If a meteor had struck the Washington, D.C. area on January 20, the consequences for the United States and for the world could hardly have been any more consequential than what actually transpired that day.  Donald Trump’s second inauguration as President of the United States on January 20 unleashed a new era in world politics and the world, I fear, is on the cusp of a long and dangerous downward trajectory.

     Anyone reading this will have grown up in a world where the U.S. enjoyed the status of first among equals. Possessed of unparalleled economic and military might, the U.S. also benefited from the moral authority that came from its role as the principal backer and benefactor of a wide range of world-girdling alliances, economic institutions and organizations dedicated to peaceful international development.  While, certainly, the U.S. stumbled and made missteps during the eighty-some years during which it has dominated world affairs (the Vietnam War and the invasion of Iraq are glaring examples), on the whole the U.S. commitment to advancing human rights and democracy and ensuring stability, security and prosperity was an unshakeable constant. The world knew that it could count on the U.S. as a steadfast ally and a guarantor of peace, prosperity and sovereign borders.  Around the world, billions of people escaped from lives of poverty and oppression under the rules of the road that the U.S. helped foster and ensure.

     Tragically, since January 20 that world of optimism, prosperity and security has been thrown into doubt.  With the issuance of a dizzying array of executive orders (edicts that do not have the force or authority of settled legislation) President Trump has proceeded to eviscerate the federal bureaucracy, unleash Elon Musk –  the world’s richest man and his principal campaign benefactor – to gut and intimidate the very departments and agencies that have for decades been essential to providing services in such diverse areas of American life as business,  economy, health administration, education and environment, among many others.  Most worrisome, in my view, has been his decision to install utterly unqualified and outright suspect individuals to senior positions in the defence, law enforcement (FBI), and intelligence agencies.  The new head of the State Department – where I was employed for thirty years – is Marco Rubio, a former Trump political adversary who enjoyed considerable credibility but, to all appearances, is settling uncomfortably into the role of junkyard dog that Trump has foisted on him.

      For most observers, the most shocking of the earthquakes that have occurred each time President Trump has stamped his foot over the past six weeks is, undoubtedly, the utterly shameless on-camera assault that he and Vice President JD Vance inflicted on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Feb. 28 in the Oval Office. After accusing the heroic Ukrainian who has led his nation’s defence against ruthless Russian aggression of being a “dictator” who was “ungrateful” for American support (a totally false allegation) Trump expressed rage at Zelensky’s insistence on U.S. security guarantees in exchange for an extravagant share of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals – a demand that would have been inconceivable under any previous U.S. president.  Ronald Reagan must be twisting in his grave. For those of us who long served in the U.S. State Department or other foreign affairs agencies, all we can do is hang our heads in shame and confusion over what has become of our government..

     On March 4, as is tradition at the beginning of a new presidential mandate, President Trump set out his vision for the next four years in an address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives). While, for most of U.S. history this address has been a fairly decorous and straightforward setting out of objectives, Trump’s speech – the longest of its kind ever given – was a maelstrom of lies, boasts, threats, denunciations and promises to, among other things, step up the ongoing stripping of the federal bureaucracy by Elon Musk’s gang of unelected computer geeks, “take back” the Panama Canal (not ours to take), and “one way or another” take over Greenland, ostensibly for national security reasons. There were also, of course, repeated threats to impose a stringent tariff regime against the many countries that, in his fevered imagination, have been “ripping us off” for many years.

     Appallingly, almost every sentence out of Trump’s mouth was greeted by a sea of cheering and applauding Republican senators and representatives leaping to their feet in a scene reminiscent of the “Dear Leader” accolades that North Koreans reserve for Kim Jong Un.  The Republican Party – long committed to freedom, democracy and strong alliances – has fallen very far and very fast.  Statesmen have given way to quislings.  Putin’s Russia has attained a new and unwarranted credibility.

     The Europeans, it seems, long content to glide along in the American wake, are suddenly waking up to the new reality – Trump is prepared to work “deals” with Putin in which Ukrainian aspirations carry little weight and where the U.S. commitment to NATO and to European security are in question.  To their credit, the Europeans have moved quickly to support Ukraine and disengage from their traditional over-reliance on the American presence, but the difficulties and costs of establishing a new and credible military counterweight to Russia will be huge.

     And so, Canadian friends, now we come to the U.S. – Canada relations in the Trump era.  In addition to Trump’s on again-off again threats to impose tariffs on a wide range of Canadian products for, allegedly, not having done enough to restrict the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the U.S. (allegations that are blatantly contrived) his repeated references to Canada as the “51st state” can no longer be dismissed as mere examples of his vulgarian humour.  While, mercifully, Trump didn’t repeat his threats to annex Canada during his March 4 address, those ambitions have clearly not been abandoned.  As reported by New York Times Canada Bureau Chief Matina Stevis-Gridneff on March 7, Trump and some of his senior officials have made abundantly clear in conversations with Prime Minister Trudeau and other Canadian officials that they are prepared to challenge the validity of the existing U.S.- Canada international border (established in 1908) and are also prepared to consider abandoning existing agreements governing the management and sharing of  transboundary water bodies (e.g. the Great Lakes) and to review and perhaps halt some existing areas of military and intelligence co-operation.

