LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer speaks to the press outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2026.

One of the big issues in the Canada-U.S. trade war — the one about language, culture and sovereignty no less — has been settled.

It’s remarkable what can be achieved when the two sides aren’t even talking to each other.

Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc posted on social media on Tuesday, “Canada welcomes that the U.S. is now withdrawing its positions on discoverability and labelling and is confirming that measures to promote French language and Canadian culture will not be subject to future U.S. trade actions.

“We look forward to further constructive U.S. clarifications on their other positions which would create the possibility of a mutually beneficial trade agreement that respects Canadian sovereignty.”

It appears LeBlanc was responding to an interview given by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to the CBC that was at least forthright in setting out the U.S. positions.

Tariffs on medium and heavy trucks were always going to be heavier than autos, said Greer, who also made clear that returning manufacturing back to America was a prime goal.

“We are trying to reindustrialize 25 years after suffering from globalization where we lost five million jobs, 30,000 factories,” said Greer. “For weeks I’ve been clear about what we could deliver.”

It was the Canadians, claimed Greer, who “at the end” said that when they were talking of autos they meant “everything from a little escort to the biggest truck you can think of.”

Canada and the U.S. are agreed that tariffs on those trucks are an area of great disagreement. And considering the economic fallout, especially for Ontario, it is a red line for Canada.

On Saturday , Prime Minister Mark Carney pointed to a second issue that had caused the breakdown of talks accusing the U.S. of trying to impose restrictions on Canada pursuing free trade agreements with other countries.

“Unacceptable,” said Carney. “One thing we were not going to accept was any restriction on those deals.”

But listening to what Carney later said in his news conference, and what Greer told the CBC on Wednesday night, the issue is not so black and white. The U.S. and Canada may be a lot closer in their positions.

Greer said Carney’s characterization that the U.S. was trying to restrict Canadian free trade deals “goes far beyond anything we have discussed.”

He said Canadian provincial and federal officials wanted to create Fortress North America — “their term not mine” — which would require those within the north American market to “protect its borders.”

“We can’t have Canada be a place where you can get flooded with steel and aluminum from other countries and be used as a back door into the U.S.,” said Greer. “We have to have mutual protection.”

Carney made a similar argument Saturday.

When the prime minister was asked whether the trade restrictions required Canada to impose tariffs on other countries in conjunction with the U.S., Carney said, “There were elements of that in certain sectors.

“To be clear, we would see the merits of that as part of a comprehensive deal that made sense for Canada.”

Having an integrated auto sector, or steel/aluminum sector, meant that the U.S. and Canada had concerns about non-market economies and trans shipments through third countries. “Then it makes sense to align,” said Carney, adding, “We would be prepared to do that” within a comprehensive deal.

“But that’s us deciding to do something in our joint interest as opposed to being told to do something or being restricted from doing something,” said the prime minister.

Although, isn’t a trade deal about agreeing to do something that is hopefully beneficial to both countries?

On the issue of discoverability — the attack on our sovereignty — Greer was adamant that it was never a red line for the Americans.

“So first of all, importantly, President Trump, myself, and the U.S. government recognizes the importance and sensitivity of the French language in Canada, in Quebec, in areas in the Maritimes.

“I mean, that’s part of Canadian Québécois identity,” said Greer.

“This is something we talked about, but we showed a lot of flexibility. And our view is there is no way we would let a good deal go by for something like this. It’s like the farthest thing from a red line.

“It’s been presented in the Canadian press like some big thing that we held the line on. This is not true at all.”

It is astonishing, and welcome, that of three major issues one has been solved already, especially, as Greer revealed, “We don’t have open channels right now.”

But Greer was very aware of the mood in Canada and next steps.

“Our view is don’t retaliate, but I know how people are feeling in Canada and what they think. So it’s unfortunate, but it is what it is,” he said. “If there’s further retaliation from the Canadian side, we, of course, are not going to just sit down and take that.”

But Greer should sit down and so should LeBlanc. And the place to do it is at the bargaining table.

The problem with any war is that the conflict usually escalates to catastrophic proportions before both sides are ready to negotiate.

Let’s start opening the channels now.

National Post


Ontario Premier Doug Ford, left, and U.S. President Donald Trump

Canada’s trade war with the U.S. is bad for Ontario, but not for Doug Ford.

For the premier, the trade war is a godsend, a chance to rise above the minor-league missteps and general lack of direction that have dogged his government for most of this year.

