After the outcome of the Ontario election, I’m turning my attention to the elephant in the room: the Trump Administration’s ongoing and existential threats to Canada. As a member of the Liberal Party, I voted for Mark Carney as leader. I did this because of his experience in crisis management and because of his deep knowledge of economics and experience in economic policy.

Scoping the Territory

A great deal of attention is being given to what measures Canada should take in response to the US imposing tariffs: counter-tariffs, export taxes, non-tariff barriers, boycotts, finding alternative markets, and building international alliances. While all of these are important instruments, as background to our moves, I think it is important to know as much as possible about our adversaries in the Trump Administration.

Last week, based on Canadian sources, The New York Times and other media reported that the Trump Administration is taking an aggressive look at its relationship with Canada, considering options such as abrogating treaties, tearing up conventions and agreements about the management of the Great Lakes, reviewing military cooperation, and ejecting Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing agreement.

Long ago, I studied bureaucratic analysis with Richard Neustadt and Graham Allison at Harvard Kennedy School. They would have said that these ideas didn’t originate with President Trump, Commerce Secretary Lutnick, or Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They would want to know who the analysts are, what their backgrounds are, in which organizations they are located, how they are framing issues, and what their objectives are. As a Canadian – and their adversary – the reason I would want to know this is to have a better sense of what levers we can pull to influence them. Neustadt and Allison’s analysis preceded the days of naming and shaming, but that too is a tool in bureaucratic conflict. As a recent example, The New York Times published names and photos of many members of the DOGE teams.

Is the continual reference by Trump and his acolytes to the 51^st state trash talk to gain advantage in a tariff negotiation or psychological warfare that is the first step in a strategic plan to make Canada, if not part of the US, then at least a vassal state?

I had a look at the State Department website and discovered that the head of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs is Michael Kozak, who has had over 50 years of service as a diplomat, much of it in the areas of human rights and refugees, and who is a charter member of the Senior Executive Service. Kozak served as head of this bureau from 2019 to 2021 and returned when the second Trump Administration took office. Kozak looks very much like someone from the “deep state.” And the State Department does not appear to be joining in the 51^st state talk, suggesting that it is more respectful towards Canada than other parts of the administration.

Not Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing

I think it more likely that aggressive approach towards Canada is coming from the White House staff in the west wing. When the Premiers visited the White House in February, they met with deputy chief of staff James Blair and the Director of Personnel. They didn’t meet with the people who are really on the Canada file and who may well be mapping out a strategic plan for an assault on Canadian sovereignty. Would that be Peter Navarro or Stephen Miller? Perhaps there are also people in the west wing who are working on strategic plans to take control of Greenland and of the Panama Canal. Perhaps they also have support from the CIA.

As far as I can tell, Team Canada has focused on getting support from US businesses and governors and legislators whose constituents would be hurt by US tariffs and Canadian counter-tariffs. Democratic governors have been vocal in their support; Republicans, with occasional exceptions like Rand Paul, have not. But if, as Canadian politicians now suggest, this struggle is not just about trade but about sovereignty, then we must be more energetic in mapping out our enemies and friends in the executive branch and figuring out how to influence both groups.