Trump Annexing Canada Is Not a Credible Bluff

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised many things: streamlining the federal government, securing borders, mass deportations, 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. This was not on the ballot.

At first, his grandiose statements seemed like jokes or trolling. Some in the MAGA crowd assumed it was a negotiating ploy—just another version of the “art of the deal.” However, as Trump and his entourage continue doubling down, this is clearly no offhand remark.

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  

Annexing another country isn’t as simple as signing an executive order. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant the president unilateral power to redraw borders. That authority lies with Congress. Historically, acquisitions such as the Louisiana Purchase (1803) or the annexation of Texas (1845) required congressional approval. Even if Trump attempted to negotiate a deal, the Senate would need to ratify it with a two-thirds vote—an improbable scenario.

Sure, as Commander-in-Chief, Trump could send troops across the border under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, bypassing Congress temporarily. He’d have to justify why to Congress within 48 hours and after 60 days (plus 30 days for withdrawal), congressional approval would be required to continue. 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.

A Partisan Nightmare

Let’s entertain the scenario where, against all odds, Trump pulls it off and Canada becomes part of the U.S., either as one massive state or divided into several smaller ones. With 40 million people, it would bring 50 to 70 electoral votes—more than California’s 54. At first glance, this seems like a legacy-defining win for Trump. Not so fast.

Canada leans politically left. The vast majority of the population overwhelmingly supports universal healthcare, strict gun control, and aggressive climate policies—values more aligned with the Democratic Party. Moreover, Trump’s attitude toward Canada revived Canadian progressives; the country tends to lean left even more than before. A recent poll shows 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.

The Senate would see an influx of new members if Canada were divided into multiple states. Given Canada’s voting patterns, at least seven or eight of those senators would likely be Democrats. The House of Representatives would also shift, with left-leaning urban areas gaining more influence. For Republicans, who already struggle in large states like California and New York, this would be an electoral disaster. The 2024 election saw Kamala Harris receive 75 million votes to Trump’s 77.3 million. Adding 25 million likely Democratic-leaning Canadians could make future Republican presidential victories nearly impossible.

If Trump took Canada by force, the political fallout would be even worse. 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. It’d be like Britain trying to win over Ireland after centuries of bad blood. Meanwhile, liberals in Quebec or British Columbia would vote Democrat. That 60-70% Democratic tilt could jump to 80%, locking Republicans out of power.

No Endgame

Beyond electoral consequences, Canada is America’s 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 trade deficit of 200 billion dollars with Canada. Even for those who think trade deficits are a concern, 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 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 or entirely dismisses the concept of comparative advantage in international economics. Even if a country can produce everything independently, it’s economically beneficial to specialize in the goods it produces most efficiently and trade for others. 

A Failing Policy

Picking a fight risks everything for no real gain. Trump might think it is bold, but it is a strategic blunder. 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. 

The move is already backfiring, as Canadians rally around their national identity, boycott American goods, and reconsider economic ties. Even if the rhetoric is just bluster, it’s a self-inflicted wound on U.S.-Canada relations. If Trump is serious, he is failing to anticipate the consequences. If he’s joking, it’s a dangerous punchline. For those still convinced that Trump plays “4-D chess,” remember: never assume strategic genius when simple miscalculation explains it.