For months, Ford has sat quietly on the sidelines as Prime Minister Mark Carney worked on the trade issue in his calm and quiet way. It seemed as if Ford’s stint as Captain Canada had come to an end.

Then, with one classic Ford outburst, the premier was back. When Trump threatened even more tariff punishment, Ford invited the president to “kiss my ass. ” One would have to be a hardcore Ford hater not to say, “right on!”

By the time the war of words was done, Trump had said Ford was “”less charismatic, intelligent, and overall unimpressive,” compared to his late brother, Rob. Trump also called the premier a “flunky” and threatened to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America because “we don’t expect to be doing much business with Ontario any longer.”

In a second volley, Ford called Trump “a loser,” the “king of bankruptcies” and a “dictator.”

Then Ford started to work the U.S media circuit, toning down his message for that audience and admitting that things had gotten “a little heated.” The premier was back in the spotlight. Well played.

A Liaison Strategies’ poll this week suggested quick political dividends for Ford. His personal approval rating climbed from 24 per cent in July to 36 per cent now. Still not great but heading in the right direction.

The same poll said 85 per cent of Ontarians polled favoured keeping American booze out of retail stores. This is Ford’s best weapon in the trade fight. The booze ban by provinces took on surprising importance in the failed trade talks, apparently a precondition to the deal going through.

After the talks collapsed, Ford said he wouldn’t have supported a deal that would hurt Ontario workers, one Carney seemed ready to make. Ford also said he wouldn’t allow American booze to be sold in Ontario as part of such a bad deal.

In effect, the relatively trivial liquor issue gave Ford a near-veto on trade talks, one he still has if the same approach is taken in future talks. That leverage makes Ford more of a player on trade issues than he has been.

The trade war flareup was ideally timed for Ford. He hasn’t had a great year. His eight-year-old government has lost momentum, bogged down by self-inflicted problems like the controversy over buying a jet for the premier’s use, cabinet ministers soaking the public for the use of hotel rooms, and the PC Party sending someone to snoop on the Liberal leader in Jamaica.

Now Ford’s shortcomings have been pushed out of the news by the trade issue, just like they were in last year’s snap election. Ford might not like Trump, but he does come in handy.

Some dismiss Ford’s war of words with Trump as political theatre that distracts from the real trade issues, but the whole affair is political theatre. Trump’s tariffs have always been more about putting on a show of dominance and making others bend to his will. Trade itself is incidental.

Think of the Ford-Trump tussle as like a hockey fight. It won’t determine the final score, but it pleases some fans in the moment.

Ford knows how to deliver a political punch. That’s not really Carney’s style. About the closest Carney came to a shot was noting that the Americans’ trade deals were sometimes signed in pencil . Good line, but Trump’s communications on trade are more like ransom notes scrawled in crayon by a 12-year-old.

Trump is an easy target, a man who is little more than a cartoon villain. The tougher task for Ford is getting super-popular Carney to stand up for Ontario. Carney is being hailed as a hero for not giving the Americans everything they want, but the deal he was reportedly prepared to accept would have been a serious blow to Canada’s largest province.

It seems that Carney would have agreed to permanent high tariffs on steel, auto manufacturing and forestry, three critical Ontario industries. Tariffs that are less than Trump’s threatened maximum number are not a win if they are still high enough to cripple those industries.

Ontarians ought to be concerned by Carney’s record of making concessions to Trump and getting nothing in return. The PM’s impending counter-tariffs offer some hope that he has a spine, but history suggests otherwise.

For Ford, managing Carney is the biggest challenge. It will require some subtlety. Unfortunately, that’s not the premier’s strong suit.

National Post

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at randalldenley1@gmail.com


Sophie Cunningham of the Indiana Fever signs autographs ahead of an WNBA game against the Toronto Tempo at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto on Aug. 18. Cunningham was booed by some attending the game, likely for her opposition to transgender athletes playing in women's sports, writes Marty York.

As a backup who comes off the bench, Sophie Cunningham of the Indiana Fever is not the most talented player in the Women’s National Basketball Association. There is little doubt, however, that she has emerged this season as the most renowned.

And there’s no question that she has played a major role in the league’s soaring attendance figures and television ratings.

At 30, the 6-foot-1 guard/forward is averaging only about eight points a game. Yet, chiefly because of her and teammate Caitlin Clark, the WNBA has ascended into considerable prominence.

