The Canadian Armed Forces have conducted war-game simulations modeling a defensive response to hypothetical American invasion, according to multiple reports, as President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Canada should become the "51st state" prompt Ottawa to prepare for scenarios once considered unthinkable.
The existence of the military planning became public as Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a pointed address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, declaring that "a country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options." Carney, who took office six months ago, has doubled defense spending and signed 12 trade and security agreements across four continents in what he characterized as preparation for "a rupture in the international order."
"Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering," Carney said, referencing NATO's collective defense provision. "We are working with our NATO allies to further secure the alliance's northern and western flanks." He stated that Canada stands "firmly" with Denmark against U.S. territorial claims on Greenland.
The Canadian military modeling exercises, according to sources familiar with the matter, explore defensive strategies focused on denying control of critical infrastructure rather than conventional battlefield victory against a vastly larger force. The scenarios reportedly examine how to defend key energy corridors, Arctic sovereignty claims, and population centers in the event of American military action.
Canada and the United States share the world's longest undefended border—5,525 miles—and have not fought each other since the War of 1812. The two nations have maintained integrated defense cooperation through NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) since 1958, making the current tensions particularly jarring for military planners on both sides of the border.
"This is contingency planning for a contingency nobody wanted to contemplate," a former Canadian defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "But when the American president repeatedly 'jokes' about annexation and refuses to rule out military force, you have a professional obligation to plan."
Trump has publicly mused about Canadian annexation on multiple occasions, telling reporters that many Canadians would welcome statehood and claiming Ottawa benefits unfairly from American security guarantees. He has threatened 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods and suggested that Canada's existence as a separate nation is "not sustainable."
The revelation of Canadian military planning comes as Greenland's leader has warned residents to prepare for possible American invasion and NATO officials have begun restricting intelligence sharing with Washington for the first time in the alliance's history. European powers including Britain, France, and Germany have deployed military delegations to Greenland in a show of solidarity with Denmark.
The crisis poses an existential question for the postwar alliance architecture: what happens when the security guarantor becomes a potential threat? For Canada, which has structured its defense policy around the assumption of American partnership for more than a century, the answer requires rethinking fundamental strategic assumptions.
Carney's government has pursued rapid trade diversification, signing agreements with India, Thailand, the Philippines, ASEAN nations, and Mercosur countries. The strategy aims to reduce Canadian economic dependence on a southern neighbor whose territorial ambitions now extend beyond rhetoric.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The undefended border was always a political choice, not a geographic inevitability—a choice rooted in mutual trust built over generations. When that trust fractures, what was once unthinkable becomes the subject of military war games. That represents a transformation in North American security relations with implications extending far beyond Ottawa and Washington.
