Is Canada leading the global resistance against Trump?

A Coordinated Response

Canada’s response to U.S. tariffs was as swift as it was surprising. The government at the time, led by Justin Trudeau, had prepared massive retaliatory measures. A 25 percent tariff on $30 billion worth of U.S. goods starting on day one, with the threat of expanding these measures to an additional $155 billion three weeks later. The list of targeted products was strategic: American alcohol, vegetables, clothing, shoes, and perfumes. The goal was not only to punish the U.S., but to target the states that support Trump—those Republican “red states” that form his electoral base.

This approach was coordinated with Canadian provinces. Ontario Premier Doug Ford ordered the Alcohol Control Commission of Ontario to halt all sales of American alcohol. Quebec followed suit with its Société des alcools. Nova Scotia even doubled highway tolls for American vehicles. These symbolic measures had a real impact. They showed that Canada was not a passive partner, but a player capable of fighting back.

The Economic Impact

U.S. tariffs had an immediate effect on the Canadian economy. Stock markets plummeted. Businesses panicked. Consumers saw prices rise. But an interesting phenomenon occurred. Canada’s resistance sparked a resurgence of patriotism. Canadian consumers began actively seeking out local products. The “Buy Canadian” movement gained momentum, not as a government campaign, but as a spontaneous civil society movement.

This resistance came at an economic cost, to be sure, but it also allowed Canada to diversify its markets. Companies that had relied almost exclusively on the United States sought alternatives in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere around the world. The tariff shock acted as a wake-up call, forcing the Canadian economy to break free from its dependence on the United States. In the long term, this diversification could prove beneficial, making the Canadian economy more resilient and less vulnerable to the vagaries of U.S. politics.

A Controversial Shift

The most spectacular announcement of Canada’s new diplomatic strategy is undoubtedly the strategic partnership signed with China in January 2026. This agreement sent shockwaves through Western capitals. Canada has agreed to drastically reduce its tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, lowering them from 100 percent to 6.1 percent for the first 49,000 vehicles imported each year. In exchange, China has committed to reducing its tariffs on Canadian canola from 84 percent to approximately 15 percent.

This agreement is deeply controversial for several reasons. First, Carney himself had described China as Canada’s “greatest security threat” less than a year earlier. Second, the United States and Canada had jointly agreed to impose 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024. Canada is thus breaking ranks with Washington. Third, many fear that this agreement will open the Canadian market to unfair competition from Chinese automakers, who benefit from massive government subsidies.

I understand the criticism. I even share some of their concerns. China is not an ideal partner. Its government violates human rights, oppresses minorities, threatens Taiwan, and engages in industrial espionage. But here’s the hard truth: Canada doesn’t have the luxury of choosing perfect partners. It must choose partners that actually exist. The United States has shown that it is willing to use Canada’s economic dependence as a weapon. In this context, refusing to diversify our economic relationships would be suicidal. Carney put it simply: we take the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. That’s realism. And realism sometimes requires making uncomfortable compromises.

The Reasons Behind the Shift

Why did Canada take this risk? Several factors explain this bold decision. First, economic necessity. Canadian farmers, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan, have been suffering from Chinese tariffs on canola for years. This agreement provides them with immediate and vital relief. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe called the agreement “very good news” for farmers in his province.

Second, the geopolitical calculation. By striking this deal with China, Canada is sending a clear message to the United States: we are not your vassal. We have other partners. Other options. This diversification gives Canada room to maneuver in its negotiations with Washington. If the United States knows that Canada can turn to other markets, it may be more inclined to make concessions.

Third, the recognition of a new global reality. Carney noted something important: the economic relationship with China has become “more predictable” than that with the United States. This is a startling observation coming from a Western leader. But it reflects a reality that many other countries have already grasped. China may be difficult, even hostile, but it acts according to a comprehensible logic. The United States under Trump has become unpredictable, changing policies overnight without warning. For an economy that needs stability to plan its long-term investments, this unpredictability is even more terrifying than hostility.

A New Alliance

At the heart of Carney’s strategy is the formation of a coalition of “middle powers” capable of jointly resisting coercion from the great powers. This idea is not entirely new. Countries such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and others have long sought to coordinate their policies to counterbalance the influence of the superpowers. But never has this coordination been as systematic and ambitious as that proposed by Canada.

Since taking office in March 2025, Carney has signed twelve new trade and security agreements across four continents in just six months. Canada has entered into a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including membership in SAFE, the European defense procurement arrangements. New partnerships have been signed with Qatar and other Gulf countries. Free trade negotiations are underway with India, ASEAN, Thailand, the Philippines, and Mercosur. This marks an unprecedented diplomatic offensive for Canada.

Variable Geometry

The most innovative aspect of this approach is what Carney calls “variable geometry.” Rather than seeking to create a permanent, rigid alliance, Canada proposes forming different coalitions for different issues, based on shared values and interests. On Ukraine, Canada is a key member of the coalition of the willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defense. On the Arctic, Canada stands firmly alongside Greenland and Denmark to defend their right to determine their own future in the face of U.S. threats.

On plurilateral trade, Canada is throwing its full weight behind building a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trade bloc of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, Canada is forming buyer groups rooted in the G7 to enable the world to diversify away from concentrated supplies. This flexible approach allows Canada to maximize its influence on each issue by working with the most relevant partners for each specific challenge.

Massive Investments

Diplomacy can only succeed if it is backed by a strong economy. Carney understood this and launched a massive investment program to strengthen Canada’s economic resilience. Since taking office, his government has cut taxes on income, capital gains, and business investment. He has eliminated all federal barriers to interprovincial trade—a reform effort that many had deemed impossible.

