Annexing Canada: Trump’s Dumbest Bluff Yet – OpEd

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised many things: streamlining the federal government, securing borders, mass deportation of illegals, lowering prices, and imposing tariffs on rival countries. Yet, among these promises, he never mentioned annexing Canada or Greenland. For voters who chose Trump as the lesser of two evils—and even for hardcore supporters—his recent rhetoric comes as a shock. They did not expect such a stance nor vote for it.

At first, his grandiose statements seemed like jokes or trolling. Some in the MAGA crowd assume it’s merely negotiation tactics, an example of the “art of the deal.” But now, President Trump and his entourage are doubling down, and the idea has become an obsession.  

Whether he’s serious or just tossing out red meat to his base, the idea’s been lighting up social media and dinner table debates. But let’s cut through the noise: Could he actually do it? And if he pulled it off, what would happen next?  

The President’s Power: Big, But Not That Big  

First off, annexing a country isn’t like ordering a burger. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t give the president a magic wand to redraw borders. That power sits with Congress. The rules say new states or territories can only join the union if Congress agrees—usually through a treaty or a law. Back in the day, moves like the Louisiana Purchase (1803) or Texas annexation (1845) the U.S. needed lawmakers to sign off. Trump could negotiate a deal, but the Senate would need to approve it with a two-thirds vote. Good luck with that.  

Sure, as Commander-in-Chief, Trump could send troops across the border under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, without consulting Congress first. He’d have to tell Congress within 48 hours, and he’d get 60 days (plus 30 days for withdrawal) to play warlord before needing their authorization to keep going. Maybe he’d spin it as a “national security” thing—Canada’s border laxness or Greenland’s strategic spot near the Arctic. But turning that into permanent U.S. land? Congress would have to fund it, vote for it, and deal with the chaos. That’s a tall order, even for a Republican-led government.  

The Political Boomerang: A Republican Nightmare  

Here’s where it gets juicy. Let’s say, against all odds, Trump pulls it off and annexes Canada. Maybe it becomes one giant state or splits into chunks like Ontario and British Columbia. With 40 million people, it’d bring 50 to 70 electoral votes to the U.S. system—more than California’s 54. That sounds like a win for Trump’s legacy, right? Not so fast.  

Canada is known to be a liberal-leaning country. Vast majority of population is fond of universal healthcare, gun control, and climate action—stuff that sounds like a Democratic Party playbook. Moreover, Trump’s attitude toward Canada revived Canadian progressives; the country tend to leaned left even more than before. A recent poll show Canadians didn’t like Trump much—75% had a negative view in February, 2025. If they became U.S. voters, they’d probably lean blue. Cities like Toronto (3 million) and Vancouver (2.6 million) would turn into Democratic powerhouses overnight.  

Now, imagine the Senate. Canada could add 10 new senators if split into five states. Based on how Canadians vote, maybe seven or eight would be Democrats. The House would grow too, with more seats for urban, left-leaning areas. Republicans, who already struggle in big states like New York and California, could be toast. In 2025, Harris got 75 million votes to Trump’s 77.3 million. Add 25 million new Democratic-leaning Canadians, and the GOP might never see the White House again.  

If Trump took Canada by force, it’d be even uglier for Republicans as they are to blame for fueling annexation. An invasion would turn that into hatred. Even Canada’s conservatives—like Alberta’s oil-rich crowd—might ditch the GOP. They’re into freedom and markets, not being conquered. Meanwhile, liberals in Quebec or British Columbia would vote Democrat to spite the invaders. That 60-70% Democratic tilt could jump to 80%, locking Republicans out of power for decades. It’d be like Britain trying to win over Ireland after centuries of bad blood—good luck with that.  

Trump’s Blind Spot: No Endgame  

This is where Trump’s style trips him up. He loves the big talk—trolling Canada might fire up his fans or rattle trade talks. But he doesn’t seem to see the dominoes that fall next. Annexing Canada wouldn’t just be hard; it’d be a disaster for his own party. He’d hand Democrats a gift: millions of voters who’d punish Republicans forever.  

Trolling Canada is wrong-headed anyway. It’s not some weak rival—it’s a second largest trading partner and number one export market. The accusation that Canada rips off the USA is not true. Trump says the U.S. has a 200 billion trade deficit with Canada. In reality, the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services with Canada in 2024 was closer to $35.7 billion, according to the latest trade data released from the U.S. Census Bureau on March 6. That trade deficit narrowed from $40.6 billion in 2023, and if the trend continues, the deficit will shrink, even though it is negligible compared to China, for example.  

Contrary to Trump’s suggestions, lots of American banks operate in Canada. Those who’ve traveled to Canada could see them with their own eyes; the rest could just Google. Yes, American banks face some protectionist restrictions in the foreign land, but if they find those restrictions hurt their bottom lines, they could leave the market. There is more socialism in the blood of the Canadian economy, so it’s expected that they deviate from the free-market economy. But Trump’s administration and Republicans are not laissez-faire either.  

Trump said that American farmers paid around 300% tariffs for dairy products. However, while the high tariffs exist, the U.S. is not currently paying them, as its exports remain within the quota. This quota is negotiated in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed and praised by Trump in 2018. If the quota happens to be low or circumstances change, there is a mechanism to solve problems within the agreement, not by a trade war.  

The U.S. gets 60% of its crude oil imports from Canada, plus cars, lumber, and more. Trump often claims that America doesn’t need Canada’s energy, lumber, or automobiles. It seems Trump isn’t familiar with the concept of comparative advantage in international economics. Even if a country can produce everything independently, it’s economically beneficial to specialize in goods it produces most efficiently and trade for others.

The example above suggests that Trump’s hostile rhetoric is unwarranted and irrational. Picking a fight risks everything for no real gain. Trump might think it’s funny or bold, but it’s a dud move that leads nowhere good. 

A Failing Policy  

Call it what it is: Trump’s Canada policy—if you can call it that—is failing before it starts. He can’t annex a country alone; the Constitution says no. Even if he could, the political price would sink the GOP. Canadians wouldn’t roll over—they’d fight, resent, and vote against him. The world would push back, and America would lose more than it gains.

But even as a stunt, it’s a misfire. It dims a solid alliance, wastes energy on a fantasy, and ignores the real fallout. Trump’s policy converts a friend into a foe. He induced huge patriotism among Canadians, they’re all “elbows up.” Canadians are angry and have started to boycott American products and travel to the United States. Canadians won’t easily overlook unprovoked insults. American goods, even if cheaper, may be rejected simply because national dignity costs more. Ironically, the trade deficit could widen as emotional responses overtake economic logic, despite potential adjustments to quotas or other measures. Healing this relationship will take years, not weeks or months. 

If Trump is serious, he’s not counting the steps ahead. If he’s joking, it’s a bad punchline. For those who still think Trump is playing 4-D chess, I would say: don’t assume 4-D chess if stupidity explains it.