Great America

Written By: - Date published: 12:23 pm, March 9th, 2025 - 17 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, Free Trade, trade, us politics, war - Tags:

The United States of America is seeking to expand to more than twice its size, bringing Canada to its knees, and taking over Greenland. 

Chances of it happening aren’t going to be fast, but they are real and it is happening right now.

Russell Vought, architect of Project 2025 the Heritage Foundation’s 900 page compendium of extreme conservative policies and now head of the White House Office of Management and Budget explained a couple of years ago what a new Republican administration following his plan would do. It would, he said, “throw off the precedents and legal paradigms that have wrongly developed over the last two hundred years’, sloughing off ‘the scar tissue resulting from decades of bad cases and act accordingly.” The more than sixty executive orders made by the White House since Trump’s inauguration take their authority from Article II of the Constitution, which established the Executive branch of government and lays out the president’s powers and responsibilities. 

This is what that looks like. With Congress and Senate both in full support of Donald Trump, there is now very little check against him to achieve his aims.

This US Constitution gives congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, impose import tariffs, and of course raise revenue. Congress has in turn enacted laws giving the President the authority to impose tariffs under certain conditions. Congress in its majority is aligned with the Trump foreign policy agenda.

The plan President Trump is working to is not merely to bring investment and industry back to the United States via tariffs. If he had wanted to do that he would have just followed the legislation followed by previous president Biden in the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. 

President Trump’s design is quite clear and it is larger. He wants to massively expand the United States itself.

President Trump will impose tariffs upon Canada until it is sufficiently weak that becoming a state of the United States is a viable option. On January 7th 2025 at a press conference at Mar-A-Lago, Trump ruled out the use of military force to annex Canada. He instead advocated for using “economic force” to pressure Canada into joining. 

It’s probably time we took President Trump seriously instead of mocking him. His aims are clear. 

He has watched the military option of annexation and it looks like Russia invading Ukraine: hard work, can be done, but quite expensive. 

During his inaugural address on January 20th 2025, President Trump stated that during his second presidency, the United States would expand its territory, so he is quite consistent and determined that the United States will indeed expad and Canada and Greenland are his targets. 

The tariffs on Canada are on. On February 20th Trump reaffirmed his desire to annex Canada, promising no tariffs and guaranteeing their military security if they do. Prime Minister Trudeau is about to exit and the wave of nationalist sentiment risen by these US imposed tariffs may just propel the Liberals back to power. But this threat is real and it will last for at least the four years that Trump is in power and four more if Vance gets his way and succeeds him as President. 

The other squeeze to put on Canada is to acquire Greenland. President Trump made a direct appeal to Greenlanders in his speech to Congress, just a week before Greenlanders cast their votes in parliamentary elections: 

We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America”, he said. 

“We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.”

Trump’s most important role model is Russia’s President Putin, who has invaded multiple countries around Russia that used to be within the Soviet Union. 

A United States of America that included Canada and Greenland would be the largest and most powerful country that the world has ever seen. 

President Trump’s son visited soon after that speech, with the president’s social media posts saying: ‘Don Jr. and my Reps land in Greenland. The reception has been great. They, and the Free world, need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

He’s serious. 

You can see that in his demands to retake power over the Panama Canal. About 40% of all US container trade goes through that canal. The US built it, but relinquished control of it fully in 1999. It is now run by the Panama Canal Authority. He set out his demands to take it back in his speech to Congress on March 4th. 

In 1951, the United States and Denmark signed a defense agreement granting the US significant rights to defend Greenland, including the establishment of military bases – which is a key aspect of the continued relationship. To be blunt if the United States chose to use military power to take over Greenland the United States has the military bases to do it and there is nothing either Greenland or Denmark could do about it. 

A full takeover of Greenland would see the United States surround Canada on its three main sides: from Alaska in the northwest, across the south, and from the east. In time  – with more tariffs and a likely trade blockade – that would be hard to resist.

