&w=3840&q=100)
Can Donald Trump build Golden Dome without Canada?
US President Donald Trump has offered to let Canada join the US' Golden Dome missile defence shield – in exchange for it giving up its sovereignty and becoming the '51st state'. However, Canada has outright rejected Trump's proposal. But what did Trump say exactly? And can the United States build the Golden Dome without Canada? read more
US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The Canadian PM earlier in May said his government is talking to the US about joining the Golden Dome missile defence program. AFP
US President Donald Trump has offered to let Canada join the US' Golden Dome missile defence shield for free.
However, there's a catch. Canada has to become 'the 51st state' to do. Else, it has to pay the US a large sum of money.
Trump's statement came just hours after King Charles in a speech said Canada was facing 'unprecedented dangers'.
'Many Canadians are feeling anxious and worried about the drastically changing world around them', Charles, who remains head of state of Canada, said.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The king reaffirmed Canada's sovereignty, saying the 'True North is indeed strong and free.'
But what did Trump say? Can he really build a golden dome without Canada? And what is Ottawa saying?
Let's take a closer look:
What did Trump say?
Trump, taking to social media, has said that Canada can join the US' proposed Golden Dome programme.
'I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social website.
Trump is essentially offering Canada a quid pro quo – free protection under the Golden Dome in exchange for giving up its sovereignty.
Trump further claimed that Canada was in fact mulling it over.
'But (it) will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State. They are considering the offer!'
US President Donald Trump announces his plans for the 'Golden Dome,' a national ballistic and cruise missile defence system in the presence of Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth in the Oval Office at the White House. AFP
The multi-layered, $175 billion system would for the first time put US weapons in space.
Trump has said he wants the system to be fully operational by 2029 – the end of his second term.
However experts have warned that this may not be feasible due to the technological challenges in putting together such a project.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
They have also warned that the price tag might be much bigger than Trump thinks.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said just the space-based components of the Golden Dome could cost as much as $542 billion over the next 20 years.
What is Canada saying?
Canada has outright rejected Trump's proposal to Join the Golden Dome for free in exchange for its sovereignty.
'Canada is a proud, independent country and has no plans to give up its sovereignty,' the Prime Minister's Office was quoted as saying by CTV.
Carney earlier in May said his government is talking to the US about joining the Golden Dome missile defence program.
Time Magazine quoted Carney as saying he wasn't going to 'put a price tag' on it.
'We are conscious that we have an ability, if we so choose, to complete the Golden Dome with investments and partnership.'
'Is it a good idea for Canada? Yes, it is a good to have protections in place for Canadians,' Carney said.
Carney confirmed he's had talks with Trump about it and said there are discussions with senior officials.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'It's something that we are looking at and something that has been discussed at a high level.' Carney said. 'But not I'm not sure one negotiates on this. These are military decisions that have been taken in that context, and we will evaluate it accordingly.'
Carney warned that Canada faces potential missiles threats in the 'not-too-distant future' that could come from space.
Canada's prime minister Mark Carney, while visiting Trump at the White House, insisted that Canada's sovereignty is 'not for sale.'
'Is Canada going to be doing this alone or with the United States? Because with a Golden Dome, there will be discussions that could have an impact on Canada, but Canada wouldn't be a part of them,' Carney said.
Carney, while visiting Trump at the White House, insisted that Canada's sovereignty is 'not for sale.'
'It would really be a wonderful marriage,' Trump told Carney.
'It's not for sale, it won't be for sale – ever,' the Canadian Prime Minister responded.
'Never say never, never say never,' Trump said.
So, what now? Can the US go Just don't have to keep the child in Canada it alone?
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Can Trump build Golden Dome without Canada?
US officials think not.
They say Canada – with its four million square miles of territory — will need to play a critical role in the proposed Golden Dome missile defence shield.
It must be noted that Canada and the US are already long-time defence allies under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as well as North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad).
Norad provides for a shared defence of airspace over the two nations.
According to Time Magazine, Canada said in 2022 had vowed to spend around $28 billion over the next two decades to modernise Norad.
The Royal Canadian Air Force's 22 Wing holds it's annual NORAD Tracks Santa promotion at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) North Bay in North Bay, Ontario, Canada December 9, 2021. File Image/Reuters
As per Politico, Canada's airspace gives the United States' sensors a crucial line of sight to shoot down missiles from China and the United States.
'What Canada really brings is terrain,' Glen VanHerck, a retired Air Force general who led the US Northern Command until last year, told the outlet. 'If we can position, or Canada positions, over-the-horizon radars further north in the Arctic, that dramatically increases the United States and Canada's ability to see over the pole into Russia, into China and other places.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'It will be very important where Canada decides to put its over-the-horizon radar,' said a Senate GOP aide, who was granted anonymity to talk about closed-door policy talks. 'It would be much more difficult without Canada.'