     If all this is true, these are highly provocative steps. What could be Trump’s game plan?  While I can only speculate about his internal mental processes, based on his known record over many decades Trump is, first and foremost,  a “businessman” who views all interactions on a transactional basis that – in his mind – he has to win.  If I, and others, read him correctly, Trump views Canada not as a sovereign country but as a piece of real estate the acquisition of which would burnish his legacy as the man who doubled the size of the U.S. and thereby, perhaps, earn him a spot on Mt. Rushmore.

     What are the limits of Trump’s ambition?  I can, again, only speculate, but if one takes much of what he has said at face value it seems he might have in mind a sphere of influence that extends from the Canadian Arctic, encompasses Greenland, and reaches down, in one form or another, to Panama.  (Perhaps leaving the other authoritarian rulers around the world for whom he has often expressed regard a free hand to rule in their own roosts unbothered by U.S. criticism.)

     What might, conceivably, be the steps that Trump might follow to include Canada in this vision?  Crushing tariffs, for starters, followed by the abrogation of border and defence agreements followed by an unrestrained period of denigration and condemnation of all things Canadian. Certainly, there would be repeated appeals to Canadians to act in their own best economic interests by joining the Trump project. If neither threats nor blandishments achieved their desired effect, is it possible that Trump could threaten or apply military pressure?  While inconceivable only six weeks ago, the thought cannot now be entirely set aside.  Trump probably doesn’t have any moral restraints against such action, but his ability to carry out such conduct would depend on the degree to which he is able to staff the defence establishment with lackeys; the personnel changes he has made over the past six weeks are cause for alarm.

     If, through some combination of force and persuasion, Trump were to succeed in drawing Canada into outright annexation or some sort of U.S.-led North American Co-Prosperity Sphere, would there be benefits for either country?  It’s hard for me to imagine that Canadians would happily exchange their fairly effective systems of health and social welfare benefits for the vastly more cumbersome and expensive American equivalents. It is, similarly, hard to imagine most Canadians wanting to exchange their present highly transparent and relatively clean (and cheap) parliamentary and electoral systems for the big-money- and lobbyist-dominated party systems that now rule American political life.  (Elon Musk alone donated over $250 million US to Trump’s 2024 political campaign.)

     And what could the U.S. expect from such a union?  Not much, really.  Under the free trade agreements that have dominated U.S.-Canada economic life for most of the past 40 years, investors and consumers in each country have long enjoyed extraordinary access to each other’s resources and markets. There have been issues in some sectors, but the established dispute resolution mechanisms have resolved most of these disputes reasonably well. In the same vein, the defence relationship between the two countries has been an impeccable one of mutual sharing and solidarity since the early days of the Cold War. So what’s Trump’s beef?  It’s all about nothing ,really, a made-up series of imagined slights and complaints that Trump is churning up and exaggerating – something he does extremely well – in order to intimidate his opponents; the tactic of every bully since the dawn of time.  The ultimate goal isn’t building a better life for all, it’s soothing Trump’s insatiable ego and will to dominate.

     So what can Canada do?  It is, of course, entirely up to Canadians to chart whatever course they want for their country.  As an outsider, I can only suggest that in dealing with President Trump, vigilance, awareness and a firm determination to speak out with a clear and unified voice is the best recourse. I hope that, from here on in, voices on both sides of the border will be raised to demand the restoration and continuation of the mutually beneficial and respectful bilateral relationship that has benefitted both our sovereign countries for so many years. In six short weeks Trump has managed to intimidate and silence critics within the Republican party, many political opponents, academics, journalists and others. However, millions of Americans have friends and relations north of the border (I am one of them, with a dual citizen wife) and millions more have visited Canada and know it as a familiar and hospitable destination. They constitute an important reservoir of goodwill for the existing relationship and many of them, I think, will stand up and speak out.

     We Americans, for our part, need to realize that we account for considerably less than five percent of the world’s population. To survive and prosper, we need friends and allies with whom we have deep and lasting political, cultural and economic ties. We need relationships with countries we can count on and they need to know they can expect the same from us. Transient, purely “transactional” relationships will not cut it in the long run.  If we turn inward, sooner or later we will surely wither away.  We already have such a network in Canada and our other allies.  If we toss these relationships aside, it will be at our own peril.

     In closing, I want to be clear that I am an American who deeply  loves his country and was proud to serve it as a diplomat from 1984 to 2013 (including service in Ottawa and Quebec City).  Sworn in under Ronald Reagan and retiring under Barack Obama, I was always proud of the U.S. role in advancing peace,  prosperity and security around the world under both Republican and Democratic presidents. But something has changed over the past decade and I now view with dismay the course on which President Trump is trying to lead us.  Saner heads need to prevail.

     I see a ray of hope in the fact that, around the U.S., citizens have begun holding Republican representatives to account for what is happening at town hall meetings and other gatherings, giving at least some of them reason to worry that their political futures could be at risk if they fail to stand up against the mayhem.  Millions of Americans — including many who voted for Trump in hopes of curtailing immigration, “wokeism” and inflation — are already being adversely affected by the waves of firings, the destruction of federal institutions,  and the accompanying economic chaos. As spring arrives, and the weather improves, I anticipate that there will be mass demonstrations around the country protesting what is happening.  I hope that happens and I hope public manifestations can limit the damage and pave the way for the return of a better America.

     The damage that has been done over the past six weeks to the world’s confidence in America as a trade and security partner is incalculable and even with the best intentions it will take years to repair.  America is, however, the world’s irreplaceable partner in so many arenas that for our good and the world’s, the task of restoring that confidence needs to start now.

Warm regards,

Peter O’Donohue

*The writer is the former United States consul in Quebec City.