When the full scale of the tariffs come on to Canada as they most surely will, it will be really clear to all beyond Canada that Trump is actually trying to crush Canada by all means except military force. Prime Minister Trudeau has accused the US president of planning “a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that will make it easier to annex us. That will never happen. We will never be the 51st state.”

Read that statement again from Trudeau. Slowly like you were Zelynskyy.

He and his state governors know they are facing a fully existential threat to Canada itself.

The Canadian state premiers are full of piss and vim at the moment, but let’s see what it’s like after say 3 years of it. If the tide of public opinion really changes in Saskatchewan, and they really consider seceding, Alberta would be next. After that it’s all on. 

We have to imagine a new world in which the United States is actively seeking to expand its territory and takes very forceful steps to make it happen. 

Because that is the United States that we have right now. 

It is a Great America that would dominate the entire Arctic Ocean, the northern Atlantic, the Pacific, and world trade as no other country has before in history since perhaps the Roman Empire. 

The United States of America is in full territorial expansion mode and there is little that anyone can do about it. 

17 comments on “Great America ”

  1. AB 1
    9 March 2025 at 2:18 pm

    That appears to be the case – and the only people who can stop him dead are American voters. But only if they are allowed to – so territorial expansion will have to be accompanied by the destruction of democracy at home.

    Reply
  2. Sanctuary 2
    9 March 2025 at 3:27 pm

    The United States is a heavily armed and huge country with much decentralized power. This attempt to turn it into an authoritarian expansionist empire is more likely to end in a civil war than the acquisition of Canada.

    Reply
    • Ad 2.1
      9 March 2025 at 5:00 pm

      For the first time since Franklin D Roosevelt we have a White House that has unified the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. There are no effective checks and balances left.

      Trump et al has control of Congress and Senate and drives the legislative agenda without mercy.

      Also the White House has a much more muscular control of the armed forces having gutted the Joint Chiefs and Pentagon leadership.

      Also the majority of governorships are Republican and there's no dissent to Trumpism.

      Those who under Biden had pushed for rebellion were and are on the Republican side.

      Canada faces a dominant economic power that is the most unified it has ever been.

      No, the revolution will not be televised.

      Reply
      • Anne 2.1.1
        9 March 2025 at 8:52 pm

        You forget half the population did not vote for Trump. Add to them all the dumpties who voted for Trump and now realise they made a mistake, and you have a fight on your hands. A civil war is highly likely with under the table assistance from afar?

        Reply
  3. mikesh 3
    9 March 2025 at 3:32 pm

    What would Charles III, as Candian head of state. say about all that. Would he summon all Commonwealth troops, including ours, to help defend Canada.

    Reply
    • Macro 3.1
      9 March 2025 at 4:06 pm

      The end of AUKUS. Dead before it has even begun.

      Reply
    • Christopher Randal 3.2
      9 March 2025 at 4:32 pm

      One would hope so, as one would hope that Canada has missiles trained on Washington DC

      Reply
    • Ad 3.3
      9 March 2025 at 5:05 pm

      Starmer set out his defence priorities last week. The focus is on the defence of UK interests in Europe.

      If we aren't prepared to send troops to defend Ukraine after 3 years of direct war that threatens Europe, why would anyone in the Commonwealth send troops to defend Canada? Go through the list, ask the question, and start with us.

      The White House has long since made the calculus anyway that a trade war is the cheapest and fastest and mostly legal way to capture and defeat Canada. Military arms aren't necessary.

      Reply
    • Belladonna 3.4
      10 March 2025 at 8:42 am

      Absolutely nothing.

      The OP makes it clear that it would (if it happens) be diplomatic/financial pressure – not military. And any union would (under Canadian law) be on a state-by-state basis after a plebiscite. At that point it becomes the 'will of the people' – and there is tons of precedent for countries to exit the Commonwealth (indeed, Canada has had republican leaning in that direction for some time).

      Reply
      • mikesh 3.4.1
        10 March 2025 at 5:30 pm

        I don't think the constitutional position regarding this sort of situation has ever been tested. Providing the HoS has the backing of his PM the ‘will of the people’ may be irrelevant.

