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 }}
A member of German army Bundeswehr exercises during a presentation to German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius during his visit to the airborne brigade of German army Bundeswehr in Saarlouis, Germany, September 17, 2024
Could Europe replace the US military?
Earlier this week, Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, made an astounding declaration: “The Americans … are indifferent to the fate of Europe,” he said. “Europeans must … ensure that we are at least capable of defending the European continent on our own.”
To be clear, the US hasn’t stepped away from Europe’s security just yet. But Trump 3.0’s aggressive posture towards the EU – on trade, free speech, and Ukraine – has made the specter of abandonment feel real enough.
The EU would need to replace some 300,000 US troops, as well as hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces, according to one report. The yearly cost would be some $260 billion.
Such a rapid increase would need to be financed initially by borrowing. But that could clash with EU, and country-level, debt limits meant to avoid financial crises. In Germany, for example, Merz on Tuesday ruled out weakening the constitutionally mandated debt limits – but he is also reportedly working with the outgoing parliament to create a massive new defense fund.
In the UK, meanwhile, PM Keir Starmerannounced further cuts to the British foreign aid budget to boost defense spending to 3% of GDP by the middle of the next decade (from 2.3% today.)
What would “defense” mean? Holding Russia at bay in Ukraine would be a big focus. But beyond that, naming the threats that Western European countries face directly could be contentious. Keep an eye out for this Sunday’s emergency EU defense summit, which will touch on just that.
The bottom line: For decades, the US has underwritten Europe’s security. But Europe is now being forced to answer questions it never expected to ask.
Graphic Truth: Cutting military spending … in half?
Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launcher takes part in the Victory Day military parade general rehearsal on the Red Square in Moscow, Russia, on May 5, 2024.
Hard Numbers: New records in global defense spending and journalist deaths, Car attack strikes Munich, Danes joke about buying California, Japan may u-turn on nuclear energy
2,460,000,000,000: In 2024, global defense spending rose to a new height of $2.46 trillion, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. Worth noting: The Kremlin outpaced all other European countries combined. Russia’s military expenditure equated $461.6 billion in purchase parity terms, eclipsing Europe’s $457 billion.
124: 2024 was the deadliest year for journalists on record since the Committee to Protect Journalists started tracking more than 30 years ago. At least 124 media workers were killed last year — nearly two-thirds of them in Gaza. The next deadliest nations were Sudan and Pakistan, with six deaths each.
20: At least 20 people, including children, were injured in Munich on Thursday when a driver plowed into a trade union demonstration. The driver was detained at the scene, and another man in the car, a Mini Cooper, was reportedly shot by police. The attack puts the German city on alert just a day before it's set to hold the 61st edition of the Munich Security Conference featuring world leaders. Some of those involved were critically injured, officials said.
200,000: A deeply unserious campaign for Denmark to purchase California from the United States gained significant traction online this week, following President Donald Trump’s repeated calls to purchase Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory. So far, more than 200,000 people have signed the virtual petition to “Måke Califørnia Great Ægain.”
14: Nearly 14 years after an earthquake and tsunami led to a triple meltdown at the Fukushima power plant, the Japanese government is considering an about-face on its plans to limit reliance on nuclear power. A draft strategic energy plan from the trade and industry ministry calls for a “maximization” of nuclear power to help reach its emissions and energy security targets. The plan calls for around 20% to stem from nuclear reactors by 2040, 40-50% from renewables, and 30-40% from coal (down from 70% at present).
Trade war may push Canada closer to its threatening ally
When Canadian defense expert Philippe Lagassé met with American counterparts in Washington this week, he quickly sensed they had not registered that the mood had shifted in Canada.
“There’s still a lot of emphasis on partnership,” he said. “We should be working together. We should be doing some things together.”
But Lagassé, an associate professor at Ottawa’s Carleton University, had to tell them that things had changed. “That’s hard right now because, politically, that’s just become a lot more difficult.”
Canadians were so angered by Donald Trump’s tariffs and annexation threats that they yanked American bourbon from liquor stores and turned up their noses at American produce. The typically staid hockey fans of Ottawa even booed the US national anthem.
Canadians, who are used to thinking of the Americans as friendly neighbors, are suddenly seeing them as a threat to their sovereignty. A poll this week shows 80% of Canadians support using oil as a weapon in the trade dispute, which would be a dramatic escalation. On Monday, Trump called off the planned 25% tariffs after Justin Trudeau agreed to take measures on the border, but the pause is for just 30 days.
