Author: Matthew Shane
Published: Oct 28, 2025
On September 30th, Donald Trump stood before the senior leadership of the U.S. military and again declared that Canada should become “the 51st state.” It was not a joke, nor a campaign stunt, nor one of his impulsive late-night tweets. It was a calculated message, delivered to those with operational authority over the world’s most powerful military. The statement was almost certainly not actionable, yet it was serious—and Canadians should treat it as such. When a president speaks of annexation in the company of generals, he is not just waxing poetic; he is taking measure of the room.
As we all know, this was not an isolated comment. It follows a now-familiar pattern, in what appears to be an attempt to whittle away at Canadian sovereignty one step at a time. Trump has referred to the Canadian Prime Minister as a “governor.” His allies have mocked Canadian protests as emotional outbursts. The state senator from Maine has written to Western Canadian provinces, encouraging them to break from Confederation and join the United States (yes, you heard that right). These instances are becoming too commonplace to be accidental. In fact, that’s likely the strategy: to make these statements commonplace enough that they just seem…commonplace. The normal state of things.
Because - and let’s be clear about this - the United States does not want a physical war with Canada. The geopolitical fallout of such a move would almost certainly be more than the takeover would be worth. However, equally important to understand is that the U.S. does not necessarily need a physical war to obtain what it wants (which is access to Canadian resources on the cheap). All it may require for that is more integration.
With that in mind, consider a new bill, Resolution 5518, which was recently introduced by Representative Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY). On the surface, it appears mundane, just another border security initiative. However, a more detailed reading of the Resolution should cause significant concern. Its key provisions include:
- The bill directs the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security to negotiate (or amend) agreements with Canada for integrated law enforcement operations across land, air, and maritime domains. (The bill does not fully define what “integrated” will mean).
- It amends the Tariff Act of 1930 (Part V) to allow foreign officers (e.g., Canadian) designated as U.S. Customs officers to receive the same privileges and immunities as U.S. customs officers when performing duties. (So Canadian customs officers would be “allowed” to follow U.S. laws/customs).
- It inserts a new section (890E) into the Homeland Security Act, authorizing U.S. law enforcement officers to be stationed in foreign countries (i.e., in Canada), and allowing foreign (Canadian) officials to be stationed in U.S. territory (governed, again by U.S. law/customs, of course).
- It allows the use of U.S. Customs and Border Protection funds to pay tort claims arising from U.S. law enforcement operations in foreign countries. (This one, which feels like a benefit, may be particularly insidious, as it begins to defer legal responsibility and recourse to the U.S. for actions that occur on Canadian soil).
The language of the bill is consistently ambiguous, which is likely intentional. However, in total, this bill may allow both Canadian and American officers, under the guise of “joint border enforcement,” to conduct operations in both countries that are governed by U.S., rather than Canadian, law.
This is not a technical adjustment. It is a blatant attempt at power transfer, packaged as friendly cooperation. It is an olive branch cum trojan horse, to allow the U.S. an increased legal toe-hold into how things are handled in Canada. In the modern era, perhaps this is how annexation will be sought, not through military aggression, but through mere legislative cooperation.
What can Canada do?
The instinctive answer is to defend our interests diplomatically, to push back through policy, and to set clear boundaries in negotiations that affect our sovereignty. That is true, obviously - we do need to do that. But to be effective, those efforts will require more than posture; they will require leverage. And the basis for that leverage is the opposite of integration, it is self-sufficiency.
The simple fact of the matter is that Canada will not be able to meaningfully resist pressure from foreign powers if it remains structurally dependent on those foreign powers for capital, for supply chains and distribution networks, for food. It is an uncomfortable truth that a country that cannot produce, transport, or fund what it needs is not sovereign in any practical sense, no matter how proudly it flies its flag.
Thus, the long-term defense of Canadian sovereignty requires that we take care of our own house. Governments must move beyond symbolic nationalism and invest in material resilience: rebuild manufacturing capacity, safeguard critical industries, and enforce procurement policies that privilege domestic production. Trade policy must evolve from the reflex of openness toward the discipline of strategic autonomy - open where possible, protected where necessary. Fiscal policy should reward reinvestment at home rather than look to bribe foreign multinationals to set up shop. And industrial policy, long treated as unfashionable, must again become an instrument of nationhood.
Important impacts can also be made at the consumer level. Every purchase, every contract, every investment either reinforces dependence or strengthens independence. Each time we choose an imported good over a domestic one, or an international platform over a local enterprise, we shift a small fraction of our collective power outward. Over time, those fractions accumulate. The health of a nation is reflected not only in what it exports, but in what it sustains within.
Economic independence is not isolationism; it is the foundation for meaningful partnership. To cooperate as equals, we must first be able to stand alone. And so, in the end, the ability for Canada to meaningfully cooperate on the global scale is likely to hinge not on defiance, but on the quiet confidence of a nation that can stand on its own feet.
Credit: Some of the content above was drawn from a recent episode of Wrong Enough To Know Better, an excellent, if somewhat conspiratorial, podcast/youtube channel. The episode can be found here.
Liked this blog?
We are stronger together!
🤝 The strength of the Buy Canadian movement is in our collective purchasing power. So please share this blog with someone else who you feel would appreciate the message.
A few other posts you may be interested in: