Donald Trump and Canada: Fact-Checking and Refuting His Prominent Claims
Donald Trump has made numerous claims about Canada over the years, many of which have been widely debunked or criticized for their inaccuracy. Let’s explore some of that and have a friendly little fact-check of some of his most prominent assertions, shall we?
1. Proposal for Canada to Become the 51st U.S. State
Trump has suggested that Canada should join the United States as its 51st state, arguing that this would benefit Canadians through lower taxes and improved healthcare. However, this proposal disregards Canada’s status as a sovereign nation with its own distinct political, legal, and cultural institutions.
Canadian leaders, including current Prime Minister Mark Carney, former Prime Ministers Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper, Paul Martin, Jean Cretien, Kim Campbell and Joe Clark (that is all currently-living former PMs, and note that they represent both sides of the political spectrum in Canada), as well as all ten provincial premiers, have firmly rejected this notion, emphasizing the country’s independence and unwavering desire to remain sovereign.
The overwhelming majority of Canadians — both those by lucky accident of birth and those who adopted Canada as home by choice — identify strongly with their national identity and have no interest in becoming part of the United States. If, if-if (a not-ever-possible hypothetical if) Canada were to become the 51st U.S. state, there would be several significant losses for Canadians that they do not want.
The Changes Canadians Do Not Want Include:
A. Loss of Sovereignty
Canada would no longer be a sovereign, independent nation. Decisions about domestic policies, foreign relations, and defense would be controlled by the U.S. federal government, whose domestic and international policies differ significantly from Canada’s.
B. Loss of Healthcare
Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system would be dismantled to align with the privatized healthcare system in the U.S. This shift would lead to devastatingly higher healthcare costs and reduced accessibility to healthcare for Canadians.
C. Expensive Higher Education
Canada has a publicly funded higher education system with relatively affordable tuition compared to the U.S., where higher education can result in substantial student loan debt. Canadian universities are also known for their strong international rankings and accessibility. If Canada became a U.S. state, the education system would shift toward the U.S. model, characterized by higher tuition fees, greater reliance on private funding, and significant student debt burdens. Such changes would reduce or outright eliminate access to higher education for many Canadians.
D. Regression of Social Policies
Canada has progressive social policies on issues such as gun control, LGBTQ2SA+ rights, reproductive rights, diversity and inclusion, anti-racism, and immigration. These policies would be undermined or repealed to align with U.S. federal policies or state-level regulations.
E. Economic Losses
Canada benefits from international trade agreements and partnerships that are specific to its independent-nation status. As a U.S. state, these agreements would likely be renegotiated or voided, negatively impacting trade relationships and the overall economy.
F. Weakening of Banking System
Canada’s banking system is known for its stability and strong regulatory framework, largely managed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). Canadian banks are typically more conservative in their lending practices, which contributed to their admirable stability during the 2008 financial crisis. In contrast, the U.S. banking system is more fragmented, with thousands of banks regulated at both federal and state levels. Becoming a U.S. state would lead to increased deregulation and higher risks for Canadian consumers. The loss of the independent Canadian dollar, which is managed by the Bank of Canada, would also have significant impacts on monetary policy and economic sovereignty.
G. Reduced Food Safety
Canada has strict food safety standards overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which works to ensure that food products are safe, accurately labeled, and free from contaminants. These regulations often exceed those in the United States, where food safety is managed by multiple agencies, including the FDA and USDA, leading to varying standards and enforcement. If Canada became a U.S. state, its food safety regulations would be lowered to match the more deregulated U.S. system, compromising food quality and consumer safety.
H. Increased Crime and Decreased Public Safety
Canada enjoys a significantly lower crime rate and higher sense of public safety compared to the U.S. Strict gun control laws in Canada help keep firearm-related crime relatively low, while becoming part of the U.S. would mean looser gun laws, leading to more gun ownership and a rise in gun-related violence, similar to the tragic levels as seen in the U.S. Canada also enjoys lower drug-related violence and a more public-health-based approach to drug use. The Canadian public-service focussed penal system prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, which helps reduce reoffending rates. The U.S. has a much higher incarceration rate, harsher sentencing (including the death penalty in some states), and a for-profit prison system that results in over-policing, inequitable policing practices, over-sentencing, and increased imprisonment. As part of the U.S., Canada would see increased gang activity, gun violence, drug trafficking, violence, and murder-rates— problems that plague many American cities, but has remained comparatively lower across Canada.
