Why Donald Trump's response to the King's speech should focus Canadian minds
Think of it as the real response to King Charles' Throne Speech, the one that really counts—for the moment, at least.
Or call it Donald Trump's bluff to Prime Minister Mark Carney: I'll see your king and raise you…a missile defence shield.
In veiled terms, that was the message the U.S. president sent to his northern neighbour, bringing the pomp-and-circumstance of Tuesday's historic Royal visit back to the harsh-and-crude basics of modern-day geopolitics.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
'I told Canada, which 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 social media, 'but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our the cherished 51 st State.'
Federal Politics
Mark Carney confirms Canada in talks to join Donald Trump's 'Golden Dome' missile defence system
Alex Ballingall
The plans for an American missile defence system were unveiled earlier this month. The purpose is to better protect against the advanced and aggressive capabilities developed by adversarial countries like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran that could be launched from the ground, sea or space.
In a very real way, the longstanding question of continental defence from such a hypothetical attack neatly explains part of America's uncomfortable interest in taking on, or taking over, Canada.
In the Cold War with the Soviet Union, a system of radars was established across the Canadian Arctic, known as the Distant Early Warning Line. It was a geographic reality that this country would have been the front or the no-man's land in a dreaded nuclear war between Washington and Moscow that never came to pass.
That nature of the threat is in constant flux, but the reality that the Canadian and American fates are intertwined when it comes to the defence of the continent hasn't fundamentally changed.
Canada rejected the overtures of then-president George W. Bush to join the Ballistic Missile Defence system in 2005, with then-prime minister Paul Martin ultimately deciding it was better to bend to the will of opposition parties in a minority Parliament than to an American leader burnishing his credentials as a war monger and pariah.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
'We respect the right of the United States to defend itself and its people,' Martin said at the time. 'However, BMD is not where we will concentrate our efforts.'
Classic Canadian good manners won't count for much this time around.
With Trump in his second presidential term keen to exert greater influence in the region—from Panama's canal in the south to Greenland's shores and resources in the north—opting out of a common defence project only bolsters the view of Canada as a weak link in North America.
Pulling out or refusing to pay a part of the estimated US$175-billiion bill (CAD$242 billion) would leave Canada to be viewed in Washington as a risk for the U.S. in a much more concrete way than the exaggerated earlier claims that this country is a conduit for U.S.-bound fentanyl and migrants.
Trump ended Wednesday's online intervention, saying of Canada: 'They are considering the offer.'
Federal Politics
Opinion
Susan Delacourt: It might have been the King's speech, but the message to Donald Trump was all Mark Carney
Susan Delacourt
This is no doubt true. The prime minister has already confirmed that talks are underway about Canada joining the Golden Dome project. It's one piece in a wider discussion about Ottawa upping its security and defence game.
One of his first acts upon taking over the Liberal leadership and becoming Prime Minister was to travel to Nunavut and announce the purchase of a $6 billion radar system from Australia.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Against the menace of U.S. trade tariffs, the announcement was seen as rebuke to our neighbours—a message that you can't target Canada and expect Canadian tax dollars to continue being spent on military equipment that enriches American defence companies.
But reversing decades of Canadian defence policy and joining Trump's Golden Dome project could be just as difficult to pull off, James Fergusson, a University of Manitoba associate professor of politics, wrote in an April analysis of Canada's ballistic missile 'dilemma' for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
'To reverse Canadian policy, likely interpreted as caving into Trump, will require bold leadership which is not necessarily the hallmark of Canadian governments,' he noted.
Be it sovereignty, statehood or something else along that spectrum, the stakes are high if Canada blinks in the missile-defence gamble.
Those fed up with Trump's threats may bristle at yet another instance of American interference. But for those who hope that the Carney government follows through on its solemn vow to make Canada more strong, more sovereign, less dependent on our neighbours to the south in every respect, Trump's message—essentially, pay up or give up—could be a a motivator and welcome reminder.
Throne speeches, which mark the opening of a new session of Parliament, are too-often filled with platitudes and vague promises to be forgotten or to go unfulfilled. How many pledges have been abandoned to the realities of parliamentary politics?
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
This is particularly true for a minority government that must seek issue-by-issue support from opposition parties to implement its agenda.
The Carney Liberals form such a minority government. But with the NDP reduced to a leaderless 7-MP rump, Pierre Poilievre leading the Conservative Party from outside the House of Commons, and the Bloc Quebecois offering to collaborate—at least in the short term—it has a fair bit of breathing room.
Room that will be needed to pass enhance border security, negotiate new trade and defence partnerships, hire more police officers, strengthen gun controls and adopt stiffer penalties for law-breakers.
