Trump’s national security strategy leaves Canada on the sidelines — for now

WASHINGTON, D.C. — For anyone trying to better understand U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy vision and its consequences for Canada, look no further than the recently released national security strategy (NSS) that offers the White House’s vision of America’s global influence and its defence and economic power priorities.

Unlike the previous two strategies — under both Joe Biden and Trump 1.0 — the new strategy no longer focuses heavily on major power competition, instead extolling an “America First” foreign policy centred mainly on America’s economic power and national interests.

The document refers to Canada only once — in its call for allies to adopt trade policies that help “rebalance China’s economy toward household consumption.”

So is Canada’s near‑absence in the strategy a warning that it will be taken for granted by a superpower increasingly focused on burden-sharing, or could it be a blessing in disguise — a sign that Ottawa is no longer squarely in Trump’s firing line? 

“If I were a Canadian,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies, “I would feel pretty good about this National Security Strategy.” 

Homeland protection

The strategy says the U.S. will “reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region.” 

Kavanagh sees this as a positive for Ottawa because anything that protects the U.S. homeland protects Canada by default.​

“Keeping the United States military focused on securing the western hemisphere from foreign influence is obviously also beneficial for Canada, and there’s no indication or hostility expressed towards Canada specifically or anything even really asked of it,” she said.

“Anything the U.S. does to protect the homeland protects Canada as well.”

Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Washington-based Cato Institute, says the implications for Canada from any NSS are bound to be limited, but he doesn’t see reason for concern.

The strategy focuses on keeping foreign powers out of the Western hemisphere, he explained. 

“If the threats to Canada are coming from outside the Western hemisphere, this is fine to good for Canada,” Logan said. “Unless,” he added, apparently joking, “we think the United States is going to invade Canada.”

The Trump strategy also specifies Europe’s internal politics, migration, and civilizational issues, tying demands to these for higher defense spending and policy changes, but again, no demands are made of Canada. 

According to Kavanagh, this means there’s no indication of Trump putting the idea of a 51st state into the NSS — or of any intent to interfere in Canadian politics. 

Friends with benefits

Many conservatives see opportunities for Canada in Trump’s latest national security strategy.

Trump’s determination to defend the homeland with a Golden Dome system — which is mentioned in the document — would, by default, have to include Canada, according to Wilson Beaver, senior policy advisor for defence budgeting and NATO policy in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security in Washington. 

“You can’t have just United States defence without continental defense for North America,” he said. “So, I think there’s going to be a ton of avenues for cooperation between the United States and Canada related to continental missile defence.”

Beaver, along with many other defence experts, suggests that Canada should ramp up investment in its Navy, Air Force, and especially, its Arctic infrastructure to modernize continental defence.

Stephen Nagy, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and professor of politics and international studies at the International Christian University, agrees and says Canada can become an “indispensable partner” by investing in Arctic surveillance and maritime domains over the next two to five years to monitor Russian and Chinese activity. He also stresses the need to strengthen research ties in artificial intelligence, quantum, and munitions production, and to build infrastructure with Indigenous and Inuit communities to avert Chinese influence.

Given that the Arctic is Canada’s backyard, the drive for improving its security should be well-received in Washington. 

“If you look at the allies that are getting the best press here in Washington,” said Beaver, “it’s the ones that are seen as taking responsibility for their own security.”

Daniel Kochis, senior fellow in the Center on Europe and Eurasia at Hudson Institute in Washington, agrees and thinks Canada can use the Arctic as leverage, pointing out the region’s strategic importance while carving out a unique niche in Arctic, cyber, and NATO burden-sharing.

Kochis was also encouraged that the NSS confirms that Europe — and by extension Canada, he said — remains strategically and culturally important to the U.S. 

While Washington is unlikely to ever see Canada as a peer ally, according to Kavanagh, it can show itself as an asset, especially in Arctic security and air and missile defence.

“The goal should be to show that you are … an asset to the United States, not a free rider,” Kavanagh said.

The downsides

While Canada has the opportunity to prove itself as a regional ally and security partner, the national security strategy also makes it clear that Canada’s long-held security discount is gone. 

“For most of the post-Cold War period, Canada thought that it was not necessary to invest in the military, and they took the partnership with the United States for granted,” said Nagy, noting that Canada has become a liability in terms of Chinese influence operations in Canada and lack of Arctic defence spending.

Now, the U.S. is “telling allies within the NATO context and within NORAD — this is not just Canada — that they have to shoulder a much greater degree of the security burden.”

Avoiding multiple mentions in the strategy shouldn’t necessarily be taken for granted, according to Richard Shimooka, senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. 

“It doesn’t take much to set off the president or one of his advisors. So if Canada were to actually make a significant move on trade with China …, that may well provoke a pretty negative response,” he said. 

Despite there being no easy escape from Trump’s trade tensions and push for increased defence spending, Canada’s near-absence in Washington’s new national security strategy may not be as concerning as it appears. It signals neither neglect nor hostility, but instead an opportunity for Ottawa to redefine its value. 

“Nobody really thinks of Canada as a serious nation in terms of defence and security right now,” said Shimooka.

But he also noted that this could change. 

“If Canada can understand not just what’s happening now but what may happen in five or 10 years, we’ll be in a much better place going forward.”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.