Rattled Canadians are suddenly more committed to enhancing their sovereignty by reducing internal trade barriers, diversifying international trade so the country is less dependent on the United States, and beefing up the military.
Long a NATO laggard
It will need a lot of beef. For decades, Canada has sheltered under the coattails of Uncle Sam.
With oceans on both sides, an impassable ice cap to the north and friendly Americans to the south, there was little public support for military spending and lots of support for spending money on social programs. Even tough-talking Conservative Stephen Harper did little to boost defense spending. Canada is a NATO laggard, spending only 1.37% of GDP on defense — the average across NATO members is 2.71% of GDP — something Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Trump have all complained about. Last year, leaked documents showed that Trudeau told NATO that Canada had no plan to get to 2%, the level all NATO countries have agreed on.
When political circumstances changed, Trudeau laid out a plan to get to 2%, but years of neglect will take time to turn around. Due to recruiting problems, there are only 63,000 people in the Canadian Armed Forces — well below the 71,500 it is supposed to have. Even at full strength, it is tiny compared with the 2 million troops south of the border. To make matters worse, three-quarters of Canadian soldiers are either overweight or obese.
Canada has summoned the will, finally, to spend on defense. Trudeau has promised to reach 2% by 2032. His likely successor, Mark Carney, said Wednesday he would aim for 2030. The defense minister has said we could get there within two years, although quickly rearming would pose logistical challenges.
But it is not clear if Canada's big push will be in partnership with its newly hostile neighbors. After all, if the United States decides to put tariffs on all Canadian exports, driving the country into a deep recession, would Canada want to proceed with the CA$70-billion purchase of 88 F-35A US fighter jets? Or would Ottawa cancel the order and buy fighters from Sweden, which has never threatened annexation? And if Canada’s economy is in free fall, could it afford to buy either?
Pentagon control
And should Canada buy kit from a hostile power? Canada’s military technology is integrated with America’s, so any operations without US approval would be complicated. The F-35 can’t function without its autonomic logistics information system, which is controlled by the Pentagon, which could limit its effectiveness in a showdown with America.
There may be pressure, therefore, to work more closely with other countries — to buy equipment from the Europeans, for example — although the natural inclination of the defense community in Ottawa is to stick with the Americans, whom they see as their friendly big brothers.
“I think there’s going to be a pretty heavy emphasis on the fact that you take Trump at his word, so you buy more American equipment, and you invest more in the US,” says Lagassé. “You try to integrate yourself more deeply into those supply chains, and that’s how you protect yourself. The other side is going to argue, well, now this is too vulnerable. We should try to become less dependent, take a step back.”
Not a lot of choices
But Canadians are limited in their options, says Graeme Thompson, an analyst with Eurasia Group, because at the forefront of military innovation with AI and advanced computing, there are only two real options: China and the US.
“There’s the Chinese ecosystem and there’s the American ecosystem, and basically Canada doesn’t have a choice there. It’s not going to be able to develop its own autonomous tech ecosystem or supply chains. It has to be plugged into the US side of things. There’s a great line, I don’t know who said it, but ‘the US is our best friend, whether we like it or not.’”
Canadians may want their government to do more to assert national sovereignty, but Lagassé doubts that sentiment is strong enough to disrupt the close military cooperation between Canada and the United States.
“The public may want us to do something differently, but … is the public willing to sustain the cost? Is the public’s attention going to be sufficiently focused so that political leaders see gain in pursuing that? Or does it just kind of evaporate once the tariff threat is no longer present?”
Once tempers cool, Canadian politicians will continue to use procurement deals as a way of currying favor with the Americans rather than a way of asserting independence. After all, they are Canada’s best friends, whether they like it or not.
Members of Mexico's National Guard queue to board a vehicle upon disembarking from a plane, after Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum agreed with U.S. President Donald Trump to bolster border enforcement efforts in response to Trump's demand to crack down on immigration and drug smuggling, in Tijuana, Mexico, on Feb. 4, 2025.
