Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s exasperated response was hard to miss: “This guy is too much. He’s back on his 51st state again… I am going to ignore him.” The target of Ford’s frustration? None other than U.S. President Donald Trump, who, in a high-profile meeting with top U.S. military generals in Virginia on September 30, 2025, revived a provocative idea that has periodically flared and fizzled over the past year: that Canada should join the United States as its 51st state.
Trump’s latest comments, delivered with his trademark bravado, came as he discussed the Golden Dome missile defence program—a $175 billion multilayered project slated for completion by 2029, designed to shield the U.S. from missile threats. According to Global News and CTV News, Trump told the assembled military brass and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, “Canada called me a couple of weeks ago, they want to be part of it.” He then recounted his blunt reply: “Well, why don’t you just join our country? You become the 51st state and you get it for free.”
This wasn’t the first time Trump had floated the notion. But what made this instance stand out was its timing and the setting—a formal military briefing, not a campaign rally or offhand media scrum. The message was clear: access to America’s latest missile shield could come at a steep price, and the price might be nothing less than Canada’s sovereignty.
Ford, speaking to reporters after a meeting with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Toronto, dismissed Trump’s remarks as a distraction. “I disagree with anything that guy says. He drives me crazy. I’ll talk about him. But let’s stop worrying about this guy and start worrying about what we can do as a country,” Ford said, as reported by Global News. Instead, Ford emphasized his intention to focus on domestic priorities—lowering taxes and creating a more attractive environment for investment in Ontario—rather than getting drawn into Trump’s rhetorical games.
The “51st state” rhetoric, while often dismissed as bluster, has taken on new weight in recent months. According to National Post, the comments come amid persistent uncertainty in the U.S.-Canada relationship since Trump’s return to office. The Golden Dome proposal was initially pitched as a system Canada could buy into—Trump previously suggested a $61 billion price tag—rather than an outright annexation gambit. But now, the offer is being recast as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, with full integration as the ultimate bargaining chip.
U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra, speaking just days before Trump’s latest remarks, delivered a pointed warning during a podcast interview on The Hub’s Alberta Edge. If Ottawa doesn’t fully commit to joint Arctic defence under NORAD and NATO frameworks, Hoekstra said, “If Canada says no, we’re going in a different direction, we will secure America because that’s our job. But we recognize that it would probably be much more difficult and much more expensive if we have to try to figure out how to do that without Canada right by our side.”
Hoekstra’s comments reflected growing frustration in Washington with what some see as Canadian ambivalence on security. While Canada has pledged $38.6 billion to modernize NORAD over the next two decades, debates continue in Ottawa about the future of the partnership. Hoekstra also bristled at Canadian criticisms of Trump’s approach, telling National Post, “You may not like some of the things that he says or whatever, but again, to describe the president as being uninformed… you don’t hear Americans talk about our disagreements with Canadian politicians, saying they’re just uninformed.”
Prime Minister Carney, for his part, has walked a careful line. He acknowledged that joining the Golden Dome program has been discussed at “high level” talks but insisted no definitive decision has been made. Back in March, during the run-up to Canada’s federal election, Carney declared, “The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over.” This sentiment, reported by National Post, reflected a broader shift in how Ottawa views its southern neighbor—less as a partner in lockstep, more as a sometimes unpredictable powerhouse.
The context for all this saber-rattling is crucial. The longstanding Canada-U.S. trade relationship is under strain, with renegotiations of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) reportedly stalled and possibly stretching until 2027. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Ambassador Hoekstra have both voiced concerns that progress is slow, and that contentious issues like Arctic sovereignty and defense spending are becoming bargaining chips in a wider negotiation.
Trump’s “51st state” proposal is hardly a new tactic. Since his re-election, he’s mused about annexing Canada on several occasions, sometimes linking the idea to trade disputes, at other times to defense or taxation. Earlier references were often shrugged off as jokes or negotiating ploys—like those directed at then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at Mar-a-Lago. But the latest iteration, tied directly to a high-stakes defense system and delivered in a formal setting, signals a calculated escalation.
As National Post and Global News have reported, Trump’s expansionist musings have not been limited to Canada. Greenland and even the Panama Canal have featured in his more outlandish proposals. Still, Canada remains the most frequent target—perhaps because of its deep economic ties and shared security interests with the U.S., or perhaps because the idea of annexation, however far-fetched, keeps Ottawa on edge.
For many Canadians, the notion of becoming America’s 51st state is more than a punchline—it’s a reminder of the power imbalance at the heart of the bilateral relationship. As trade talks drag on and the Arctic grows more strategically significant amid climate change and great power rivalry, Trump’s comments serve as both a provocation and a warning. He’s reminding Canada, and the world, that in his transactional view of international relations, nothing is off the table—not even the map itself.
Yet, for all the noise, the practical reality remains unchanged. Canada’s commitment to NORAD, its $38.6 billion investment in modernization, and its ongoing participation in NATO all point to a relationship that, while sometimes fraught, is far from unraveling. Ford’s decision to “ignore Trump” may be less about denial and more about pragmatism—an acknowledgment that, in the end, Canada’s future will be shaped not by one man’s rhetoric, but by the choices Canadians make for themselves.
As the dust settles on Trump’s latest outburst, one thing is clear: the debate over North American security, trade, and sovereignty is far from over. With major defense and trade decisions looming and both countries facing an increasingly complex international landscape, the 51st state rhetoric may fade for now—but the underlying tensions it exposes are likely to persist.
