March Issue
Téa Breedon
March
“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us,” a statement told to the news media by Prime Minister Trudeau following President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Canada on March 4, 2025. While Trump’s threat was seemingly baseless and a mere attempt at fearmongering, his recent imposition of trade tariffs on Canada has triggered a vicious trade war between North American neighbours. While initially characterized by cooperation, Canada-U.S. relations have become increasingly fragile as Trump undermines the longstanding stability between the two nations.
Like his threats to annex Greenland, Trump’s recent shift toward interventionist policy has raised questions surrounding whether he will maintain the strict non-entanglement stance he assumed in his first term. Between 2017 and 2021, Trump shied away from a number of foreign conflicts; will his second term reflect the same legacy, or is the U.S. in for a dramatic shift toward interventionist strategy?
At the risk of stating the obvious, Trump’s recent change of approach reflects his commitment to American exceptionalism—or the belief that the nation is superior in its political, social and economic aspects. This commitment is not a new phenomenon to the Trump administration, manifesting itself in his Make America Great Again slogan throughout both his presidential terms. Historically, Trump’s stance mirrors that of the seventh president of the U.S., Andrew Jackson. Notable for his strict unilateral approach to American foreign policy and identifiable by his part in enabling the unlawful acquisition of Native American land, Jackson’s exceptionalist tendencies are best characterized by his pursuit of territorial expansion. Viewing American primacy as central to the nation’s success, Jacksonian thought argues that national success owes itself to the ability to expand a state’s influence through physical expansion. In this sense, Trump’s recent action satisfies both criteria for success outlined by Jacksonian thought. His America First approach, coupled with his recent interest in its northern neighbour, indicates a revival of Jacksonian strategy.
The revival of Jacksonian thought cannot be understood without first appreciating the current manifestations of Trump’s America First approach. Trump hardly lasted 24 hours in the White House before signing an executive order to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization. His eagerness to withdraw from international agreements and organizations reveals that Trump has structured his future plans for U.S. foreign policy in alignment with his pursuit and maintenance of American primacy.
Beyond the implications of Trump’s America First approach on its own policies, his calls for annexing Canada represent a distorted view of sovereignty that may pose significant consequences to any nation it comes in contact with. Rather than viewing sovereignty as a demonstration of mutual respect for territorial integrity and diplomatic cooperation, Trump’s rhetoric points to his tunnel vision of U.S. dominance.
The significance of practicing respect for individual state sovereignty is best articulated by Brookings scholars Bruce Jones, Carlos Pascual and Stephen Stedmen, with their notion of responsible sovereignty urging nations to recognize the integrity of other states in order to facilitate cooperation across borders. Contrasting this suggestion, Trump’s territorial ambitions in Greenland and Canada not only symbolize his commitment to American exceptionalism but also a failure to respect the sovereignty of independent nations.
Trump’s skewed stance on sovereignty could have profound implications for his approach toward Ukraine’s struggle against Russian annexation. If he views borders as malleable and sovereignty as hinging on reciprocative benefit, his approach to territorial integrity may prove problematic. On February 28, 2025, President Trump and Vice President Vance publicly chastised Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for not expressing enough gratitude for U.S. financial aid. Moreover, his later comments about Ukraine—choosing to halt its extension of U.S. military aid—suggest that he may not see Ukraine’s sovereignty as absolute. Regardless of whether these comments are driven by pettiness or genuine discontent, it is evident that Trump’s willingness to defend Ukraine is contingent on Zelenskyy’s expression of appreciation for U.S. aid.
Trump’s threat to annex Canada may suggest a shift away from the strict isolationist stance he assumed during his first term and toward an outward-facing view focused on expanding U.S. influence through territorial ambitions. In his first term, Trump exemplified American exceptionalism by prioritizing economic nationalism and disengagement from foreign entanglements, such as withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—only three years after it was established in 2015. Trump carried strict economic goals into his second term, imposing trade tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico to help stunt immigration into the U.S. While his economic nationalism persists, Trump’s threats of annexation peel back a new layer of his foreign policy plan.
His statement about absorbing Canada, much like his past interest in pursuing Greenland, suggests an itch toward challenging borders to serve U.S. interests. This rhetoric signals a shift from merely shielding the U.S. from international threats through a strict non-engagement policy to expanding U.S. power by challenging state sovereignty. Such a stance is reflective of Jacksonian interest in expansionism while remaining selective of entanglement in foreign affairs unless there is a perceived advantage for the U.S., reinforcing his view that sovereignty is transactional rather than absolute. Photo source: White House on Flickr