H. Worsening in Policing Practices
Canada’s approach to policing differs significantly from that of the United States. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) serves as a federal, national, territorial, and provincial police force (in all but two provinces), as well as policing many municipalities. Canadian policing is focused on community-based approaches and emphasizes de-escalation tactics. In contrast, the U.S. has a highly decentralized system of policing with thousands of municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies, each with its own varied standards and policies. Problems around police militarization, racial disparities, and the excessive use of force are more pronounced in the U.S., leading to greater public scrutiny and massive distrust. If Canada became a U.S. state, its community-oriented, less militarized approach to policing would be undermined by the more aggressive and harmful U.S. law enforcement culture.
I. Replacement of Democratic Constitutional Monarchy Parliamentary System
Canada’s parliamentary democracy, with its distinct dual common law and civil law legal traditions and constitutional monarchy under the British Crown, would be replaced by the U.S. system of government. This would fundamentally change Canada’s political machinery and identity.
Canada’s legal system is a hybrid of common law (in most of Canada) and civil law (in Quebec). This unique combination allows Canada to balance the more flexible and precedent-based common law system with the systematic and codified approach of civil law, a tradition inherited from French influence. By contrast, the U.S. operates under a pure common law system, which can lead to differences in judicial interpretation and application of law. These differences reflect broader cultural and historical distinctions between the two nations.
Canada’s historical ties to the British Crown and its foundation on the principle of loyalty to the monarchy provided a distinct national identity, separate from the United States, which violently seceded from the British Crown in 1776. While Canada peacefully achieved full legislative independence through the Statute of Westminster (1931) and complete sovereignty with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution (1982), the monarchy continues to serve as a stable, non-partisan figurehead, offering a unifying anchor for the nation. In contrast, the United States, as a republic, elects its head of state and government, resulting in a different dynamic combining governance and ceremony. A constitutional monarchy, such as Canada’s, provides symbolic stability and continuity, which is especially important in countries with diverse populations. The monarch stands outside of political disputes, serving as a ceremonial and impartial unifying symbol for all citizens, while allowing elected officials to focus on their political duties. In a republic like the U.S., where the head of state is both ceremonial and governing, a single official shoulders greater responsibility, often leading to increased partisanship and political division.
J. Loss of Electoral Integrity
Canada’s election system is generally regarded as transparent, trustworthy, and free from significant controversy. Elections Canada, an independent, non-partisan agency, oversees federal elections, ensuring strict adherence to campaign finance laws, voter identification regulations, and the integrity of the voting process. In contrast, the U.S. has experienced widespread debate over election integrity, with polarized perspectives on voter fraud, election security, and the role of state-level legislation. The U.S. also faces ongoing issues with its Electoral College system, which, while enshrined in the Constitution, often leads to outcomes that do not reflect the popular vote. This system awards a set number of electors to each state, regardless of population size, which can result in disproportionate influence for less populous states, and has been subject to manipulation for the benefit of political parties by diminishing the voting-power of certain populations. A candidate in the U.S. can win the presidency without securing the majority of the popular vote, as seen in the 2000 and 2016 elections, leading to questions about the system’s fairness and democratic legitimacy.
Canada’s parliamentary system provides a mechanism for ongoing accountability through the non-confidence vote. If the elected governing party loses the support of the majority of elected officials, representing voters from across the country, the government may be forced to resign, prompting a new election. This system ensures that the government remains responsive to the will of the elected representatives and their constituents, allowing for more direct accountability and ensuring the government remains in power only as long as it retains the confidence of the legislature.
If Canada became a U.S. state, its more centralized and transparent election management, along with the built-in mechanisms for parliamentary accountability, would be influenced by the decentralized and politically contentious electoral processes in the U.S. This could potentially undermine public trust in the fairness of elections, as the electoral system would prioritize state-level politics over equitable representation of all citizens, while removing Canada’s mechanisms for ensuring government accountability through a non-confidence vote.
K. Balanced News Media
The media landscape in Canada is generally regarded as more balanced and regulated than in the U.S. Canadian news organizations, such as the CBC, operate under more stringent non-partisan public service mandates, aiming to provide impartial coverage. In contrast, U.S. media is often seen as more polarized, with partisan outlets shaping public discourse to cater to specific political agendas. If Canada became a U.S. state, its media could see an increase in partisanship, undermining the objectivity and trustworthiness of news sources.
L. Injury to Identity and Culture
Canadians generally take pride in their unique culture and identity as a bilingual nation and multicultural mosaic that is markedly distinct from that of the U.S. Integration as a U.S. state would lead to a loss of rich cultural identity and the erosion of national pride and unique Canadian symbols.
2. Mischaracterizing Trade Relations
Trump has imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods, citing trade imbalances and accusing Canada of unfair practices. He has claimed that Canada is “one of the highest tariffing nations,” a statement that has been fact-checked and found to be false. In reality, Canada’s tariff rates are comparable to those of other developed nations. Additionally, while Trump has criticized the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) — a trade deal he negotiated during his presidency — for failing to address trade imbalances, however, despite the false numbers he quotes, reliable data indicates that the U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada is only about $45 billion in 2024.