Recently, the first-year Toronto Tempo, not a formidable team in the WNBA, drew an atypical decent crowd because the opponent was the Fever. Toronto fans would be hard-pressed to name two players with the Tempo, but identifying Cunningham and Clark of Indiana has turned into a breeze for even the most casual of WNBA followers.

Not that the duo is popular with Toronto fans. No, Clark was booed in Toronto because, well, she’s a truly terrific superstar in the WNBA, and the booing is a sign of respect, much the way Bobby Orr or LeBron James would be booed during their respective games in Toronto, and elsewhere.

But the booing of Cunningham struck me as bizarre, to say the least. She wasn’t being targeted in Toronto because she is Clark’s on-court protector. Nor was she being booed because of her delightful personality, swagger, beauty and marketability.

She was being booed because she had the audacity to tell ESPN in a much-publicized interview that she is opposed to transgender athletes playing in women’s sports. Even women in Toronto booed Cunningham. Weird, eh? Women booing a woman for sticking up for women.

Cunningham said she wasn’t bothered even slightly by the booing in Toronto. “I’m here to extend love,” she told reporters. “But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

She is bang-on and, after doing some in-depth research on the subject, I wholeheartedly agree with Cunningham.

Allowing biological men, with their undeniable physical advantages in strength, speed and endurance, to compete against biological females undermines the progress being made in women’s sports.

Dr. Gregory Brown, a professor of exercise science at the University of Nebraska, has produced more than 60 peer-reviewed publications for academic journals. He wrote last January that “Female athletes have been injured and deprived of roster spots, starting positions, awards and championships in their own category, all due to the mistaken belief that a transgender identity somehow negates the well-documented performance advantages conferred by male sex.”

At every level, from school sports to the Olympics to the pros, opportunities for success for females have been diminished when transgender individuals are permitted to participate in their competitions.

Dr. Brown noted that female athletes have lost scholarships, medals, playing spots, and even top salaries as pros, when their sports have been co-opted by male trans athletes.

There is a view, held by many who follow the WNBA, that there are male trans athletes recognized as women in the league. Cunningham has mildly suggested the testing of WNBA players to determine their sex at birth.

The league’s administrators are not only balking at the suggestion but reprimanding Cunningham and warning her to be silent on the issue.

Yet Cunningham isn’t simply talking out of her hat. She is honest. She tells it like it is. She is wiser than your average athlete. She is in the process of finishing a book that will sell well, at least with the anti-woke enthusiasts.

She is pleasant, amicable and multi-talented, a bright shining light in the historically underrated and underappreciated world of professional women’s sports. She should be a welcome part of a league trying to grow.

With her ability to utilize social media, her gift of gab and her light-hearted approach to friendly and fun-loving messaging, she is irrefutably a marketing guru.

The folks who run and follow the WNBA should cease and desist from admonishing her and, yes, booing her. Rather, she should be — and I don’t often say this when it comes to athletes — exalted and thanked. She truly is one of a kind.

National Post


Sophie Cunningham of the Indiana Fever signs autographs ahead of an WNBA game against the Toronto Tempo at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto on Aug. 18. Cunningham was booed by some attending the game, likely for her opposition to transgender athletes playing in women's sports, writes Marty York.

As a backup who comes off the bench, Sophie Cunningham of the Indiana Fever is not the most talented player in the Women’s National Basketball Association. There is little doubt, however, that she has emerged this season as the most renowned.

And there’s no question that she has played a major role in the league’s soaring attendance figures and television ratings.

At 30, the 6-foot-1 guard/forward is averaging only about eight points a game. Yet, chiefly because of her and teammate Caitlin Clark, the WNBA has ascended into considerable prominence.

Recently, the first-year Toronto Tempo, not a formidable team in the WNBA, drew an atypical decent crowd because the opponent was the Fever. Toronto fans would be hard-pressed to name two players with the Tempo, but identifying Cunningham and Clark of Indiana has turned into a breeze for even the most casual of WNBA followers.

Not that the duo is popular with Toronto fans. No, Clark was booed in Toronto because, well, she’s a truly terrific superstar in the WNBA, and the booing is a sign of respect, much the way Bobby Orr or LeBron James would be booed during their respective games in Toronto, and elsewhere.

