Politics: Canadian Sovereignty in 2025

Few political predictions age well, but despite this, I want to offer some observations about US-Canada relations as of early 2025.

There is a growing trend towards corporatism in North American politics. The government of the United States is now increasingly influenced by pro-business, pro-market, expansionist, and politically radical billionaires and their associated networks. Looking beyond the sensationalism of the moment--if it's even possible to discern reality amidst the noise--I detect a similar trend of corporatization within North America. Specifically, power appears to be shifting away from established bureaucratic institutions and towards business elites.

In Canada, we now have Mark Carney as Prime Minister--a man who made his name as a central banker rather than a traditional parliamentarian. He is the first prime minister to assume the role without prior experience in public office, signaling a departure from established political norms.

The long-standing era of global free trade is coming to an end, replaced by a growing wave of protectionism. This shift is reshaping international relations and profoundly impacting the relationship between the United States and Canada. Donald Trump's presidency has been particularly disruptive to established trade patterns in North America. However, his actions extend beyond simply disrupting trade; he is also openly questioning the very borders of Canada. He argues that the border is an arbitrary line drawn on a map.

In a sense, he is correct. The 49th parallel is an arbitrary demarcation. The Great Plains of Canada are geographically and culturally intertwined with the American heartland. Throughout modern history, Americans and Canadians in this region have crossed the border freely, and American immigration was actively encouraged into Canada. American competition spurred the development of railways and roads across the Canadian plains. American capital heavily developed the resource sectors of Alberta. And American cultural exports--, music, television, radio, and social media--have permeated every section of Canadian society. The American influence is undeniable.

When Trump talks about annexing Canada, I don't believe he literally intends to incorporate the entirety of Canada into the United States. Rather, I suspect this is a negotiation tactic, a deliberately provocative statement designed to create leverage for future concessions. He's establishing an extreme position to make more moderate demands seem reasonable by comparison.

Even assuming all Canadians willingly agreed to join the US, the addition of a province with a population larger than California would present significant political challenges for Trump and his party. Canada would become the largest state in the Union, overwhelmingly Democratic in its political leanings, and unlikely to support Trump or anyone like him.

What is more likely, I suspect, is that Trump seeks concessions regarding Canada's land borders and resource access. Consider the history of the US-Mexico border in the 19th century. In the 1840s, a large portion of the current American West was claimed by the Mexican government. This territory was dotted with Spanish colonial towns and missions similar to those south of the modern border. However, the region's resource potential remained largely unexplored. Vast amounts of gold and other resources lay untapped, accessible only if the United States could gain control. Such considerations undoubtedly weighed heavily on the Washington administration in the years leading up to the Mexican-American War of 1848. Within a few years of the US seizing control of this territory, the Gold Rush began, and the new American West boomed with American capital and people. This new territory became immensely successful, and now hosts some of the greatest concentrations of wealth and power in human history.

A similar situation exists today with the border between the US and Canada. Consider Alberta's oil reserves. Just outside of Fort McMurray, Alberta, lie some of the largest oil reserves in the world. This single fact has transformed Alberta into a political heavyweight. The federal government in Ottawa has largely ignored or suppressed the desire of Alberta's industry to get its products to market. And much of the energy market that Trump is currently threatening is, in fact, American. American roads, highways, and pipelines crisscross the border.

Imagine how Trump and the oil barons of the American petrostates must view this vast oilfield, so tantalizingly within reach, just across the border.

This recognition is not new. American capital has been flowing into Alberta to develop its resource sector for quite some time. American oil companies were among the first to exploit these regions. Gradually, as the modern province of Alberta took shape, American control was curtailed, and American companies were slowly pushed out of the market. In the eyes of some--and it is expedient for them to view it this way--these resources rightfully belong to them. American capital developed the resource industry in Canada. American defense protects Canada. So why, they think, should America not be entitled to unlimited access to Canadian national resources?

In summary, the more likely scenario is that Trump would be perfectly happy annexing Alberta and possibly Saskatchewan. By initially making the extreme claim of wanting to annex all of Canada, he creates a negotiating anchor. This allows him to present a smaller claim--annexing the conservative provinces--as more palatable to the rest of the country.

Would Canadians actually agree to this?

It is hard to say. Certainly, there has been an outpouring of nationalism across the country. But if history can teach us anything, it is that things are in constant flux. In 1995, Quebec held a referendum on separation from the rest of Canada. The referendum was narrowly rejected, and Quebec remains a part of Canada, but it demonstrates that even within modern Canadian history, our borders are not entirely stable. I think it is likely that some form of concessions will be made before this trade war comes to an end--whether those take the form of land concessions or simply mineral rights, remains to be seen.

Of course, and as always, there is more to the story. While Alberta's oil reserves loom large in U.S.-Canada disputes, the relationship is far broader and more complex.

The dispute extends far beyond Alberta's oil reserves. While energy is a significant factor, over 70% of U.S.-Canada bilateral trade encompasses manufacturing (particularly auto parts), agriculture (grains, dairy), and services (financial tech, education). The ongoing trade war has already significantly disrupted Canadian industry and politics, with ripple effects extending far beyond the energy industry. For example, U.S. automakers are heavily reliant on Canadian supply chains, and tariffs would inevitably raise prices for American consumers. Similarly, Canadian wheat exports are crucial to the economies of the American Midwest, and a trade war could incentivize U.S. farmers to seek alternative markets in countries like Brazil or Ukraine.

This rivalry is further complicated by broader global shifts. Russia's growing dominance in energy markets, China's ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, and increasingly stringent EU climate regulations all contribute to a complex North American dynamic. China's significant investments in Canadian mining and infrastructure, for instance, provide Ottawa with leverage to play economic partners against U.S. demands. Conversely, stricter EU emissions rules could force Canada and the U.S. to collaborate on developing greener energy exports, rather than continuing to clash over pipelines like Line 3. Even climate change itself presents a geopolitical wildcard; as Arctic resources become more accessible, both nations face the challenge of balancing resource exploitation with environmental stewardship--a tension that could, paradoxically, align their interests against unilateral actors like Russia or China.

However, assuming uniform support for closer ties with the U.S. within Alberta and Saskatchewan is a simplification. Internal fissures exist. Treaty rights and land claims held by Indigenous Nations, as demonstrated by the Wet'suwet'en pipeline protests of 2020, complicate any territorial negotiations. Any annexation or resource deal would require Indigenous consent, a legal and moral barrier under Canadian law. Furthermore, divisions exist between urban and rural communities. While Calgary's oil executives might favor U.S. integration, rural communities reliant on environmental protections often oppose it. Similarly, Saskatchewan's progressive agricultural lobby actively lobbies Ottawa to resist American subsidies that distort global grain markets. These internal divisions demonstrate that Canada's provinces cannot be neatly categorized as simply "pro-U.S." or "anti-U.S."

In this fluid and unpredictable landscape, Canada's survival doesn't hinge on simply resisting U.S. pressure. Instead, it depends on building coalitions that amplify Canadian sovereignty through multilateralism, environmental leadership, and economic resilience--a path that the current administration appears cautiously pursuing. The 49th parallel may be an arbitrary line on the map, but the assumption that history must repeat itself is even more so.

March 14, 2025