'What we really want them to do is to contribute to the production of those assets and to be willing to host them, if necessary, within Canadian territory,' added Tory Bruno, the president and CEO of United Launch Alliance.
'There's a lot we just don't know,' Shuvaloy Majumdar, a Conservative member of Canada's parliament, told Politico. 'There's a lot that needs to be revealed about how the economic and security partnership with America and Canada will unfold.'
With input from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim
Donald Trump has reignited controversy with a shocking late-night post on Truth Social, implying that Joe Biden was "executed" in 2020 and replaced by engineered lookalikes. The post contained no context, just a link to a bizarre claim filled with phrases like 'soulless robots' and 'bio-engineered doubles.' While Trump didn't explain further, the internet exploded with divided reactions, critics slammed him as a conspiracy theorist, while loyal supporters echoed the wild claim. The uproar comes days after Trump publicly called Biden 'vicious' and 'not very bright,' urging Americans not to feel sorry for him. Meanwhile, Biden faces a deeply personal battle after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. His team has confirmed it's serious, but treatable through hormone therapy.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
Weak dollar reprises its role as carry trade funder
Trump's presidency boosts dollar-funded carry trades Goldman Sachs sees carry trades as a major theme Rupee, rupiah and real among top picks for their carry MUMBAI, June 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. dollar's weakness since the start of Donald Trump's presidency has made it the preferred funding currency for popular "carry" trades, fuelling heavy flows into higher-yielding emerging market currencies. Dollar-funded carry trades in the Indonesian rupiah, Indian rupee, Brazilian real, Turkish lira among other currencies, are back in vogue, fund managers said. In a typical currency carry trade, investors use cheap-to-borrow currencies to fund investments in those with better yields. Returns are boosted if the borrowed currency weakens. The dollar, traditionally less favoured than the Japanese yen or Swiss franc for such trades, has become the funding currency of choice as Trump's trade war stokes recession worries and an investor retreat from U.S. Treasuries. Carl Vermassen, a portfolio manager at Zurich-based asset manager Vontobel, has added to carry trades on the rupee and rupiah. "Emerging market local currency was basically shunned for the simple reason: to avoid local currency risk at a time of an almighty dollar," he said. "But, given most investors deem U.S. exceptionalism to have ended, things are changing." Claudia Calich, head of emerging market debt at M&G Investments, also expects dollar weakness to persist and support carry trades. The London-headquartered fund oversees more than 312 billion pounds ($423.5 billion) and favours the rupee and Philippine peso for carry positions within Asia and the Brazilian real and Mexican peso in Latin America. The more investors rush back into dollar carry trades, the deeper the dollar's losses are likely to be, analysts said. The dollar index has fallen 8.5% so far this year, dropping below the critical 100 mark in mid-April for the first time in nearly two years. It was last seen at 99.30. That means investors are finding good carry not just in the likes of the rupee and rupiah, whose yields are above those in the United States, but even those with low interest rates such as the South Korean won. The won has led gains in Asian currencies this year with a 6.7% rally against the dollar. The yield advantage over dollars, or the "carry", measured by the three-month tenure is 2% on the Indian rupee and 1.2% for Indonesia's rupiah. Brazil's real gives a much higher carry at 9% but is far more volatile, meaning the trade could go horribly wrong if the currency depreciates, instead of appreciating. The future expected 3-month volatility, also called implied volatility, for the real is 8.1% compared with 4.7% for the rupee. Goldman Sachs said carry trades were "a big theme" in recent meetings with its New York clients, with interest growing in Latin American and European markets. "If volatility settles some more, we will start to hear more about dollar-funded carry trades," ING Bank said. "This could be a story for this summer." Since "FX carry trades" typically involve investments in bond or money markets in these destinations, analysts expect to see heavy flows into emerging markets. Data for April shows investors bought bonds worth $8.92 billion, the highest for any month since last August, in South Korea, India, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. While some of those flows could have been straight real-money investments into these markets, analysts say carry trades also boomed. In South Korea, foreign investors bought $7.91 billion in bonds, the most since May 2023. Tom Nakamura, vice-president and head of fixed income & currencies at Canadian fund AGF Investments, finds carry trades in Turkey attractive since the central bank's adoption of more orthodox monetary policy. Turkey's benchmark rates are at 46%. (Reporting by Nimesh Vora; Additional reporting by Jaspreet Singh Kalra in Mumbai and Johann Cherian in Bengaluru; Editing by Vidya Ranganathan and Jacqueline Wong)