But the booing of Cunningham struck me as bizarre, to say the least. She wasn’t being targeted in Toronto because she is Clark’s on-court protector. Nor was she being booed because of her delightful personality, swagger, beauty and marketability.

She was being booed because she had the audacity to tell ESPN in a much-publicized interview that she is opposed to transgender athletes playing in women’s sports. Even women in Toronto booed Cunningham. Weird, eh? Women booing a woman for sticking up for women.

Cunningham said she wasn’t bothered even slightly by the booing in Toronto. “I’m here to extend love,” she told reporters. “But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

She is bang-on and, after doing some in-depth research on the subject, I wholeheartedly agree with Cunningham.

Allowing biological men, with their undeniable physical advantages in strength, speed and endurance, to compete against biological females undermines the progress being made in women’s sports.

Dr. Gregory Brown, a professor of exercise science at the University of Nebraska, has produced more than 60 peer-reviewed publications for academic journals. He wrote last January that “Female athletes have been injured and deprived of roster spots, starting positions, awards and championships in their own category, all due to the mistaken belief that a transgender identity somehow negates the well-documented performance advantages conferred by male sex.”

At every level, from school sports to the Olympics to the pros, opportunities for success for females have been diminished when transgender individuals are permitted to participate in their competitions.

Dr. Brown noted that female athletes have lost scholarships, medals, playing spots, and even top salaries as pros, when their sports have been co-opted by male trans athletes.

There is a view, held by many who follow the WNBA, that there are male trans athletes recognized as women in the league. Cunningham has mildly suggested the testing of WNBA players to determine their sex at birth.

The league’s administrators are not only balking at the suggestion but reprimanding Cunningham and warning her to be silent on the issue.

Yet Cunningham isn’t simply talking out of her hat. She is honest. She tells it like it is. She is wiser than your average athlete. She is in the process of finishing a book that will sell well, at least with the anti-woke enthusiasts.

She is pleasant, amicable and multi-talented, a bright shining light in the historically underrated and underappreciated world of professional women’s sports. She should be a welcome part of a league trying to grow.

With her ability to utilize social media, her gift of gab and her light-hearted approach to friendly and fun-loving messaging, she is irrefutably a marketing guru.

The folks who run and follow the WNBA should cease and desist from admonishing her and, yes, booing her. Rather, she should be — and I don’t often say this when it comes to athletes — exalted and thanked. She truly is one of a kind.

National Post


Alberta NDP leader Naheed Nenshi, joined by Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction critic Gurinder Brar, spoke to media in Calgary on Tuesday, August 25, 2026 criticizing Danielle Smith's position toward the ongoing trade talks with the U.S.

The Canadian Press’s Dayne Patterson reports Wednesday morning that Alberta’s floundering opposition leader, Naheed Nenshi, is demanding that Alberta’s consultative October referendum on separation be postponed … because of the developing U.S.-Canada trade war. If you’re busy today, just picture me laughing and saying “Whaaa?” for a few seconds and then move on in good conscience. NDP Leader Nenshi never wanted to have a referendum in the first place, so one supposes any excuse for such a demand will do; maybe next week he’ll want the vote called off because of a comet or other celestial portent.

I wasn’t keen on a nebulous separation referendum myself, but it seems to me the thing to do in the face of an electoral test is to go cast a ballot, advocate for a position, try your best to have your side win, etc., etc. All that good democracy stuff, which I do understand to not be the historical strong suit of the Alberta New Democrats.

It seems to me that from a purely strategic standpoint, the trade war is a giant expensive gift to the federalist side of the referendum, which shouldn’t have any trouble winning no matter what happens. The separatist cause in Alberta is fragmented, and contains some radical libertarians who would genuinely like an independent (but landlocked) microstate managed on Javier Milei principles; others are pure scoundrels who pretty obviously see the separation fantasy as a first step toward political union with the culturally superior States.

Whichever future you might imagine in contemplating secession, it involves giving the U.S. greater weight and negotiating power in Albertan affairs — and the more conservative or classical-liberal you are, the uglier the spectacle of the trade war really is. One of my political axioms is that trade is a substitute for war, and that maximizing trade serves practically as a substitute for it. The United States’ scores on quasi-objective indices of economic and political freedom are spiralling , and its Constitution is being subjected to naked violence.

