Observations on US-Canada Relations from Washington
The reasons behind this Substack column
A Washington friend recently said to me, encouragingly, “Canada is hot!”
If you pay only casual attention to bilateral relations with our northern neighbor, it is hard to disagree with that observation. US President Donald Trump has commented on Canada nearly every week of his second term. His repeated suggestions that Canada should become the 51st state have drawn the most attention and done the most damage to the goodwill that usually underpins the US-Canadian relationship. But Canada has emerged as an important part of Washington discussions of continental defense, critical minerals, energy, environmental issues, immigration, industrial policy, infrastructure, manufacturing jobs, and national security particularly in the Arctic.
And then there are tariffs, tariffs, and more tariffs. But also, potential deals, including the future of the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) that replaced NAFTA and was one of the greatest accomplishments of Trump’s first term. The USMCA has a built-in review due in 2026.
The US-Canadian relationship topped the list of issues that voters in Canada’s April 28 federal general election were concerned about. Canadian nationalism has surged in response to Trump threats of “economic force” against Canada. And in a more profound way, by putting “America First” in numerous policy areas, the Trump administration asserts American nationalism and provokes nationalism in other countries as a natural response. For the winner of the April election, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, “Elbows Up” has become a rallying cry and rebuttal to “America First”.
As a native Detroiter, I recognized “Elbows Up” as a reference to Gordie Howe, the Saskatchewan-born hockey legend whose career with the Detroit Red Wings included four Stanley Cup wins. The new international bridge between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario was named for Howe by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, one of five prime ministers who held office while the bridge was planned, debated, and built - primarily with Canadian funding.
Contrast the Gordie Howe International Bridge, for which Canada is paying more than its share, with continental defense, for which the United States primarily pays for, and you can see why there is bitterness in Ottawa and Washington about the bilateral relationship. Spending priorities reveal preferences that are not perfectly aligned, just as spending indicates capacity to spend when the will is there.
On both sides there is frustration and even exasperation that the clear potential of US-Canadian partnership goes unrealized. At times, the relationship resembles sibling rivalry or a marriage in which both parties talk heatedly and at length about the failings and flaws of the other. In that sense, yes, US-Canadian relations are also “hot”.
But what happens next is important. Canada relies on the United States for too much to walk away for long and so will eventually send wave after wave of absolutely brilliant people at the highest levels to try to engage with US officials and counterparts to reset the relationship when it is not working.
Although it is not true, as President Trump has asserted, the United States does not need anything from Canada, the United States does have less dependence on Canada and more options when seeking a partner, market, or ally. Many US officials working on Canadian issues are agency personnel with limited resources and other responsibilities. White House and cabinet level engagement with Canadian issues is intermittent and results in tasks for US officials that come with no additional resources and little or no investment of political capital. And when results do not come quickly and leadership gets frustrated Canada falls off the priority list for political capital and resources that were not generous to begin with.
In a sure sign of advancing old age, I have begun to see the period between 1989 and 2024 as a kind of “golden age” for US-Canadian relations (in middle age, I was unable to believe in the utopian aspirations of youth nor the golden ages in retrospect common to the more experienced). But having lived through the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, financial crises, and COVID, it seems to me that we used to manage bigger crises than the present one with less mutual frustration, public uproar, and nationalism.
Why? The trade agreements of this period: the Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and the USMCA proved that the United States was committed to a relationship with Canada based on mutually developed rules, and disputes would be resolved on the basis of right and not might. For the smaller partner, Canada, this fostered trust even if the United States occasionally threw its weight around and some disputes like softwood lumber never stayed resolved for long. The Canadian public perceived the United States government as a fair dealer and Americans as friends. Our military alliances reflected a similar fairness, the expectation that most Americans have for the US conduct of Canadian relations, in my experience.
The first 100 days of the second Trump administration were marked by US claims of unfairness from Canada that raised doubts about the relationship among many ordinary Americans, particularly supporters of the president. Many Canadians came to see the importance of spending more on defense as their leaders had pledged to do. This charge of unfairness was understood and accepted by most. But US tariffs applied to goods like steel and aluminum that are compliant with USMCA rules are seen by Canadians as unfair.
Accordingly, Carney has declared the US-Canadian relationship as it was in what I called a golden age is now over. He is pursuing a new security and economic understanding with the United States — and new allies and markets to lower Canadian dependence on and vulnerability to the United States.
Things don’t have to continue this way, and the relationship certainly should not end this way. But the idea for this Substack project came from the stark realization that things could continue to deteriorate and even end in a much-diminished bilateral relationship.
I am not a neutral observer of the US-Canada relationship; I have a side, and it is the United States’ side. Since I took my up my first post in a Washington think tank in 1993, I have met, debated, lectured, and studied many of the most outstanding and dedicated public officials of the United States as they have worked to address problems and achieve what President Jospeh Biden called the “possibilities” of this relationship while advancing US national interests. At times, they have shared their own frustrations with Canadian counterparts, defending valiant efforts that came to nothing. And at other times, we have celebrated together some tangible progress in resolving a dispute or institutionalizing cooperation in new areas.
This project is for my fellow Americans working on relations with Canada (rather than just observing them, as I do). My purpose is to reflect on the US conduct of Canadian relations and where it could be improved, while also giving witness to accomplishments in Canadian relations that might not receive much notice in US media or think tank discussions.
In the process, I hope that my observations will inspire the rising generation of US policymakers to take up the challenges of managing relations with Canada because they find them interesting and worthwhile and—most important—solvable or at least ameliorable through public policy and worthy of their talents and of an investment of political capital by leaders in Washington and across the United States.
That said, I will be glad when Canada and US-Canadian relations are less “hot”.