Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has confirmed his government has prepared for the possibility of the US invading Canada amid ongoing trade tensions. Speaking to the New York Times on Wednesday, Carney said the planning was a matter of risk management, not a prediction.
“I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk,” Carney told the Times. “That’s just risk management. That’s not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to.”
Carney is 61 years old and served as governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England before taking office.
The Trade War So Far
The tensions began in earnest after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed making Canada an associate member of the 27-nation bloc. Trump suggested the move could be a “hostile act.”
Ottawa responded by slapping retaliatory tariffs ranging from 15% to 50% on more than $20 billion worth of American goods. Those goods included steel, aluminum, wool, lumber, milk, T-shirts and air conditioners.
Trump responded by barring Canadian products from federal contracts. On Aug. 22, the US imposed 50% duties on an estimated $28 billion of Canadian goods, including beer, cheese and electronics.
Carney responded directly to those comments. “We were attacked. You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked. That’s fine. We’ve got the reserves. We’ve got the resilience. We’ve got the plan. We’ve got the focus. We will respond.”
Trump also signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America.” He threatened to hike US tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks and auto parts starting Jan. 1.
Under Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, Trump repeatedly suggested Canada could become the 51st state, mocking Trudeau as “Governor.”
The Military Numbers
The US military has approximately 1.3 million active-duty service members across its six branches. Canada has just over 100,000 regular and reserve forces.
History of Plans
Following World War I, Canadian military intelligence head Lt. Col. James Sutherland Brown conceived “Defence Scheme No. 1,” a pre-emptive strike on the US in the event of a conflict between America and the British Empire.
In Washington, the War Department drew up “Plan Red,” one of a series of hypothetical strategies considering how to counter an attempted invasion of the US. Plan Red was shelved with the outbreak of World War II and declassified in 1974.
It called for a lightning strike on the port of Halifax in Nova Scotia, seizure of power plants near Niagara Falls, and a three-pronged invasion to capture Montreal, the rail hub at Winnipeg, and the nickel mines of northern Ontario.
What Comes Next
The tariffs continue to pile up. Canada continues to prepare.
The US has a president who treats countries like personal enemies and who uses economic warfare as a tool of foreign policy. Carney is managing the situation rather than letting it manage him.
“We were attacked. You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked. That’s fine. We’ve got the reserves. We’ve got the resilience. We’ve got the plan. We’ve got the focus. We will respond.”
Tensions continue.
The comparison between the two military forces is stark. The US has roughly 13 times as many active-duty service members as Canada has regular and reserve forces combined. That ratio does not change the planning, but it shapes how each side sees the other.
For Carney, the preparation is about protecting Canada’s interests. For Trump, the threats are part of a pattern of treating allies as adversaries. The two leaders are operating on different assumptions, and neither has shown signs of backing down.
The historical context matters here. Canada has its own plans for dealing with US aggression, and the US has its own plans for countering Canadian aggression. Both sides know what the other has done before, and both sides are now preparing for the worst.
The question now is whether the rhetoric stays at words or moves beyond them. Carney has made his position clear: Canada will respond. Trump has made his threats clear. The coming months will show whether either side acts on them.
What is notable is the scale of the response. Ottawa hit more than $20 billion in American goods with tariffs ranging from 15% to 50%. The US responded with a 50% duty on an estimated $28 billion of Canadian goods. That is a rapid escalation, and it shows how quickly a trade dispute can become a serious confrontation.
The historical record offers little comfort. Defence Scheme No. 1 was a pre-emptive strike against the US during a conflict between America and the British Empire. Plan Red was a counter-invasion strategy against Canada. Both plans were shelved, but both show the willingness of both sides to plan for conflict.
The current situation is different, but the logic of planning for the worst is the same. Carney’s statement was not a threat. It was a description of a responsibility. He is looking at extreme tail risk, and he is doing what any responsible leader would do: preparing for the worst.
The difference between Carney and his predecessor is instructive. Under Trudeau, Trump mocked the then-PM as “Governor” and suggested Canada could become the 51st state. Under Carney, the mockery has stopped, but the threats have continued.
That shift tells you something about the new administration. Carney is not playing nice. He is playing prepared.
The US has a president who treats countries like personal enemies and who uses economic warfare as a tool of foreign policy. Carney is managing the situation rather than letting it manage him.
Tensions continue.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs Carney’s risk-management approach to planning for unlikely scenarios and is against any escalation that gathers power in a single office or agency, whatever form it takes. Preparing for the worst is one thing; turning preparation into a mandate for action is another entirely.
Carney’s statements — that planning for an invasion is a matter of “extreme tail risk” and not a base case — show a leader thinking through worst-case scenarios without committing to them. The paper supports that restraint.
But the paper is wary of any office or agency gathering more authority over private life or public action, whatever form it takes. Carney’s government should keep its plans in the background and its words measured, so that planning for the worst does not itself become the trigger for conflict.
Source material: “Canada PM Mark Carney confirms he’s prepped for US invasion: ‘Would be irresponsible not to’,” the New York Post.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.