And our instinctive feelings of kinship with the American people are suffering new injuries every day. Most Americans are perhaps confused or even annoyed to find that the president they have elected twice regards Canada as an illegitimate, conniving rogue state, but we are learning the hard truth that this attitude doesn’t truly traumatize or upset them. The median U.S. voter half-agrees with Trump, or is willing to dismiss his territorial belligerence as ironic, cheeky posturing. No doubt one day the Stars and Stripes really will fly everywhere under heaven, and beyond. Trump’s not really wrong, you see, just impolitely early.

In time, Canada and the U.S. may become the friendly continental yokemates they once were; and at that very time there might be a serious danger in the existence of an Alberta “separatist” movement full of republican closet cases. For now, separatists seem to me to be facing maximum headwinds. Hypothetical concerns about foreign “interference” with a referendum are in a state of near-mania. The biggest star in the separatist movement is facing extremely vexing legal troubles . The Albertan Liberal prime minister’s approval ratings appear to net out to about zero in Alberta these days, which is a remarkable, even historic phenomenon.

And, sure, there’s always the conspiracy theory that Ottawa will blast Alberta with export taxes on oil as soon as the separation vote is past , but it’s not 1980 anymore: Saskatchewan’s oil and gas production has flourished, making our neighbour more of a fellow hostage, and Newfoundland’s economy is now just as oil-dependent as Alberta’s, so it’s politically not as easy to single Alberta out to suffer the blows in the front rank of a trade war.

National Post


Alberta NDP leader Naheed Nenshi, joined by Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction critic Gurinder Brar, spoke to media in Calgary on Tuesday, August 25, 2026 criticizing Danielle Smith's position toward the ongoing trade talks with the U.S.

The Canadian Press’s Dayne Patterson reports Wednesday morning that Alberta’s floundering opposition leader, Naheed Nenshi, is demanding that Alberta’s consultative October referendum on separation be postponed … because of the developing U.S.-Canada trade war. If you’re busy today, just picture me laughing and saying “Whaaa?” for a few seconds and then move on in good conscience. NDP Leader Nenshi never wanted to have a referendum in the first place, so one supposes any excuse for such a demand will do; maybe next week he’ll want the vote called off because of a comet or other celestial portent.

I wasn’t keen on a nebulous separation referendum myself, but it seems to me the thing to do in the face of an electoral test is to go cast a ballot, advocate for a position, try your best to have your side win, etc., etc. All that good democracy stuff, which I do understand to not be the historical strong suit of the Alberta New Democrats.

It seems to me that from a purely strategic standpoint, the trade war is a giant expensive gift to the federalist side of the referendum, which shouldn’t have any trouble winning no matter what happens. The separatist cause in Alberta is fragmented, and contains some radical libertarians who would genuinely like an independent (but landlocked) microstate managed on Javier Milei principles; others are pure scoundrels who pretty obviously see the separation fantasy as a first step toward political union with the culturally superior States.

Whichever future you might imagine in contemplating secession, it involves giving the U.S. greater weight and negotiating power in Albertan affairs — and the more conservative or classical-liberal you are, the uglier the spectacle of the trade war really is. One of my political axioms is that trade is a substitute for war, and that maximizing trade serves practically as a substitute for it. The United States’ scores on quasi-objective indices of economic and political freedom are spiralling , and its Constitution is being subjected to naked violence.

And our instinctive feelings of kinship with the American people are suffering new injuries every day. Most Americans are perhaps confused or even annoyed to find that the president they have elected twice regards Canada as an illegitimate, conniving rogue state, but we are learning the hard truth that this attitude doesn’t truly traumatize or upset them. The median U.S. voter half-agrees with Trump, or is willing to dismiss his territorial belligerence as ironic, cheeky posturing. No doubt one day the Stars and Stripes really will fly everywhere under heaven, and beyond. Trump’s not really wrong, you see, just impolitely early.

In time, Canada and the U.S. may become the friendly continental yokemates they once were; and at that very time there might be a serious danger in the existence of an Alberta “separatist” movement full of republican closet cases. For now, separatists seem to me to be facing maximum headwinds. Hypothetical concerns about foreign “interference” with a referendum are in a state of near-mania. The biggest star in the separatist movement is facing extremely vexing legal troubles . The Albertan Liberal prime minister’s approval ratings appear to net out to about zero in Alberta these days, which is a remarkable, even historic phenomenon.

