Trump and Carney: The Abrupt Breakup Between Two Allies

A Deliberate Break with the Old Order

In his speech at Davos, Mark Carney asserted with rare force that “we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” rejecting the idea that the current turmoil is merely a temporary phase. The Canadian Prime Minister explained that countries like Canada have prospered under what was called the “rules-based international order,” joining its institutions, praising its principles, and benefiting from its predictability. However, he admitted that this narrative was partly false—that the strongest nations exempted themselves from the rules when it suited them, that trade rules were applied asymmetrically, and that international law was enforced with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

Carney used a powerful metaphor inspired by the Czech writer Václav Havel, describing how communist shopkeepers displayed signs reading “Workers of the world, unite!” in their storefronts—not because they believed in them, but to avoid trouble and signal their compliance. This collective performance, according to Havel, kept the system in place not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately knew to be false. “Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take down their signs,” Carney declared, calling for a collective refusal to participate in this “life of lies.”

This reference to Havel gives me chills. There is something profoundly true in the idea that we all participate, through our silence and compliance, in systems we know to be unjust. When Carney calls on nations to take down their signs, he is not just talking about politics; he is talking about dignity—about the courage required to refuse to participate in the collective lie. It is a call for honesty that resonates within each of us, prompting us to ask ourselves what lies we ourselves are living—both personally and collectively. It is powerful, it is necessary, and it is terrifying.

Value-Based Realism

The Canadian Prime Minister presented his government’s new approach as rooted in what he called “values-based realism,” a doctrine that aims to be both “principled and pragmatic.” Principled in its commitment to fundamental values such as sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition on the use of force except in accordance with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights. Pragmatic in its recognition that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, and that not all partners will share these values.

Carney emphasized that Canada was no longer simply negotiating bilaterally with a hegemonic power but was actively seeking to diversify its alliances. Since his government took office, Ottawa has cut taxes on income, capital gains, and business investment, and has removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. Canada is accelerating a $1,000 billion investment in energy, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond. The country is also doubling its defense spending by the end of this decade, doing so in a way that strengthens its domestic industries.

Partnerships with China and Qatar

One of the most notable aspects of Canada’s new diplomatic strategy is its commitment to forging partnerships with countries traditionally aligned with Russia or China. Carney announced the establishment of new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar, as well as a comprehensive strategic agreement with the European Union, including membership in SAFE, the European defense procurement arrangements. Canada has also signed twelve other trade and security agreements across four continents in six months—an unprecedented diplomatic flurry that reflects Ottawa’s sense of urgency to shield itself from U.S. pressure.

As for China, the agreement is particularly significant. Beijing has reduced tariffs on a number of Canadian agricultural products, while Ottawa has increased import quotas for Chinese electric vehicles into its market, with a most-favored-nation tariff rate of 6.1%. Carney hailed this strategic partnership with Xi, extolling the importance of their ties in the face of a “new world order”—a veiled reference to the global instability caused by the shifts in Trump’s foreign policy and his disruptive trade agenda. This rapprochement with Beijing, at a time when the United States is pursuing an aggressive policy of containing China, represents a direct challenge to Washington.

On the issue of the Arctic, Canada has taken a firm stance. “On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark, and we fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.” This statement comes as Trump has threatened to annex Greenland and tensions over the Arctic are rising. Canada also opposes tariffs on Greenland and calls for targeted negotiations to achieve our shared goals of security and prosperity in the Arctic.

When I see Canada aligning so openly with China to counter U.S. pressure, I feel a mix of admiration and concern. Admiration for this political courage, this ability to say no to hegemony and chart its own course. Concern because you never really know what to expect from Beijing, and because alliances of convenience can turn into dangerous dependencies. Ottawa is playing a dangerous game, walking a precarious tightrope between two superpowers. And yet, it may be the only possible path to survival in this increasingly ruthless world.

The Coalition of Middle Powers

More than ever, Mark Carney emphasizes the need for “middle powers” to act together. “If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” he declared with this striking phrase that perfectly sums up Canada’s position. In a world of rivalry among great powers, middle powers have a choice: compete against one another to win the favor of the hegemon, or unite to forge a third way with real impact. Carney believes that middle powers should not allow the rise of hard power to blind them to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong if they choose to exercise it collectively.

Canada puts this philosophy into practice through what Carney calls “variable geometry”—that is, different coalitions for different issues based on shared values and interests. On Ukraine, Canada is a central member of the coalition of the willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defense and security. On plurilateral trade, Ottawa is encouraging efforts to build 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 anchored in the G7 to enable the world to diversify away from concentrated supply sources.

A Direct and Personal Warning

Donald Trump’s reaction to Carney’s speech was swift, harsh, and personally targeted. On the sidelines of the Davos forum, the U.S. president declared that “Canada lives off the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.” ” This use of the Canadian prime minister’s first name—a deliberately condescending familiarity—marks an unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol between Washington and Ottawa. It is as if Trump were seeking to put Carney in his place, to remind him of his economic dependence on the United States, and to publicly humiliate him before the global elite gathered in Davos.