Even more spectacular is the acceleration of one trillion dollars in investments in energy, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and much more. These investments are not merely aimed at creating jobs. They are designed to reduce Canada’s vulnerability to external economic pressures. A country that can feed itself, meet its energy needs, and defend its borders has more options than a country that depends on others for these basic necessities.

Defense and Security

Canada has also announced its intention to double its defense spending by the end of the decade. This commitment far exceeds NATO’s requirements, which call on members to devote two percent of their GDP to defense. What is remarkable is that these investments are designed to simultaneously build up Canada’s domestic industries. Instead of simply purchasing military equipment from abroad, Canada is investing in the development of its own defense capabilities.

This approach addresses a recurring criticism leveled at Canada: that its underinvestment in the military made it dependent on the United States for its security. By building its own defense industrial base, Canada is gaining strategic autonomy. It can better defend its territory—particularly in the Arctic—but it can also support its allies without being entirely dependent on Washington.

A mix of hostility and respect

The U.S. reaction to Canada’s new approach has been ambiguous. Trump initially reacted with hostility, stating that Canada receives “a lot of free stuff” from the U.S. and that it “should be grateful.” He continued to threaten to annex Canada as the “51st state,” a proposal that Trudeau categorically rejected as “never going to happen.” But as Canada demonstrated its determination to stand firm, the U.S. tone shifted somewhat.

After the first meeting between Trump and Carney in March 2025, the U.S. president described their conversation as “extremely productive” and stated that they “agreed on many things.” Trump even called Carney a “big improvement” over his predecessor, Trudeau. This shift suggests that Trump respects strength and determination, even in an adversary.

What fascinates me about the relationship between Trump and Carney is the psychological dynamic. Trump is a bully. He respects those who stand up to him. He despises those who cave in. Trudeau tried to be conciliatory, to find compromises, and to avoid provoking Trump. The result: Trump treated him like a subordinate, referring to him as the “governor” of Canada as if it were a U.S. state. Carney took a different approach. He made it clear that Canada was not for sale. He firmly defended Canadian sovereignty. And paradoxically, Trump seems to respect him more for that. That’s an important lesson. Submission does not earn respect. Resistance, sometimes, does.

Divisions in the United States

Canada’s firm stance has also exposed divisions within the U.S. establishment itself. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer called the Canada-China agreement “problematic” and suggested that Canada might come to regret it. But Trump himself hailed the agreement as “a good thing,” stating that if a deal can be reached with China, it should be done.

The U.S. Senate even passed a resolution aimed at repealing some of Trump’s tariffs on Canada. Four Republican senators joined all Democratic senators in voting in favor of the measure. Although the measure still needs to be approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, it shows that Trump’s policy does not have unanimous support, even within his own party.

An Example for Middle-Income Countries

The central question of this article is: Is Canada leading the global resistance against Trump? The answer depends on what we mean by “leading.” Canada does not claim to be leading an anti-American movement. It is not seeking to overthrow the U.S. government or isolate the United States. What it is doing is more subtle—and perhaps more significant. It is showing other middle-income countries how to resist economic coercion without collapsing.

Other countries are closely watching the Canadian experience. Mexico, which was initially more conciliatory toward the United States, has begun to harden its stance as Canada has demonstrated that resistance is possible. European countries, which have long hesitated to counter U.S. pressure, see the Canadian approach as an interesting model. Even some of the United States’ Asian allies are watching what is happening in Canada with interest.

The Limits of the Model

However, it is important not to overestimate what Canada can achieve. Canada remains a country of forty million people with an economy ten times smaller than that of the United States. It cannot replace the United States as a global leader. It cannot offer the same markets, the same investments, or the same security as the United States.

Furthermore, Canada’s strategy carries risks. By drawing closer to China, Canada could alienate some of its traditional democratic allies. By investing heavily in defense, it could trigger an arms race in its region. And by diversifying its economic relations, it could lose some of the benefits of its deep integration with the U.S. economy.

A Decisive Moment

We are living through a turning point in world history. The international order that emerged after World War II is collapsing. A new system is taking shape, but its form remains uncertain. Will it be a world of fortresses, where each country barricades itself behind economic and military walls? Or will it be a world of flexible coalitions, where countries with shared interests collaborate to resist coercion by the major powers?

Canada has clearly chosen the second option. Its strategy of active resistance, economic diversification, and coalition-building with other middle powers represents a bold attempt to shape this new world order. It is a risky, perhaps even reckless, undertaking. But it is also a necessary one. For the alternative—passive acceptance of a world where the powerful can dictate their terms to the weak—is even more terrifying.

I watch what is happening in Canada with admiration mixed with concern. I admire the courage of Carney and his government. They could have taken the easy way out. They could have continued to accept the status quo, to live under the illusion of an international order that no longer really worked. They could have tried to please Trump, to make concessions, to accept being treated as a minor partner. Instead, they chose the truth. They chose to say that the emperor has no clothes. They chose to resist. This resistance comes at a cost. Canada is paying that price economically, politically, and perhaps even strategically. But there is something noble about this endeavor—something that transcends national interests. For by resisting, Canada is not fighting only for itself. It is fighting for the idea that middle-power countries have a say in the world. That they are not merely pawns on the chessboard of the great powers. That they have the right to determine their own destiny. This is a powerful idea. An idea worth defending. Even if it takes courage. Even if it requires sacrifices. Even if it means standing alone against the most powerful. History will judge whether Carney was right or wrong. But for now, I can’t help but respect his determination to refuse the role of vassal. Is Canada leading the global resistance against Trump? Perhaps not. But it is showing the world how to resist. And that, perhaps, is even more important.