King Charles uses throne speech to bolster Canada's autonomy against Donald Trump's threats
All of these were promised in a Throne Speech that appears to be focused, laser-like, on building Canada stronger in response to the weaknesses exposed with Trump's return to power.
Whatever one thinks about the merits or effectiveness of the president's bully approach to, well, everything, it has sharpened Canadian minds on a national project, the likes of which the country hasn't had in some time.
Every Canada-focused intervention, every all-caps message about the 51 st state, every tariff taunt is a reminder that Washington is watching with an unforgiving eye that will not be lifted, even if the president's megaphone mouth goes temporarily quiet.
Correction - May 28, 2025
This article was updated to note that US $175 billion is $242 billion Canadian. The Canadian conversion was misstated in millions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
No surprise: Trump couldn't legally levy tariffs
Opinion It's a big win, but in the end, do wins even matter? A decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade confirmed Wednesday what everybody already knew: that U.S. President Donald Trump can't use trumped-up emergency powers to address magically created emergencies and then implement trade tariffs at his whim. The panel of three judges unanimously ruled that Trump does not have the authority to impose a wide range of global tariffs using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. manuel balce ceneta / The Associated Press files U.S. President Donald Trump The act is usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. It's a law that lets the U.S. president step in and control economic transactions to address a national emergency. That move overrides the U.S. Congress, which has the exclusive power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' and to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations' under the U.S. constitution. The judges were scathing in their decision, writing that, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' 'The president's assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president under IEEPA. The worldwide and retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law,' the decision said. It continued, 'the challenged tariff orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined,' halting the imposition of the duties countrywide, and ordering both 'Liberation Day' global tariffs and the fentanyl-related duties against Canada and Mexico must be removed within 10 days. Some other tariffs, such as steel and aluminum tariffs levied against Canada and others, remain in place because they weren't put in place using IEEPA. The Trump administration immediately appealed the court's decision, and the court hearing the appeal has temporarily halted the removal of the tariffs. The case will probably eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the judges will have a distinct problem: Republican-appointed Supreme Court judges have long maintained that a literal interpretation of the U.S. constitution is the proper way to address constitutional questions, and that is exactly what the Court of International Trade panel of judges has delivered. Will the judges on the Supreme Court follow the principles they claim are paramount, or will they put principles on the shelf to pander to politics? Time will tell. As soon as the decision came down, you could imagine administration spokespeople such as Trump deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller announcing that the decision was made by a Marxist, power-seeking, appointed judiciary — because that's been the pat response to a steady march of court decisions striking down arbitrary actions by the White House. Weekday Evenings Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening. In the hours afterwards, White House spokesman Kush Desai said 'it is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency … President Trump pledged to put America First, and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness.' (Miller did not disappoint, either, shortly afterwards announcing on social media that, 'The judicial coup is out of control.') The problem is there is no emergency and there never was. There was only ever an excuse. What remains to be seen is whether Trump and his crew of magical thinkers will even listen to the law — or just continue to claim that Trump has absolute powers that override even the constitution of the United States. Time will tell: if, in 10 days, the tariffs remain in place, it will be absolutely clear that Trump's administration believes itself to be above the law. And that would be one more step down the road to U.S. autocracy.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The world is closing its doors
Opinion Straws in the wind: recently I ran across a post by the CEO of a countrywide professional association in Canada. People like him are used to hopping across the U.S. border for various meetings several times a month, but he was remarking on what people had been talking about at the association's recent annual conference in a big Canadian city. What his post said was: 'Consensus here is that it's risky to travel to (U.S. flag emoji) but if you have to go, bring a burner phone. Have a plan in case you get detained. Watch what you say. Who you meet.' And I thought 'Yeah. Me too.' I'm a journalist so I will still go to the U.S. if I absolutely have to, but not for pleasure, not for paid lectures and things, and yes, please on the burner phone. Back when I started out in this trade half the world was off limits, especially for freelance journalists. The Cold War reached a second peak in the early '80s and you couldn't go to the Soviet Union unless you had a big media organisation negotiating for you. Even then it took months for a visa, and you were followed everywhere. The communist-ruled 'satellite' countries in Eastern Europe were a little easier, and China was letting tourists into some parts of the country (but not stray journalists). Albania, North Korea and Iran were completely closed, and most of southeast Asia and much of Central and South America were ruled by military dictators who ran death squads. Then non-violent democratic revolutions began all over the 'third world,' the communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapsed, and the old Soviet Union itself followed suit. Soon almost the whole world opened up. It was a nice ride while it lasted, but then the whole process went into reverse. You won't feel the effects much if you travel as a tourist or even do business abroad, but journalists (including foreign journalists) are the canaries in the coal mine on this and I'm certainly feeling the change. The number of countries I won't go to any more is growing every year. It started, weirdly enough, with Turkey, a place I thought I knew well. I've lived there, I speak the language (or at least I used to), and