What Would a U.S. Civil War Mean for Canada?
The political climate in the United States is more tumultuous than it’s been since the 1960s—if not the 1860s. Many Americans are dissatisfied with the Trump administration, which, in turn, has responded with escalating violence, locking both sides into a vicious cycle of hostility. Most recently, of course, Trump sent 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to Minneapolis. As thousands of protesters gathered on the streets, federal agents used increasingly aggressive tactics that culminated in the murders of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. Soon after Pretti was killed, Governor Tim Walz deployed the Minnesota National Guard to Minneapolis. They were stationed around the city, armed and outfitted in full camo gear. The streets were eerily empty, and many shops shuttered for weeks. Tens of thousands of immigrant families locked themselves in their homes, too afraid to venture out in case ICE abducted them. Instead of the regular flow of shoppers and diners on the sidewalks, legal observers—volunteers who trail ICE agents—patrolled streets by foot and by bike, often masked. The two groups often clashed directly, resulting in heated confrontations, with ICE and other federal forces beating and arresting observers. The Trump administration finally gave in and announced it was ending the crackdown, but it set a dangerous precedent.
Related: The U.S. Wants Canada to Become A Police State
In the past year, the U.S. government has terrorized the public and repressed dissent. None of this violence constitutes a civil war—that would require two or more sides shooting at each other in a sustained manner. But as the U.S. government tips closer to authoritarian rule, the possibility grows by the day. Authoritarian governments often push their citizens to fight back. In 2011, the Syrian Civil War started when Bashar al-Assad’s police state responded to peaceful protests with violence. A decade later, the Myanmar Civil War began when the military ousted the democratically elected government and protesters formed armed resistance groups in retaliation.
The idea of an American civil war may seem far-fetched, but so was the idea that the U.S. could become an authoritarian regime. There are three ways I could see a civil war breaking out in the U.S. First off: now that ICE has directed terrifying violence against its own civilians, Good and Pretti among them, people may start shooting back. Gun-owners are everywhere in the U.S.—mostly Republicans, but not exclusively. And citizens have organized armed resistance against the government before: in Waco, Texas, in 1993, a gun battle broke out when federal law enforcement officers tried to serve search and arrest warrants for illegal weapons to the Branch Davidian cult. The result was a 51-day siege that ended in a fire that killed 76 people.
The Branch Davidians had fewer than 100 members. The number of people who oppose ICE and the Trump administration is far higher, making it harder for federal law enforcement to root out violent dissidents as quickly as they did in Waco. If people start shooting at ICE in one city, the federal government could call on the U.S. Army to quell the resistance. Soldiers may not discriminate between ordinary protesters and violent dissidents. The outbreak of violent confrontations in one city may spread fear across the nation, prompting civilians in other cities to start shooting at federal agents or form armed resistance groups. Civilian-government conflicts could erupt across the nation.
The second possibility is that ICE simply shoots into a crowd. An agent shot Pretti when he’d already been tackled and disarmed. Is it so hard to imagine that they might direct their gunfire indiscriminately? A massacre would mobilize people against the government, which could lead civilians to shoot back around the country. In 2011, the Syrian government triggered a civil war when its soldiers shot at peaceful pro-democracy protesters in Daraa. The massacre spurred protests in other parts of the nation. As the government deployed increasingly violent tactics against its people, civilians armed themselves, and soldiers who did not want to fire on civilians defected.
The third option is that federal forces would directly clash with the state National Guard. So far ICE has avoided confrontation with the Minnesota National Guard. For their part, the Guard does not seem interested in escalation—they’re wearing reflective vests and handing out coffee and doughnuts. But there have been times when a state’s National Guard didn’t do what the federal government wanted, and Washington deployed the U.S. military in response. In 1954, after the Supreme Court ruled that school segregation was illegal, the city of Little Rock resisted, and the Arkansas National Guard blocked nine Black students from entering the school in 1957. In response, President Eisenhower sent U.S. Army troops, who escorted the students to school. This dynamic repeated a few years later in Alabama over the desegregation of the state’s universities. This time, John F. Kennedy called in the army to ensure that Black students could safely enrol in classes.
The standoffs during the civil rights era between the U.S. Army and state National Guards were largely nonviolent not out of inevitability, but out of luck. Today, if a Democratic state’s National Guard confronts ICE or the Army and one side begins shooting at the other, things could quickly get out of hand. ICE has shown very little restraint, and it would likely escalate the conflict if confronted. The two sides could then commit more troops to the situation until a full-fledged civil war erupts.
Related: Trump Wants the Western Hemisphere—Canada Included
What would a U.S. civil war mean for Canada? The obvious answer is that it would disrupt the Canadian economy, given how closely our markets are connected. The auto industry is a case in point: 91 per cent of automotive parts created in Canada were imported into the U.S. in 2023. The construction of some cars requires auto parts to cross the U.S.-Canada border up to eight times. Political instability down south would bring the industry to a grinding halt and lead to mass layoffs. The same thing would happen with our oil and gas industry: the two countries are connected by dozens of pipelines that transport crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids and refined petroleum products. Our agriculture industry would also suffer: Canada imports nearly half of its fresh produce from the U.S., and almost all of its fresh produce exports go to the U.S. Instability would result in food shortages and turmoil.
Large-scale political violence would also create a refugee crisis. The U.S. has more than 300 million people. If even one per cent try to flee to Canada, that would be three million people—around 7.5 per cent of Canada’s current population—who would have to be fed and housed in a system that’s already at its limit. A refugee crisis would also put Canada in a difficult diplomatic position: Trump would likely be enraged if Canada offered asylum to resisters fleeing the U.S.
Related: American Refugees Aren’t Welcome
Less likely, but still possible, is the prospect that Americans might cross the border and launch attacks from Canadian territory. There is a long history of resistance movements hiding in neighbouring countries: the Taliban launched its attacks from Pakistan, and the Viet Cong used Cambodia and Laos. The question then becomes whether U.S. forces will respect Canadian sovereignty or cross over into Canadian territory in hot pursuit of those fighting the Trump administration.
At this juncture, we face a major unknown in assessing the likelihood of a U.S. civil war: the American military has great capacity for violence, but is it willing to deploy violence against its people? The Trump administration has fired a number of top generals in what most experts of civil-military relations see as an effort to politicize the military, but those who are enlisted—the ones who will carry out the shooting—represent the American people. They may not be willing to shoot at civilians. In each of the scenarios I outlined, the reaction of the military will make all the difference. If the military splits into different sides, we could see two or more heavily trained and armed factions fighting against each other.
What happens over the next few months will be crucial. If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military or federalize the National Guard to suppress domestic uprisings, then that will be a surefire sign of impending violence. After that, the question will be whether the resistance responds in kind.
Stephen M. Saideman is the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and is the director of the Canadian Defence and Security Network.