This threat is not empty. Trump has already imposed punitive tariffs on Canada and has publicly considered making the country his “51st state”—a proposal that Canadians have met with indignation mixed with disbelief. The decision to withdraw the invitation to the Board of Peace must be understood in this context: it is a sanction, a punishment for the Canadian prime minister’s insubordination. Trump wrote on Truth Social: “Dear Prime Minister Carney: Let this letter serve to notify you that the Board of Peace is withdrawing its invitation to you regarding Canada’s membership.” This formal and cold language does little to hide the U.S. president’s anger and personal resentment.

One has to wonder if Trump even realizes what he’s doing when he uses such condescending, paternalistic language. He treats Mark Carney like a child who needs to be put in his place, like a vassal who has forgotten his place in the hierarchy of nations. It’s an archaic view of power, a gang-leader mentality that has nothing to do with modern diplomacy. And it revolts me. It revolts me to see a national leader treated with such contempt, as if Canada were merely a territory ripe for annexation rather than a sovereign nation with its own history and its own dignity.

The Refusal to Pay the Membership Fee

An important aspect of this conflict involves money. Canada had indicated that it would not pay the $1 billion demanded for a permanent seat on the Board of Peace—a stance that undoubtedly contributed to Trump’s decision to withdraw the invitation. However, Canada’s position is not an isolated one. Many countries, including traditional U.S. allies, have expressed reservations about funding an organization parallel to the UN that could undermine the existing international order. Trump’s demand for such a sum, particularly amid global economic tensions, was perceived as an attempt to monetize American influence.

What is particularly ironic is that Carney had indicated the previous week that he “intended to join the board,” but that the details—including the financial terms—remained to be worked out. Ottawa seemed willing to participate in principle but refused to pay the demanded price. This nuanced position shows that Canada initially sought to maintain a constructive relationship with the United States, despite the tensions. It was likely this attempt to walk a fine line that irritated Trump, who prefers either total allegiance or open confrontation, with no gray area in between.

The End of the Rules-Based Order

The conflict between Trump and Carney is indicative of a deeper shift in the international order. In his speech, the Canadian prime minister asserted that “the old order will not return,” rejecting any nostalgia for the multilateral system that has shaped international relations since the end of World War II. Carney called on nations to “call reality by its name,” to stop invoking the rules-based international order as if it still functioned as intended, and to describe things as they are: “a system of growing rivalry among great powers, where the most powerful pursue their interests by using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.”

This lucid analysis of today’s world is shared by many international observers. The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied—the WTO, the UN, the COP—the very architecture of collective problem-solving—are under threat. As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions—that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable, as Carney pointed out: “A country that cannot feed itself, power itself, or defend itself has few options.”

There is something deeply melancholic about this acknowledgment that the old world is gone for good. It is as if we are witnessing the end of an era of political innocence, a brutal realization that the rules and institutions we had believed in were nothing but illusions—conventions that the powerful could brush aside with a wave of the hand whenever it suited them. It is a collective disillusionment that feels like both a betrayal and a liberation. A betrayal because we were promised a world governed by rules, and a liberation because we no longer need to lie to ourselves.

The Risk of a World of Fortresses

However, Carney warned against the dangers of this race toward autonomy. “Let’s be clear about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.” He emphasized that if the major powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values in favor of the unimpeded pursuit of their power and interests, the gains of “transactionalism” will become harder to replicate. “ Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships,” he warned, noting that allies will diversify to guard against uncertainty, that they will buy insurance, and expand their options in order to rebuild sovereignty—a sovereignty once rooted in rules, but one that will increasingly be rooted in the ability to resist pressure.

This prediction is already unfolding before our eyes. Countries are actively seeking to reduce their economic dependence on major powers, diversifying their alliances and supply chains. Canada itself is signing trade agreements with countries that, just a few years ago, would have been considered unlikely partners. This is a complete reconfiguration of the geopolitical landscape—a tectonic shift whose consequences will be felt for decades to come. What is troubling is that this fragmentation could lead to a more unstable, more conflict-ridden world, where international cooperation becomes the exception rather than the rule.

A Dignified and Firm Response

Faced with Trump’s attacks, Mark Carney did not back down. The following Thursday, upon returning to his home country, he responded to the U.S. president with a dignified and firm statement. “Canada does not depend on the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadians,” he said in a speech in Quebec. This elegant yet unequivocal response marks a categorical refusal to accept the subordinate position Trump seeks to impose. Carney is not seeking confrontation, but he also refuses to be humiliated.

This Canadian retort is significant in several respects. First, it shows that Canada does not seek to escalate the conflict but refuses to compromise on its national dignity. Second, it underscores that Canadian prosperity is not an American gift but the result of political and economic choices made by Canadians themselves. Third, it demonstrates that Carney is prepared to defend his vision of a world where middle-sized nations are not condemned to be vassals of the great powers, but can chart their own course by uniting.

