Victor Davis Hanson: Canada Is Picking the Wrong Fight With Trump

Overview

Victor Davis Hanson argues that Canada is using a confrontational, politically motivated approach in disputes with the United States—especially around trade—while failing to “pay its fair share” in areas like defense and overall national responsibilities.

Core Dispute and Hanson’s Framing

Hanson claims Canada’s withdrawal at the last moment from a trade agreement is not driven by genuine economic fairness or national sovereignty, but by internal political pressures and broader ideological goals.

He also describes Canada as believing it is effectively protected by the U.S.—since no one could attack Canadian territory (including Ottawa/British Columbia) without the U.S. intervening—yet Canada still resists meeting U.S. expectations.

Why Hanson Says Canada’s Objections Are “Bogus” or Overstated

• Trade symmetry / leverage: Hanson argues Canada has long run large trade surpluses with the U.S. (citing figures roughly between $50B and $70B) and that the main remaining trade concern is largely about achieving something closer to symmetrical arrangements.

• Dumped/cheaper imports allegation: Hanson asserts Canada is effectively importing cheaper aluminum and steel (linked to China) and then incorporating it into products sold to the U.S. (such as autos and trucks). He frames this as a workaround that helps China compete against the U.S., despite China being treated as a chief rival and subject to sanctions.

• Cultural and sovereignty claims: Hanson dismisses Canada’s arguments about cultural protections—particularly Quebec culture and French identity—as a pretext. He alleges the underlying issue is a demand for a 5% surcharge/tax on large U.S. tech/social media companies operating in Canada (e.g., Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google), which he characterizes as a “shake down” rather than a true cultural safeguard.

Political Timing: Hanson’s “Why Now” Explanation

Hanson argues the timing can be explained by a mix of Canadian domestic politics and U.S. election strategy:

• Canadian internal politics: He points to provincial plebiscites (especially in Alberta and Quebec) and regional grievances against the federal center. He cites:

  • Alberta’s grievances involving energy/resources constraints
  • Quebec’s grievances tied to French nationalism and separatism pressures

• U.S. midterm strategy: Hanson claims Mark Carney chose to confront Trump ahead of the U.S. midterms to portray Trump as oppressive and to support Democratic-aligned efforts in closely contested states (he mentions Wisconsin, Maine, and Michigan).

• Earlier approach to China: He further argues that Carney has previously sought closer ties with China at the expense of U.S. interests, making confrontation with Trump more politically convenient than principled.

Broader Critique: Economy, Immigration, Defense, and National Cohesion

Hanson connects the dispute to what he sees as deeper Canadian vulnerabilities:

• Weak economic performance: He claims Canada’s GDP growth has been the lowest among major Western economies in the last decade (citing about 1.1%).

• Immigration and social strain: He argues Canada takes in far more immigrants than the U.S. proportionally and claims it struggles to assimilate or fully integrate newcomers, contributing to social burdens amid a weaker economy.

• Defense underinvestment: Hanson contends Canada has not consistently met NATO rearmament spending goals, noting uncertainty about whether Canada reached the 2% threshold recently—suggesting misallocation or insufficient funding for readiness.

• Social change concerns: He asserts Canadian society has moved in ways he considers incompatible with traditional American experience, including expansion of euthanasia and a shift toward a more “European” cultural profile.

Hanson’s Bottom-Line Conclusion

Hanson’s view is that Canada’s trade stance is driven by opportunism: Canada wants the benefits of the U.S. market while avoiding reciprocal costs—especially defense spending and balanced trade.

He argues the “real” issues are relatively narrow and resolvable (tariffs tied to cheap, China-linked steel/aluminum and resistance to demands framed as cultural protection), but that Canada is turning them into symbolic leverage for domestic and U.S. election-related politics.

Presenters / Contributors

• Victor Davis Hanson (host/speaker, for the Daily Signal)