And, sure, there’s always the conspiracy theory that Ottawa will blast Alberta with export taxes on oil as soon as the separation vote is past , but it’s not 1980 anymore: Saskatchewan’s oil and gas production has flourished, making our neighbour more of a fellow hostage, and Newfoundland’s economy is now just as oil-dependent as Alberta’s, so it’s politically not as easy to single Alberta out to suffer the blows in the front rank of a trade war.

National Post


Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during a press conference addressing the trade situation with United States in Ottawa on Saturday, Aug. 22, 2026. This content is reserved for subscribers.


Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during a press conference addressing the trade situation with United States in Ottawa on Saturday, Aug. 22, 2026. This content is reserved for subscribers.


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at a press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 22, 2026 after trade talks with the US collapsed.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has undeniably brought a measure of dignity, sharp intellect and technocratic excellence back to the Prime Minister’s Office. This is a welcome change after a “ lost decade ” defined by poor governance and the severe mismanagement of Canada’s socio-economic environment and its most important relationship, with the United States.

However, Canadians must face an uncomfortable truth. Our teetering economy, lagging productivity and housing crises were entirely made in Canada. They predated the first and second terms of U.S. President Donald Trump. Yet, the governing Liberal Party has found it politically expedient to gaslight the public, blaming our current woes on the U.S. and the current occupant of the White House. It is always easier to point a finger at the caricature of the “Ugly American” than to admit we have spent the last decade or more behaving as an “ Ugly Ally .”

Under Justin Trudeau, the previous prime minister, Canada’s relationship with its most vital security and trading partner was disastrously mishandled. Cabinet ministers routinely prioritized domestic political points over cross-border diplomacy. We saw Trudeau explicitly campaign against “MAGA conservatism,” while Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly publicly mused about creating a “ game plan ” to deal with a hypothetical authoritarian shift in the US. After enjoying dinner and a selfie at Mar-a-Lago following Trump’s 2024 electoral victory, Trudeau flew back to Canada. Just days later, he called Kamala Harris’s electoral defeat a setback for women.

While Ottawa was busy moralizing at Washington, it was asleep at the wheel on actual national security. The Trudeau government repeatedly ignored stark warnings from our Canadian Security Intelligence Service and think tanks like the Macdonald-Laurier Institute regarding foreign interference and elite capture , primarily orchestrated by Beijing. Consequently, Canada became the black eye of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. We were left out of the Quad and AUKUS. We simultaneously managed to alienate India and frustrate Japan, a vital geoeconomic partner that has expertly navigated the very U.S.-China friction Canada fumbles.

Carney has done his best to stop the bleeding, and for that, Canadians should be thankful. However, his geopolitical compass remains fundamentally miscalibrated.

Rather than abandoning the partisan habit of using the U.S. as a scapegoat for Canada’s structural economic stagnation, Carney has continued the gaslighting. Worse, he has actively courted a “strategic partnership” with China, a state with a documented, deep track record of foreign interference in Canadian democratic institutions, and Washington’s primary strategic competitor.

At his Davos 2026 address , Carney drew a false equivalence between the U.S. and China, suggesting Canada could somehow float above the fray as a neutral middle-power broker. This is a dangerous fantasy.

Washington is not going to tolerate a contiguous neighbour and NORAD partner integrating its economy with a hostile strategic competitor. This is not uniquely a Trump phenomenon; it is a bipartisan Washington consensus. It was the Trump administration that inserted Article 32.10 into the USMCA (CUSMA) trade agreement, effectively giving the U.S. veto power over any free trade agreement Canada might pursue with a “non-market economy” like China. But the Biden administration maintained and rigorously enforced that exact same geoeconomic architecture.

As abrasive and difficult as the current White House can be, Carney’s job is not to posture for the Davos crowd. It is to steer Canada away from self-destructive anti-American sentiment, manage the U.S. leadership with pragmatic cognitive empathy, and ensure Canada is anchored securely within the reorganization of the North American and global supply chains.

We are not living in the 1990s. Canada is no longer a comparative middle-power heavyweight. While other nations have risen, our relative clout, military resources, and diplomatic credibility have severely declined. We cannot convene coalitions to resist American pressure while simultaneously relying on the American taxpayer to subsidize our continental defence.

Canada desperately needs a new identity and a new grand strategy. That strategy cannot be rooted in a romanticized nostalgia for middle-power diplomacy, nor in a contrarian desire to poke Washington in the eye. It must be built on the cold, structural realities of our geographic, institutional, and cultural proximity to the United States. Until the Prime Minister’s Office accepts this, the “Ugly Ally” will continue to find itself isolated, outpaced and ignored.

