Not gonna happen

Why U.S. annexation of Canada is deeply unlikely

If you game it out, there's really no viable pathway for an American annexation of Canada. There are simply too many complicating forces working against it. Here's a breakdown of the 6 main strategic pathways for annexation, and why they are each unlikely to work:

1) The "Democratic Pathway"

Canadians don't want it. So it will not happen willingly, by choice, anytime soon. Latest polling suggest only 10% of Canadians like the idea, and that's less than what the numbers were back in 2024 before this even became an issue worth contemplating. Every time Trump proposes the idea, it only reinforces Canadians' resolve. The idea that the nation will somehow democratically do this is close to nil.

2) The "Economic Coercion" Pathway

A trade war is indeed going to cause pain for Canadians - we're already seeing it. And Canada doesn't *win* in a trade war against the US. But, there is also significant pain that this pathway brings upon the US too, and it's proportional to the extent of damage that Trump seeks to bring upon Canada's economy. Despite all Trump's rhetoric about not needing anything from Canada, there are some strategic exports where this simply is not the case in any meaningful contemporary sense (given existing production and supply chain infrastructures) - notably: potash, uranium, oil, lumber, electricity, and Canadian tourism! All this to say, if Trump pursues the maximum economic damage pathway, it opens up the US to increased damages in turn. The markets certainly won't like it, and nor will everyday Americans. And Republican politicians will increasingly get an earful from their constituents. But more to the point, the economic damage pathway actually leads AWAY from annexation - it just causes pain and damage, and Canadians would only become MORE steadfast in their resolve to remain an independent country. They would BLAME Trump (and the US) for their economic situation, not reward him.

3) The "Economic Incentive" Pathway

There's a common meme that "there's a price for everything" - implying that with the right price, Trump could buy Canadians' support for annexation. And, somewhat worryingly, a recent poll found that a THIRD of Canadians would indeed vote to join the US *IF* it came with a full conversion of the dollar and their personal assets to USD. Nevertheless, this still means a significant MAJORITY of Canadians wouldn't support the idea, even with such economic incentives, and further, the COSTS to the US economy would be enormous (quick back of envelope calculation suggests tens of *trillions* of dollars), all at a time when Trump is seeking to CUT BACK on spending. Moreover, this would massively increase the purchasing power of Canadians relative to 'regular' Americans, and the latter would presumably be bitter about the idea of having 40 million new Citizens who've just been 'paid' to join their country, all while they got diddly squat. Moreover, the mere introduction of the idea of an economic incentive in Canada would sow incredibly divisive politics within Canada: That 1/3 who support the idea would face ridicule and ostracism by their own neighbours, some of whom would be brought back into line, it would be dangerous to vocalize one's support for the idea. This gets us to the next pathway...

4) The "Divide and Conquer" Pathway

In this pathway, the US seeks to create divisions in Canada by propping up the pro-Annexation movement herein, and potentially offering incentives to a subset of Canadians. For instance, they may try to support the Alberta separatism crowd, and get the province to join the US with localized incentives. But again, let's just get a dose of reality here: Even in Alberta, the province with the greatest amount of support for the idea of joining the US, there is still overwhelming opposition (80% oppose; likely more now, as that figure is back from January). The incentives present the same issues as noted above, albeit on a smaller scale. So, not only is it unlikely that a province like Alberta would willingly join the US, but even if it somehow *did* join, the rest of Canada would still be opposed (recent poll suggests only 22% of Canadians would be compelled to join the US if Alberta did). All this to say, the divide and conquer doesn't lead to full annexation, and is not even likely even in Canada's most pro-US province.

5) The Military Invasion Pathway

This is possibly the least likely pathway. Trump has never indicated his desire to use military might against Canada (in fact, he's specifically spoken against the idea). He says he loves the people of Canada. By some counts, one in 40 Canadians have US citizenship, so an invasion with any actual violence causing deaths of Canadian civilians poses serious legal blowback within the US, because presumably the US military would be killing its own citizens. So the only way this would work is if the US military overwhelms with force and seizes the capital without much actual warfare and violence (kind of how many *thought* Russia would overwhelm Ukraine and take Kiev in 3 days). But the Ukrainian fightback serves as an example of how such an invasion might take place in practice in Canada. There would inevitably be reciprocal violence, almost certainly with insurgent violence *within US borders*, and Americans would not forgive Trump for bringing actual warfare to the US territory for the first time since the Civil War; for bringing the US back to an age of terrorism. Further, the rest of the world would not accept a military invasion of Canada, would rebuke the US, making it an international pariah, and would seek to support Canada in various ways. NATO has internal processes to try to avoid violence within the coalition if there is the threat of intra-alliance conflict. American soldiers (and Generals) would have a real tough time fighting against the Canadians who they fought with side to side, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Lybia, in Kosovo, and in NORAD military exercises. And further, Congress controls the war purse and it would not support an invasion. All this to say, it's just *highly implausible* that the US military would be used to try to annex Canada through an invasion.

6) The State Line Recognition Pathway

In this pathway, the US does with Canada essentially what it did with the Gulf of Mexico: Trump just 'declares' that Canada is the 51st state and that they don't recognize the border. The problem is, (much of) the rest of the world would not recognize this US proposition. Maybe Russia would... and a few other states, but most would be cautious about setting a precedent for a sudden overturning of their own sovereignty merely by decree of the world's most powerful nation. This act could potentially even result in the end of the United Nations, as the EU sanctions the US. In practice, this ideational pathway only really works if it's backed by military might. I mean, already this has been the pathway that Trump has used - referring to Canada repeatedly as the 51st state and to the Prime Minister as its Governor. But that's not been particularly effective messaging, and the vast majority of Americans don't take it seriously, nor do they support it. So, while this pathway is the most 'likely' in terms of Trump's strategy to pursue Canadian annexation, it doesn't really have any *material* effect if it's not backed by other political, economic, or military pathways - which as noted above - are unlikely themselves.

Not Happening

And so, I personally don't think the threat of Annexation is practical or realistic. I think the proper response by Canadians (and the Canadian state) is to 'forcefully rebuff' the idea - by which I mean taking an approach akin to the way Foreign Affairs Minister Joly dealt with this during the G7 foreign ministers meeting recently, when she told Marco Rubio "There's no argument, there's no conversation about it, there's no need to talk about it..." "Canada's sovereignty is not up to debate, period".