make Trump the leading opposition figure in Canada, the person changing the direction of politics. Every leader in Canada – whether they like it or not – is now forced to run primarily against Trump, not Trudeau.
Trump wants something, but likely not a 51st state
It has been a long time since the United States got any bigger.
In the 19th century, the American governing class believed in Manifest Destiny — that the country should govern the whole continent, spreading democracy and capitalism — and the young republic acquired Alaska and much of Mexico. Recently, though, Americans have seemed happy with their territorial limits.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump signaled that this may be about to change. In a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, the soon-to-be president expressed the desire to acquire Greenland, reacquire the Panama Canal — by force, if necessary — and use “economic force” to acquire Canada.
Observers do not think he can seriously intend to absorb his northern neighbor, but it’s hard to be entirely confident.
Trump has been teasingly calling Justin Trudeau “governor” for weeks and cracking jokes about making Canada the 51st US state, but his tone on Tuesday was different. He sounded serious.
Trump referred to the Canada-US border as an “artificially drawn line” and complained about the cost of the relationship with the United States.
“We don’t need their cars,” he said. “You know, they make 20% of our cars. We don’t need that. I’d rather make them in Detroit. We don’t need their cars. We don’t need their lumber. We have massive fields of lumber. We don’t need their lumber. We don’t need their dairy products. We have more than they have.”
Trump said he would impose “very serious tariffs on Mexico and Canada,” and complained about drugs and migrants crossing both borders.
Since Trump first threatened to hit both countries with tariffs in November, Canadians have shown signs of distress. Premiers, fearing the impact on exports to the United States, have urged Ottawa to cooperate on the border, and Trudeau flew down to Mar-a-Lago to kick-start talks. Canada rushed to present a border plan. But even as they sought to placate Trump, the president-elect increased the intensity of his rhetoric.
Snowball’s chance …
After Tuesday’s news conference, Canadian leaders responded by telling Trump that Canada is not interested in joining the United States — an idea that is just not that popular.
“There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States,” Trudeau tweeted.
“Canada will never be the 51st state,” tweeted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. “Period.”
“Cut the crap, Donald,” tweeted the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh. “No Canadian wants to join you.
Canadian commentators also expressed that they were shocked and appalled by Trump’s suggestion.
South of the border, though, Trump’s supporters were cheering him on. Matt Walsh, Jack Posobiec, and Jesse Waters all want to conquer Canada.
It is hard to know how seriously to take any of this.
How serious is he?
Trump’s complaints about Canada seem manufactured. Little fentanyl comes across the northern border. The $100 billion trade deficit that Trump gripes about is largely the result of oil and gas exports, which help keep US gas prices low at the pumps. If the Americans don’t want it, Canada could find other markets. Imposing tariffs would wreck the Canadian economy, but it would also damage American interests, especially if Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on, for example, Florida orange juice.
But some well-connected people are rattled by Trump’s talk. Could he plan to wreak havoc with the Canadian economy? Will he try to divide and conquer by offering oil-rich Alberta the chance to join its biggest market, creating a Donbas on the 49th parallel? Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee joked that the United States might like to take Alberta and leave the rest.
But it doesn’t seem like the MAGA movement would want Canada. Its left-leaning voters would make it hard for any future Republican to win the presidency. English Canadians have been struggling to accommodate prickly French Canadians since the country was founded.
What does MAGA want? So this doesn’t look like a practical proposal, and in the same news conference, Trump sounded unhinged, opining that windmills are driving whales crazy, for example.
The best-informed observers doubt that he is serious about annexing Canada.
“I think he is rattling cages so that he can expand the boundary of acceptable outcomes,” says Eurasia Group Vice Chairman Gerald Butts, who, as a senior adviser to Trudeau, negotiated with Trump. “Something like, sorry we screwed up your auto industry and dairy market, but at least you still have a country.”
“Trump’s threats against Canada seem less than serious as of now, though his comments about Panama and Greenland should not be dismissed,” says Clayton Allen, Eurasia Group’s US director. “Those are a clear effort to expand the range of potential actions and have in-built strategic benefits which Trump or those in his orbit view seriously.”
“He’s negotiating like a real estate developer negotiates,” says Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security. “He sees a bunch of land and thinks it would be really cool to have his name on it, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.”
“Trump is softening his targets up for negotiations to come,” says Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group. “He’s obviously serious about getting concessions on trade issues and the border, and he’s very happy to continue poking where he finds weakness.”
He has found it in Ottawa. Trudeau, who announced his resignation on Monday, could not be weaker. For the next few months, most of his best people will be occupied by the race to succeed him, and then whomever they choose will likely lose an election to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Until then, Trudeau is an unpopular lame duck. The last time Trump was president, Trudeau managed to drive a hard bargain as the two countries negotiated the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.