HARD NUMBERS: Mexican troops head to the border, Carney promises defense binge, Critics call on Canada to suspend US agreement, Tariff talk tops tickers
7,000: Earlier this week, at least 7,000 Mexican troops were on their way to the US-Mexico border as part of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s deal with the Trump administration to postpone, for one month, the imposition of a 25% US tariff on all Mexican goods. Experts say that the deployment, meant to meet Trump’s demands that Mexico crack down on fentanyl traffickers and illegal migrants, represents a reshuffling among the tens of thousands of troops that Mexico already deploys throughout the country to tackle these issues.
2 in 5: Mark Carney, who is campaigning for the Liberal Party leadership, has pledged to meet a target of spending 2% of GDP on defense. That would be two years earlier than stipulated under current commitments made by outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The matter has taken on fresh urgency in light of US President Donald Trump’s demands that NATO allies raise the benchmark to 5% of GDP – and his threats to annex Canada.
21: Immigration advocates and lawyers are calling on Ottawa to suspend a 21-year-old agreement with the United States under which Canada sends asylum-seekers apprehended at the border back into the US for processing. Critics say that the Trump administration’s recent moves to drastically restrict refugees’ access to asylum petitions fall afoul of international law, and they warn that Canada should not be complicit in these violations by sending people back to the US.
200: What’s the word among Wall Street analysts these days? Tariffs. Tariffs. Tariffs. So far this year, the term has come up at least once in more than 200 earnings calls with top companies listed on the S&P, a major stock index of American firms. The big question, of course, is how are companies planning to cope either with higher US tariffs themselves, or with the broader political and economic uncertainty about if, when, and how heavily Trump will use them.Six issues that will shape US-Canada relations in 2025
In December, Justin Trudeauwarned that dealing with President-elect Donald Trump would be “a little more challenging” than last time around.
With Trump threatening massive tariffs that would hit Canada hard, taking aim at the country’s anemic defense spending, criticizing its border policy, eyeing its fresh water, and more, 2025 will indeed be a rocky time for US-Canada relations. But Trudeau might not be around for much of it. Down in the polls and facing calls from a majority of his caucus to resign, Trudeau is mulling his future and could resign any day.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievreis heavily favored to win the upcoming federal election, which would make Trump his challenge – a challenge Canadians, in fact, prefer the Conservative leader take on over his Liberal opponent.
Whoever leads Canada in the months to come, these are the top US-Canada issues they’ll be focused on:
1. Trade and tariffs
Trade between the US and Canada is worth over $900 billion a year, so the exchange of goods and services will be a top issue regardless of who’s in office. But Trump’s threat to levy a 25% tariff on imports has taken it to another level. The tariffs would raise prices in the US and hit Canadian industry, particularly the energy, automotive, and manufacturing sectors, with added costs. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce predicts the tariffs, and Canadian retaliation, would cost Canada roughly CA$78 billion – 2.6% of its GDP – a year and lead to recession. Canadian exports to the US would plummet, says the Chamber, with a predicted 60% drop in the mining and quarrying industries, 39% in m0tor vehicles, and 27% in metals – which would be costly for both countries. Ontario, the country’s most populous province and home to its auto sector, would be hit especially hard – which is why Premier Doug Ford is threatening to stop energy exports to the US if Trump proceeds with his plan.
The economic harm to Canada would be exacerbated by the fact that Ottawa would likely respond with its own retaliatory duties. The Trudeau government is working to secure an exemption from the policy for Canada but hasn’t managed to yet. But energy experts say they expect the tariffs won’t apply to Canadian oil either way.
Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group’s global macro-geopolitics practice, says Trump’s tariff threat is real but also part of the incoming president’s strategy. He’s trying to gain concessions on issues of concern, including border security and the (very limited) flow of fentanyl from north to south, and the US trade deficit with Canada ahead of the looming renegotiation of the USMCA.
Thompson notes that Canada is in a weak bargaining position given that it’s utterly dependent on its trade relationship with the US, “and for that reason, doesn’t have a lot of cards to play.” He also expects that even if Canada does secure an exemption on tariffs, Trump will be prepared to threaten them again in the future as leverage in any given negotiation.
“This is not a one-and-done,” Thompson says. “I think this is a mode of operations that will repeat several times for the next four years over a variety of issues.”
2. A (metaphorical?) border wall
Trump has made border security central to his tariff threat, arguing that the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants across the border poses a public safety threat to the US. Canada is already developing a border security plan to respond to Trump’s concerns. It’s also scrambling to prepare for a possible rise in asylum claims – which will exacerbate the current backlog – and irregular border crossings if Trump goes ahead with his plan for mass deportations.