When I hear Carney’s response, I feel that shiver of national pride that likely runs through every Canadian. It is not an aggressive response; it is not a provocation; it is a simple and powerful affirmation of dignity. It is a refusal to be treated as a dependent, like a child who must thank its parents for its survival. It is a declaration of political and moral independence that resonates far beyond Canada’s borders. It is a message to all countries that feel threatened by the arrogance of the great powers: you do not need to bow down to prosper.

Building a New Autonomy

Carney emphasized that Canada possesses what the world wants. “We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are among the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital, talent, and a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively.” This list of Canada’s strengths is not bragging, but a demonstration that Canada has the resources necessary to build its strategic autonomy.

The Prime Minister also emphasized Canadian values. “Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public sphere is vibrant, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainable development. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but stable—a partner that builds and values long-term relationships.” This portrayal of Canada as a trusted partner in an unstable world is a shrewd strategy aimed at drawing other nations toward alliances that offer an alternative to U.S. hegemony.

The Impact on North American Trade

The deterioration of relations between Trump and Carney has tangible economic consequences. The United States and Canada are linked by the world’s largest cross-border trade relationship, with daily exchanges of goods and services worth billions of dollars. Any disruption to this economic relationship would have significant repercussions for both countries. Trump has already threatened to impose punitive tariffs on Canadian products—a threat that is causing concern among businesses on both sides of the border.

Carney’s approach, which aims to diversify Canada’s trading partners, is a direct response to this threat. By signing agreements with China, the European Union, Qatar, and many other countries, Canada is seeking to reduce its economic dependence on the United States. This strategy is risky in the short term, as it could provoke U.S. retaliation, but it is necessary in the long term to ensure Canada’s economic sovereignty. As Carney pointed out, “Countries earn the right to take principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.”

It is as if we are witnessing an economic divorce between two partners who have been inseparable for decades. There is something sad about this inevitable separation, about the realization that economic dependence is also a political vulnerability. Canadian companies that have built their business models on access to the U.S. market must now rethink their entire strategy, seek out new markets, and adapt to a new paradigm. It’s painful, it’s costly, but it may be the only way to survive in this new world.

Strategic Investments

To strengthen its autonomy, Canada is investing heavily in strategic sectors. The government is accelerating a $1,000 billion investment in energy, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond. These investments aim to make Canada less dependent on foreign supply chains and better able to meet its own needs for energy, technology, and critical resources. This is a long-term strategy that will bear fruit in the years to come.

Canada is also doubling its defense spending by the end of the decade, doing so in a way that strengthens its domestic industries. This increase in military spending is a direct response to threats from Trump, who suggested that Canada was not contributing enough to its own defense. It also aims to strengthen Canada’s ability to protect its territory—particularly the Arctic—against U.S. expansionist ambitions. These military investments, combined with economic investments, form the foundation of a new era of Canadian strategic autonomy.

The End of Unchallenged U.S. Hegemony

The conflict between Trump and Carney is not merely a bilateral dispute, but a symptom of a deeper shift in the international order. U.S. hegemony, which has shaped the world since the end of World War II, is being challenged in an unprecedented way. The United States is no longer able to impose its will without resistance, and its traditional allies are actively seeking to reduce their dependence on Washington. This trend is particularly evident among middle powers such as Canada, which are seeking to forge a third way between the superpowers.

This new multipolar world presents both opportunities and dangers. On the one hand, it offers middle powers the chance to chart their own course and no longer be forced to blindly follow U.S. policy. On the other hand, it increases the risk of conflicts between major powers and undermines the multilateral institutions that have maintained peace since 1945. As Carney pointed out, “a world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.” The challenge for the coming years will be to build a new international order that can function without a single hegemon.

When I look at what’s happening between Trump and Carney, I don’t see just a conflict between two men or two countries. I see the end of one world and the emergence of another, with all the pain and uncertainty that entails. It is as if we are living through the final days of a collapsing empire, the first days of an order that has not yet taken shape. And I feel that mix of fear and hope that characterizes major historical transitions. Fear because the unknown is frightening, and hope because perhaps—just perhaps—this new world will be a little fairer, a little more balanced, a little more respectful of the diversity of nations.

The Role of Middle Powers

In this new world, middle powers like Canada will play a crucial role. They are not powerful enough to impose their will on their own, but they are significant enough to form meaningful coalitions. Carney emphasized that “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu”—a brutal truth that guides Canada’s new diplomacy. By uniting, middle powers can exert influence disproportionate to their individual weight, forming coalitions on specific issues based on shared values and interests.

This “variable geometry” approach—different coalitions for different problems—is likely the model for international cooperation in the future. Rather than seeking to rebuild a single, hegemonic world order, nations will build flexible networks of cooperation tailored to specific challenges. It is a more complex, more fragmented world—but perhaps also a more resilient one. As Carney stated, “The old order will not return. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.”

Carney’s final message is a call to action for middle powers. “The powerful have their power. But we also have something—the ability to stop pretending, to call reality by its name, to build our strength at home, and to act together. ” It is a vision of a world where nations do not merely submit to the decisions of the great powers, but actively build a new order based on voluntary cooperation rather than hegemonic coercion. It is an ambitious, perhaps unrealistic ideal, but it may be the only ideal worth pursuing in this rapidly changing world.