Stephen Nagy is a Senior Fellow and China Policy Project Lead at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. His work focuses primarily on Indo-Pacific affairs, foreign policy, security, and great-power competition.


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at a press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 22, 2026 after trade talks with the US collapsed.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has undeniably brought a measure of dignity, sharp intellect and technocratic excellence back to the Prime Minister’s Office. This is a welcome change after a “ lost decade ” defined by poor governance and the severe mismanagement of Canada’s socio-economic environment and its most important relationship, with the United States.

However, Canadians must face an uncomfortable truth. Our teetering economy, lagging productivity and housing crises were entirely made in Canada. They predated the first and second terms of U.S. President Donald Trump. Yet, the governing Liberal Party has found it politically expedient to gaslight the public, blaming our current woes on the U.S. and the current occupant of the White House. It is always easier to point a finger at the caricature of the “Ugly American” than to admit we have spent the last decade or more behaving as an “ Ugly Ally .”

Under Justin Trudeau, the previous prime minister, Canada’s relationship with its most vital security and trading partner was disastrously mishandled. Cabinet ministers routinely prioritized domestic political points over cross-border diplomacy. We saw Trudeau explicitly campaign against “MAGA conservatism,” while Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly publicly mused about creating a “ game plan ” to deal with a hypothetical authoritarian shift in the US. After enjoying dinner and a selfie at Mar-a-Lago following Trump’s 2024 electoral victory, Trudeau flew back to Canada. Just days later, he called Kamala Harris’s electoral defeat a setback for women.

While Ottawa was busy moralizing at Washington, it was asleep at the wheel on actual national security. The Trudeau government repeatedly ignored stark warnings from our Canadian Security Intelligence Service and think tanks like the Macdonald-Laurier Institute regarding foreign interference and elite capture , primarily orchestrated by Beijing. Consequently, Canada became the black eye of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. We were left out of the Quad and AUKUS. We simultaneously managed to alienate India and frustrate Japan, a vital geoeconomic partner that has expertly navigated the very U.S.-China friction Canada fumbles.

Carney has done his best to stop the bleeding, and for that, Canadians should be thankful. However, his geopolitical compass remains fundamentally miscalibrated.

Rather than abandoning the partisan habit of using the U.S. as a scapegoat for Canada’s structural economic stagnation, Carney has continued the gaslighting. Worse, he has actively courted a “strategic partnership” with China, a state with a documented, deep track record of foreign interference in Canadian democratic institutions, and Washington’s primary strategic competitor.

At his Davos 2026 address , Carney drew a false equivalence between the U.S. and China, suggesting Canada could somehow float above the fray as a neutral middle-power broker. This is a dangerous fantasy.

Washington is not going to tolerate a contiguous neighbour and NORAD partner integrating its economy with a hostile strategic competitor. This is not uniquely a Trump phenomenon; it is a bipartisan Washington consensus. It was the Trump administration that inserted Article 32.10 into the USMCA (CUSMA) trade agreement, effectively giving the U.S. veto power over any free trade agreement Canada might pursue with a “non-market economy” like China. But the Biden administration maintained and rigorously enforced that exact same geoeconomic architecture.

As abrasive and difficult as the current White House can be, Carney’s job is not to posture for the Davos crowd. It is to steer Canada away from self-destructive anti-American sentiment, manage the U.S. leadership with pragmatic cognitive empathy, and ensure Canada is anchored securely within the reorganization of the North American and global supply chains.

We are not living in the 1990s. Canada is no longer a comparative middle-power heavyweight. While other nations have risen, our relative clout, military resources, and diplomatic credibility have severely declined. We cannot convene coalitions to resist American pressure while simultaneously relying on the American taxpayer to subsidize our continental defence.

Canada desperately needs a new identity and a new grand strategy. That strategy cannot be rooted in a romanticized nostalgia for middle-power diplomacy, nor in a contrarian desire to poke Washington in the eye. It must be built on the cold, structural realities of our geographic, institutional, and cultural proximity to the United States. Until the Prime Minister’s Office accepts this, the “Ugly Ally” will continue to find itself isolated, outpaced and ignored.

Stephen Nagy is a Senior Fellow and China Policy Project Lead at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. His work focuses primarily on Indo-Pacific affairs, foreign policy, security, and great-power competition.