Canada was already revising its immigration policy before Trump won, but it may introduce further restrictions – and continue to toughen its rhetoric – in the coming months. After Trump’s win, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said “not everyone is welcome” to go to Canada, emphasizing that his government was ready to work with the Trump administration on border security. At the same time, Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly said Canada was sticking to its new immigration plan, which would see fewer newcomers admitted to the country.
The Trudeau government reduced its immigration targets in October and cut the number of international students it welcomes. Its border security plan includes CA$1.3 billion in spending around five pillars that include a commitment to “detecting and disrupting the fentanyl trade” and “minimizing unnecessary border volumes,” including an end to flagpoling – or allowing temporary residents to leave the country (typically to the US) and return immediately to access immigration services at the border. But that may not be enough.
Thompson says leaders of the current government are “overestimating their ability to manage what is coming.” He notes future demands from Trump could include “tighter screening of regular immigrants into Canada. That means that much like with tariffs, the Canadian government may end up managing cascading demands from Trump, so no single promise or plan will likely be sufficient to placate the incoming US president.
3. Defense spending and securing the Arctic
US administrations, including Biden’s, have pressured Canada to increase its defense spending and hit NATO’s 2% of GDP target for years. In April, the Trudeau government outlined a plan to boost spending, focused in large part on building armed forces capacity in the Arctic. The new initiatives total roughly CA$81 billion over two decades and will push the country toward 1.76% of GDP by 2030. In December, the government announced a further adjustment to its Arctic presence, which will include more air and naval equipment, and a renewed cooperation strategy in the region with the US in the face of Russian and Chinese regional interests.
So far, Trump administration officials and other Republicans seem unimpressed with Canada’s defense plan. Former Trump ambassador to Canada, Kelly Craft, said the country could “do better.” That means spending more – and faster – especially since Trump has reportedly considered asking NATO allies to spend a whopping 5% of GDP on defense spending. He’s also threatened to leave countries that fail to spend more to fend for themselves against foreign aggression.
Philippe Lagassé, associate professor and Barton Chair at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, says Canada could raise military spending by increasing pay, boosting operations expenditures, and contracting more for services. He says procurement of military hardware would take longer. But in the face of financial constraints, such new spending would require raising taxes, growing the deficit, cutting other programs, or some combination of the three – which could prove a challenge for the current government or its eventual replacement.
Arctic defense may prove to be a smoother issue. “The US has been trying to get Canada to do more in the region for a while,” Lagassé says, “and we've responded to that. I don’t see that as a point of tension.”
“If anything,” he adds, “the US will be glad if we just get our act together because their sovereignty considerations up there are less than ours, and they have capabilities up there that we don’t, but they do want us to actually get our act together around it.”
So, while Canada may feel the pressure on defense spending – and may need to come up with a faster, heftier plan to placate Trump, it can always point to progress in the Arctic and is likely to do so.
4. Water, water everywhere?
In September, Trump floated an idea to solve California’s drought problems: import water from British Columbia. As Trump put it, the province has “a very large faucet” that, once turned, could supply drought-stricken US states with fresh water. Experts point out that Canada doesn’t, in fact, have water to spare, and Canada can’t just turn on a “faucet” to divert water to the US.
The water Trump referred to, coming from the Columbia River, is already spoken for, in part through an existing treaty between the US and Canada – the Columbia River Treaty, which sets out rules governing flood controls, dams, and hydroelectric power generation.
That arrangement is in the process of being modernized to account for new developments, including climate change. The Biden administration and the Trudeau government recently reached an agreement in principle after years of work that began during the first Trump administration. But this time around, should Trump decide to maintain an interest in water flows north to south, the terms of the treaty could – like free trade – come back up for negotiation, with the faucet on the table.
5. Critical minerals. It’s in the name
The US and Canada share several other areas of cooperation and competition, but one is of immediate interest that could incentivize working together. Both countries are spending big on critical mineral development, including co-investments in a development in Yukon.
Critical minerals are central to cellular phones, the electric vehicle industry – in which both the US and Canada are investing heavily – and national defense. So whatever other tensions shape US-Canada relations, cooperation on critical minerals will remain a shared goal, especially as the two countries look to rival Chinese and Russian interests in related sectors.