I even thought President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a welcome change from a militantly secular government that ignored the rights of the pious half of the population. Then the editor of the newspaper that ran this column in Turkey was jailed, the publisher went into exile, and the new regime turned the paper into a government propaganda outlet. I know there's a fat file on me somewhere in Ankara and I've seen the inside of a Turkish jail (as a visitor), so I don't go there any more. Twenty years now. Next was Russia, where I had been practically commuting in the early 90s. Vladimir Putin was elected in 1999 and it was still all right for a while, but by 2005 he was killing opposition leaders and I started reporting from afar. Note, by the way, that these changes were happening after more or less free elections — although they tended to be the last fair elections. Then came a round of non-violent pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East, most of them drowned in blood. That set off a whole cluster of civil wars, and the whole region became very hard to work in. It still is. Next was China, where they arrested, tried and jailed two random Canadian businessmen in 2018, really as hostages to exchange for a Chinese citizen in Canada whom they wanted back. It wasn't aimed specifically at journalists and the victims were freed after a thousand days in prison, but I and many other people took it as a signal to do your Chinese business from afar. However, I never thought that I would be adding the United States to the list. Even during Donald Trump's first term foreign journalists were no more at risk of arbitrary imprisonment than the average American citizen, and nobody followed you around or listened to your phone calls. (Well, no more than they listen to everybody else's calls.) Now, quite suddenly, the United States has become just another great power where foreigners watch what they say, try to minimize contacts with official bodies, or just stay away. The thought even occurs that, as in so many other cases, there will still be elections but we will know the outcome in advance. It sounds almost hysterical to talk like this and many non-journalist travelers won't even notice it, but the world is closing down again. I have no idea if and when it will reopen. Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Five things you need to know as Trump's tariffs go back to court
WASHINGTON - The world buckled up for another roller-coaster ride of uncertainty this week as U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff agenda made its way through the courts. A federal appeals court on Thursday granted the Trump administration's emergency motion to temporarily stay a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade that blocked many of the president's tariffs. The lower court on Wednesday ruled that Trump's use of an emergency powers law to impose tariffs exceeded his authority. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Here's a quick look at what it all means for Canada. — What's happening with tariffs The federal appeals court granted the Trump administration's emergency motion, essentially freezing a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade blocking the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs. That means that countries will continue to be hit by those duties for now. They include 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian imports not compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, with a lower 10 per cent levy on energy and potash. The appeals court said the request for a stay was granted 'until further notice while this court considers the motions papers.' It said the plaintiffs have until June 5 to reply to the administration's motion for a stay, while the administration 'may file a single, consolidated reply in support' of the motion no later than June 9. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said in an online post that it was a 'a brief temporary stay intended to give the court time to consider whether a longer stay should be imposed.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, represents American small businesses in the case against the tariffs. — What the White House argued In its emergency motion to the appeals court, the Trump administration argued the U.S. Court of International Trade's injunction blocking the tariffs was 'unprecedented and legally indefensible.' The motion said blocking the tariffs threatens 'to unwind months of foreign policy decision-making.' It said agreements with multiple countries could 'be immediately unravelled.' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Trump's administration argued that if a stay was not granted, it would seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court on Friday. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier Thursday that the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this' and called the lower court's decision 'judicial overreach.' She maintained that Trump had the legal authority to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement tariffs. — The U.S. Court of International Trade's decision on IEEPA Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, to implement his most sweeping tariffs. While the national security statute gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency, it had never previously been used for tariffs. The U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The trade court wrote that 'because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.' 'We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers,' it added. Mona Paulsen, an associate international economic law professor at the London School of Economics, said the decision is significant because it shows there are limits to the main tool Trump's administration had used in its attempts to realign global trade. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW — What the lower court said about tariffs Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court wrote that 'the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.' It separately found that 'the Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.' — Which tariffs aren't affected by this court ruling Trump is hitting Canada, and the world, with 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum. The president has also implemented 25 per cent duties on automobiles, with a partial carveout for cars compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Those vehicles are being slapped with tariffs on their non-American components. Trump used the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. The president has launched trade investigations to use the same tool to tariff other imports, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, in the future. Leavitt said Trump will also look at other tools to continue his wide-ranging tariff agenda. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 29, 2025.
