The extraordinary rendition of Venezuelan President Maduro last weekend, coupled with the release of the Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) last month, have riveted the attention of Canadians. These two events are closely linked, as the unidentified authors of the strategy must have been aware of the Administration’s military plans regarding Venezuela and wrote a document that set out a vision of U.S. military and economic domination of the western hemisphere that would justify the impending action.

For Canada, despite apparent bonhomie between Trump and Carney, the last year has been one of a strained relationship with the U.S. No agreement on trade and security is in sight. The Ontario Government’s advocacy advertising using Ronald Reagan’s words on tariffs has deepened the rift.

Wesley Wark, a well-known security scholar at the University of Waterloo, summarized Canadian reaction to the NSS: “the Trump NSS is, plainly speaking, a doctrine that threatens Canada, threatens Canadian interests, and is deeply at odds with a Canadian approach to global security. It is not the doctrine of an ally … Allies share common interests and values and agree on threats. They respect sovereignty and political differences. They share intelligence to mutual benefit. None of that defines the Canada – U.S. relationship under Trump, as the NSS makes brutally clear.”

Wark published this on December 8, 2025. The success of the U.S.’s military action against Venezuela has fed Trump’s appetite, leading to his threats of military force against Colombia and Greenland. If military action against one fellow NATO member is an option on the table, it must also be a possibility against other NATO members, especially the only one that shares a border with the U.S.

American domination over Canada would mean making our nation either a vassal state or the fifty-first state. The trade negotiations have made clear that the Trump Administration thinks of Canada primarily as a supplier of raw materials and wants to see the relocation of as much Canadian production as possible in other sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, financial services, culture) to the U.S. In short, a hollowed-out and impoverished economy.

A Conflict of Values

The reasons for resistance go farther than that, of course. The U.S. and Canada are superficially similar societies. When you look deeper, they are different in fundamental ways. Compare Trump’s vision for the U.S. with Canada: growing reliance on fossil fuels vs. a commitment to renewable energy; Second Amendment rights vs. strict gun controls; prioritization of white Christians vs. a multifaith and multicultural society; unilingualism vs. official bilingualism and a growing acceptance of indigenous languages; a weak social safety net vs. a strong social safety net including the provision of health care as a basic human right; an increasingly regressive income tax system vs. a redistributive income tax system; increasing limitation of reproductive rights vs. full recognition of reproductive rights; a republic in which the head of government cannot be a member of the legislature vs. a parliamentary democracy in which the head of government sits in the legislature and is accountable on a daily basis; and gerrymandering vs. non-partisan electoral boundary commissions. Canada and the U.S. can be friends, neighbours, and partners. But we don’t want to live in the sort of society that Trump envisages.

Thinking the Unthinkable

How do we Canadians resist domination? Our soul-searching discussions of the last year have intensified. On the trade front, we are trying to diversify away from the U.S. Prime Minister Carney’s visit to Beijing next week is a big step in that direction, especially given Canada’s difficult relationship with China over the last few years. On the diplomatic front, we are working with our EU and European NATO allies to assert the primacy of NATO’s charter, the principle of national sovereignty, and a refusal to resort to the law of the jungle at the international level. Militarily, we cannot help but see the U.S. now – at least while it is governed by Trump and those who share if not shape his worldview – as a potential aggressor. If there is a defence of Greenland by NATO, Canada, which is 40 kilometers from Greenland at the closest point, should be part of it. Canada has been pondering a choice between the F-35 and the Saab Grupen fighter aircraft. While the Canadian military has informally made its preference for the U.S. aircraft clear, the current situation tilts towards the Swedish alternative. If military action against Canada is on the table, then we must game out scenarios and prepare responses.

These alternatives are crazy to contemplate. But the Trump Administration seems to have gone from a trade strategy of using tariffs to punish the U.S.’s trading partners to a strategy of using the military to satisfy its lust for domination. As Canadians who value our nation’s sovereignty and our way of life we have no choice but to resist. We will.