This time, Trump should have an easier time getting whatever it is he wants, and Canadians had better hope that does not include their sovereignty.
Trump, Trudeau, and the art of the deal
Donald Trump, whatever else you might say about him, has a sense of humor.
“It was a pleasure to have dinner the other night with Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada,” he posted at midnight on Monday. “I look forward to seeing the Governor again soon so that we may continue our in depth talks on Tariffs and Trade, the results of which will be truly spectacular for all!”
Trudeau, on the other hand, is a straight man.
“I think there’s a number of folks in different countries, and I won’t point out any particular one, where folks are going to be wondering about the choice they maybe made in elections,” he said earnestly in Halifax on Monday. “Let’s not be that kind of country in Canada … Let’s not fall into an easy trap of voting for change for the worse.”
Trudeau followed that with a lament Tuesday about Kamala Harris’ defeat, which led to a nasty attack by Trump supporter Elon Musk, who predicted Trudeau — whom he called a “tool” — would soon be gone.
The Trump team has decided to make Trudeau a target for pro-wrestling-style trash talk, and Trudeau is ill-equipped to respond in kind because Canadians are rattled by Trump’s threats and have little confidence in their unpopular prime minister. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, not Trudeau, threatened to cut off energy exports to the US after Trudeau met with Canadian provincial leaders on Wednesday.
Trump has all the cards
Trudeau said it would be “a little more challenging” to deal with Trump this time than last, when they together negotiated a trade agreement, but that is an understatement.
Eight years ago, when Trump took office for the first time, Trudeau had an approval rating of 50%, the Conservative opposition was in disarray, provincial leaders were mostly cooperative, and as few as 15% of Canadians approved of Trump.
As Trump gets ready to take office again, 26% of Canadians approve of him, compared with only 23% who approve of Trudeau. Yes, you read that right: In Canada, Trump is more popular than Trudeau.
In 2016, Trudeau was seen as glamorous. Now, he is the target of derision from conservatives in Canada, the United States, and around the world, a poster boy for the kind of woke liberalism that is in retreat everywhere.
This time, Trump holds all the cards, and Trudeau is in no position to bluff.
When Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian (and Mexican) imports if Canada doesn’t stop migrants and drugs from crossing the border, Canadian Conservatives urged the prime minister to take action immediately, proposed kicking Mexico out of the long-standing Three Amigos trade pact — do whatever he can, immediately — to prevent Trump from wrecking the Canadian economy.
What Trump wants
This is how Trump operates, says Christopher Sands, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
“Part of his negotiating tactic is to open with a threat, underneath which comes a request,” Sands says. “And with the first term it was, ‘I’m going to tear up NAFTA.’ We all ran in circles for a while, and then it became, ‘Well, unless Canada and Mexico come to the table and agree to negotiate to fix it.’ And in the end, that was the most important part of the message.”
Trump is a New York property developer, long accustomed to theatrical public negotiations.
“My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward,” Trump (or his ghostwriter) wrote in his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.” “I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases, I still end up with what I want.”
The problem for Canadians is that it is not yet clear what Trump wants, except to dunk on Trudeau. He has said that he wants Canada to do more to stop migrants and fentanyl crossing into the United States, but the scale of the problem at the northern border is a tiny fraction of the problem facing the southern border.
Telegraphing chaos
Tyler Meredith, who was the lead economic adviser to Trudeau until last year, thinks Trump is trying to establish Canada as a problem because the northern border will be the scene of chaotic events when Trump starts deporting migrants.
“I think Canada has been pulled into that in part because he’s focused on the problem vis-à-visMexico, but he’s also thinking about it in the Canadian context because he knows that some of those people that may be deported, or who will self-deport as asylum claimants, are going to end up in Canada,” he says. “So he’s kind of saying, ‘Look, be ready, because I’m about to do this, and I don’t want to be the one blamed for it, because I’ve given you sufficient warning.’”
Meredith thinks a tighter border may not be what Trump really wants — increased defense spending and changes to the USMCA trade agreement are likely what he will get around to eventually.
That could be painful for Canada. Trump’s appointments signal anything but business as usual. Robert Lighthizer, who provided a steady hand as Trump’s trade representative last time, is out. Peter Navarro, who in 2018 said “there’s a special place in hell” for Trudeau, is in.
The Canadians will be looking to start serious talks with calm officials, like Lighthizer, but may instead find themselves dealing with more volatile people, like Navarro, who will take their cues from the trash-talking commander in chief.
Trudeau knows that his only chance of political survival hinges on managing this file properly, and it’s ultimately in Trump’s political interest to keep the trucks moving across the border, but Trump has the opportunity and, seemingly, the desire to keep bullying Trudeau until they work out a deal.