        Reply
        • Belladonna 3.4.1.1
          11 March 2025 at 10:53 am

          Well, history seems to show you are wrong.
          Nations have exited the Commonwealth before, even when it's … questionable… over just what the 'will of the people' might be (South Africa and Pakistan, are prime examples)

          If you are proposing that Canadian law regarding a plebiscite required for individual states to exit the union (Canada is a federated state) – then I think you'd need a lot more evidence than you've provided that legal process in Canada has broken down to that extent.

          Note, unlike the US, Canadian states have had the freedom to leave specifically re-tested in legislation (it's all around Quebec being able to succeed if they want to)

          https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.8/page-1.html

          Reply
          • mikesh 3.4.1.1.1
            12 March 2025 at 1:54 pm

            Nations have exited the Commonwealth before, even when it's … questionable… over just what the 'will of the people' might be (South Africa and Pakistan, are prime examples)

            In those cases the crown would have recognised that it was "the will of the people". However, in the case of Canada, where the people will likely prefer to to remain part of what used to be the British empire, would the crown have an obligation to back them, with the help of other commonwealth countries, against an attempted annexation by the US.

            Reply
            • Belladonna 3.4.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2025 at 2:13 pm

              Really? I seriously doubt that the majority of the people in South Africa in the 1960s wanted to exit the Commonwealth. There was a bare majority of 52% of the white voters who wanted this – and it was highly unpopular amongst the non-voting black and coloured majority.

              You seem to be ignoring the fact that a Province can only exit the Canadian Federation following a referendum – which requires a majority – and the legislation (linked above) is very clear that this must be a clear majority of the population.

              WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves if that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that would give rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations that might lead to secession;

              WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means more than simple majority rule, that a clear majority in favour of secession would be required to create an obligation to negotiate secession, and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether a clear majority in favour of secession exists in the circumstances;

              WHEREAS, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession, the House of Commons, as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians, has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the Government of Canada to enter into negotiations in relation to the secession of a province from Canada;

              AND WHEREAS it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a province from Canada, and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that Canadian citizens resident in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada, unless the population of that province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the province secede from Canada;

              Individual Provinces of Canada – could only exit the Canadian Federation – and apply to join the US, following a Referendum which had a significant majority in favour of this action.

              So, no, there is no obligation for the Crown, or the other Commonwealth countries, to support a desire for a minority of the population to remain within either Canada or the Commonwealth – in the above situation.

              TBH, I think it's highly unlikely to happen. But, if it does, Canada has significantly more protection against an arbitrary political decision than the majority of other Commonwealth countries.

              Reply
  4. Christopher Randal 4
    9 March 2025 at 4:31 pm

    Perhaps somebody could turn "White House Down" into real life?

    Reply
  5. mikesh 5
    12 March 2025 at 1:57 pm

    The US may end up being ruled in accordance with Canadian values if they annexed Canada.

    Reply
    • Belladonna 5.1
      13 March 2025 at 10:34 am

      The whole of Canada, in population, would be about the size of California – so the equivalent number of Congresspeople and Senators. Nothing approaching a majority, or even a substantial voting bloc.
      Questionable if it would be a 'whole of Canada' as a single state – or individual provinces/regions. I guess that it would depend to a large extent on the way that Canada dissolved (if, indeed, it did).
      Some provinces (especially rural ones) are considerably closer aligned to moderate republican states, rather than aggressively democratic ones, in values.

      The 'little' provinces in Canada are around 1 million in population (with the tiny exceptions of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador – which would certainly be rolled into a larger 'state – probably with New Brunswick'). Rhode Island and Delaware are roughly the equivalent size – but are grandfathered in. There's ongoing agitation over the senate representation being outsized for tiny states – I doubt they'd want to make the situation worse.

      The big question is whether they'd want Quebec (and whether Quebec would want them). The protection of the French language and the ongoing subsidies that the rest of Canada pay to Quebec, would cease immediately. I doubt that the Québécois would be keen on moving (economic reasons don't often trump identity in that province).

      Reply

Leave a Comment