Despite Trump’s criticism, many experts argue that trade deficits are not inherently negative and can reflect strong domestic demand for a variety of goods. Increased demand by the U.S. population of roughly 330 million vs the Canadian population of 30 million is to be expected. Trump’s statements demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of trade deficits and tariffs. A trade deficit occurs when a country’s imports exceed its exports, resulting in a negative balance of trade. This unbalance is not unlike the unbalanced relationship between a consumer and a retailer, where both parties benefit from a relationship based on exchange of goods for money. While Trump views trade deficits as a loss, economists often highlight that they can indicate strong consumer demand and access to a variety of products.
Trade imbalances and tariffs are complex issues and often reflect broader economic dynamics. Trump’s portrayal of Canada’s trade practices misrepresents the facts and ignores the intricate, mutually beneficial relationships that both countries share in the trade arena. Ultimately, tariffs and trade deficits should not be viewed through the lens of “winners” and “losers,” but as part of an interconnected global economy where both countries’ interests must be considered.
3. Misunderstanding Energy Dependencies
Trump has asserted that the U.S. does not rely on Canadian oil, gas, vehicles, or lumber, suggesting that these imports are unnecessary. However, this claim contradicts economic data showing that the U.S. heavily depends on Canadian crude oil to supply its refineries, making Canada a crucial energy partner. Disruptions to this trade relationship could have significant economic consequences for both nations.
Additionally, Canada plays a critical role in the U.S. energy landscape through the export of hydroelectric power, especially in regions such as the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. Canada’s vast network of hydroelectric dams provides clean, renewable energy to the U.S., helping to stabilize the grid and reduce the carbon footprint of U.S. energy consumption.
4. Fentanyl Trafficking
Trump has justified attacks on Canadian sovereignty and the imposition of tariffs by claiming that Canada fails to control the trafficking of fentanyl into the United States. However, evidence indicates that the majority of illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. originates from China and Mexico, not Canada (not to point fingers elsewhere, but facts is facts). Experts argue that targeting Canada with tariffs over fentanyl trafficking is both ineffective and unjustified.
While it is clear that much of the fentanyl entering the U.S. originates from outside Canada, there are instances of fentanyl being trafficked from the U.S. into Canada, reflecting the broader issue of cross-border drug trafficking. Imports into a country are clearly the responsibility of the receiving country, which patrols its own borders, and therefore any fentanyl crossing into the U.S. represents a failure on the part of U.S. officials, not Canadians. Both nations bear the responsibility of combating illegal narcotics and securing their own borders from such imports. Fentanyl trafficking is a complex international issue, and addressing it requires comprehensive, cooperative law enforcement efforts that focus on preventing the flow of illicit drugs into both countries.
Conclusion
Trump’s claims about Canada misrepresent the realities of U.S.-Canada relations, trade balances, and national sovereignty. Experts and officials from both countries have consistently refuted these inaccuracies. While his rhetoric may appeal to certain uninformed political bases, the facts point to a deeply interconnected relationship. Canada is an essential trade partner, energy provider, and ally, and both nations benefit from cooperation rather than conflict.
Canadians are already responding with defiance and national pride, rejecting Trump’s influence, and demanding strong leadership from Canadian political leaders. While economic concerns exist, public support is shifting away from U.S. dependence in favour of broader global ties. Canadians are prepared to make sacrifices (economic and otherwise) to protect their country’s sovereignty.
Canada supplies critical resources that the U.S. depends on—oil, natural gas, minerals, lumber, and food. Any aggressive move by Trump would harm U.S. industries as much as, if not more than, Canada’s. With strong trade agreements in Europe and the Pacific, Canada can pivot to other markets and step up as a more reliable trade and security partner as Trump;s antics isolate the U.S. globally.
Historically, Canada has shown it can stand firm against U.S. pressure:
- War of 1812 & Fenian Raids – Repelled U.S. invasions.
- Alaska Boundary Dispute – Defended fair borders.
- Great Depression – Reduced reliance on U.S. trade.
- Vietnam & Iraq Wars – Refused to participate.
- Nuclear Weapons – Rejected U.S. demands during the Cold War.
- USMCA & Trade Wars – Stood strong against unfair tariffs.
Throughout history Canada has consistently defended its sovereignty — militarily, economically, and diplomatically — and will do so again if challenged. If Trump continues to pursue unfair policies and issuing threats to Canadian sovereignty, Canada can rally public support nationally and internationally, leverage international trade laws, call on its military allies, and strengthen its global partnerships to fight back.
Canada is not powerless. We are strong. We are resilient. We will prevail.
Elbows up, eh?
