This article was first published by The Globe and Mail.
The new national-security strategy issued by the Trump administration has caused shock waves among the United States’ allies.
It contains a retreat by the United States from global leadership and an abandonment of any principled foreign policy. It fails to address threats posed by authoritarian regimes and castigates Europe as a continent in decline, which needs U.S.-style political change. It shows signs of weakening NATO commitments, lacks support for Ukraine and emphasizes U.S. dominance of the Western hemisphere. The Trump strategy presents an explosive mix of policies that give new substance to an unprecedented version of the doctrine of “America first.”
While some European governments have responded forcefully, the Canadian government confronts its own dilemma. In the midst of a breakdown in trade talks with the United States, with the future of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade deal uncertain and faced with a mercurial U.S. president, how should the government respond? The horns of this dilemma are sharp. Canadian values are at stake and so are Canadian interests.
The range of choices is easy to set out, from silence to public pushback, with some uneasy middle options. Silence would be read as acquiescence and cherry-picking would come across as Canada kowtowing to President Donald Trump. Trying to repair damaged relations by building bridges between the U.S. and Europe is unrealistic and direct public push-back spells trouble. In short, none of these options are optimal and all carry costs. Keep in mind that nothing the Carney government does is going to change the thinking of the Trump administration, so any response needs to be weighed in terms of how it benefits Canada.
Privately, the Canadian embassy in Washington could get to work with its contacts, stressing Canada’s dismay over the strategy. But that would only reach the ears of Democrats and those similarly disposed to the message. In other respects, it could undercut whatever traction the new Canadian Ambassador will have as a principal in trade talks.
The U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, could be summoned for a meeting with senior Canadian officials to make the same point, with additional punctation around the importance that Canada attaches to non-interference in Canadian affairs, whether political, economic, social or military. It would be a good guess that Mr. Hoekstra would take any dressing down from Canadian officials badly and make a point of saying so in public. In a year-end interview with the media, he has already downplayed any Canadian concerns about U.S. interference. These vague assurances on their own don’t undermine the need for some quiet, diplomatic straight talk. Just don’t expect a positive outcome.
There are also still quieter moves we could make, including cutting back on the number of accredited U.S. officials embedded in Canada’s security and intelligence agencies, reviewing intelligence sharing, and selectively withholding intelligence reports. The problem with all that is our deep reliance on U.S. intelligence. It will take time and much change for Canada’s intelligence system to be more sovereign and autonomous.
So, where does that leave Canada?
We do have one good option: publish our own national-security strategy. Government officials have long been resistant to this idea and political leaders indifferent. That’s one reason why it has been 21 years and counting since the last Canadian national-security policy was released. But things seemed to change in the final phase of the Trudeau government, when a new strategy was promised (in May, 2024) and when Nathalie Drouin, the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister, was given a mandate to produce it (in November, 2024).
Indications are that the Carney government decided to pause the work to await the appearance of the Trump national-security strategy. Now they have it in technicolor, and it is probably worse than they imagined. There is no getting around the fact that a Canadian national-security strategy would have to be diametrically opposed to the Trump version, and would represent pushback, even if not explicitly stated. That would give the “elbows down” crowd in government all the incentive they might need to can the project.
But take heart, we have been here before. The last (and only) Canadian national-security strategy, published by Paul Martin’s government in April, 2004, was a deliberate repudiation of the George W. Bush doctrine, post 9/11, promising a global war on terror and a pre-emptive conflict with rogue regimes. We managed to produce our own national security vision then; we can do it again. We can’t just afford to wait two years.
Do it, do it right, and do it now.