6. Setting limits on Big Tech
Both countries are also taking on big tech giants, such as Google, through anti-monopoly investigations lawsuits. Still, the US is pushing Canada to drop its 3% digital services tax on big tech companies, including Google’s parent company Alphabet. The Biden administration requested a dispute resolution process for the tax, claiming it unfairly targets big US tech firms. The Trump administration is likely to press the issue, too, which may leave the policy as a pawn in one set of negotiations – say, over tariffs – or another.
Does Canada have any leverage to rely on? Canada has some cards to play against Trump, but it’s not clear who’ll be playing them. The Trudeau government, down roughly 25 points in the polls, is not long for this world – and Trudeau himself may resign any day. The country is due for an election by the fall, but it could come much earlier.
Regardless of who’s in power, however, they’ll likely deploy the playbook from the last time Canada had to manage its relationship with Trump. That means working contacts in states, particularly border states in which the Republicans have an interest in winning or currently govern and contacts in Washington. Then, they work the message about Canadian, and shared, interests up to Trump. There’s also the threats of retaliatory tariffs and halting certain trade, like Ford’s threat to cut off energy to border states.
Together, pulling these levers may yield some results, but Canada is in for tough negotiations and is unlikely to emerge from them unscathed.
Lissa Smith poses with lawn signs in support of Kamala Harris, and a pillow someone threw in her yard after several signs, previously displayed on her lawn, were taken outside her home in Indianapolis, Indiana, on Oct. 27, 2024.
Hard Numbers: Yard sign thefts rise in US, Canada’s defense pledges meet spending limit targets, Cocaine grapes cross border, Musk skips sweepstakes hearing, Who supports Trump’s tariff proposal?
10: About 10% of Americans put up signs supporting a presidential candidate on their property, according to one expert’s estimate. And with polarization and enmity between supporters of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris reaching fever pitch on the eve of the vote, people are turning to high-tech solutions such as cameras and tracking devices to prevent rising incidents of theft and vandalism of the signs.
2: To meet its stated goal of bringing defense spending up to 2% of GDP, Canada will have to nearly double its defense spending by 2033. But doing so could run afoul of new budget targets that aim to bind the government to reduce the national deficit-to-GDP ratio to below 1% within three years.
600: A case of vines and lines, you might say. Canadian authorities this month seized more than 600 kilograms of cocaine stashed in a shipment of grapes. The interdiction occurred earlier this month at the Ambassador Bridge, which links Windsor to Detroit. That amount of product would fetch more than $13 million on the streets.
1 million: Elon Muskskipped a hearing on Thursday about the legality of the sweepstakes in which he awards $1 million each day to someone who signs his online free speech and gun-rights petition. The Justice Department recently sent a letter to the billionaire warning him that giveaways like this might violate election laws. The case will now move to a federal court.
33: A new poll shows 33% percent of Americans support Donald Trump’s proposal to impose a 20% tariff on all imports, while 43% are opposed. Perhaps unsurprisingly, two-thirds of Trump voters like the idea, compared to barely one in 10 Harris supporters. When asked about specific countries, Canada comes out looking pretty good: Just 16% of Trump voters and 6% of Harris voters want to put tariffs on their northern neighbors.
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew shake hands as they meet at the Manitoba Legislative Building in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada February 15, 2024.
Left-leaning premier calls for increased military spending
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced new pressure Wednesday from an unusual source to increase defense spending, when Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said Canada should boost spending to preserve its trade relationship with the United States.
Kinew, a member of the left-leaning New Democrats – a party that is traditionally opposed to increased military spending – said, “If we’re not meeting our responsibility to our NATO allies, it is going to have an impact on [the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement] renewal.”
The trade agreement is set to be reviewed in 2026, which will create the opportunity for the United States to push for changes, which seems likely no matter who is in the White House, since the pressure from the U.S. dairy industry, among others, is likely to persist.
During a NATO summit in Washington last week, under pressure from US politicians, Trudeau announced that Canada will hit the NATO target of 2% of GDP by 2032, and buy a new fleet of submarines, but he has not laid out a plan for doing so. Back in Canada after the summit, Defense Minister Bill Blair said it would amount to about CA$60 billion a year in spending, which economists would require significant cuts or spending increases.
Traditionally, defense spending has not been a vote winner in Canada, but if opinion leaders are increasingly seeing it as linked to the vital trade relationship, that may be changing.