Should Canadians Resist, Surrender or Rebel Against Trump? The American Revolution Provides Some Guidance

We have reached the stage in the gilt-encrusted reign of Donald Trump where the American president is increasingly compared to King George III, the supposed tyrant and madman whose policies forced the Thirteen Colonies to sever their connection to Britain.  Mr. Trump’s love of ostentatious gold ornamentation and his eagerness to erect monuments to himself, the latest being a triumphal arch on steroids, certainly chime with tasteless royal excess. His verbal incontinence and frequently bizarre declarations raise questions about his sanity.

His decision to rule by executive order, favouring his cronies, punishing his enemies, and ignoring an elected Congress, looks enough like the actions of a tyrant to have provoked the huge “No Kings” protests in March. The slogan rejects what many see as a drift toward one-man rule, as millions marched in cities across the United States. This was universally felt; there were sizeable protests in Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal. In Canada, a few hundred turned out in Toronto, its largest city, a whimper of a protest given what is at stake.

A Relationship Under Strain

 If Trump is King George reincarnated, Canadians best fit the role of the restive and oppressed American colonists. Canada is not officially an American colony. But for much of the last century, it has been content to act like one, becoming increasingly dependent on the United States for its economic and military security, happily shipping raw materials to the metropole for manufacturing, and staking its survival on a rules-based order largely created and led by the Americans. Trump’s jibe that “Canada lives because of the United States,” came uncomfortably close to the truth.

Canadians are now where the colonists were before the violence at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, a moment when political tensions abruptly gave way to armed confrontation between British forces and colonial militias, marking the start of the American Revolution. There is grudging acceptance that the asymmetrical relationship has changed, disbelief that appeals to reason have fallen on deaf ears, and anger at the economic pain caused by a series of seemingly whimsical, punitive measures. And just like the colonists prior to the revolution, Canadians are divided about what to do. Some yearn for the old relationship to be restored. Others urge a complete break. A third group, which includes the Liberal government, largely want something in between the two extremes. 

Outright violence is not currently on the table, although military planners at the Department of Defence are reportedly looking at possible responses to an American invasion. The aggression has so far taken the form of tariffs and repeated threats of annexation by President Trump, raising the following question: should Canada rebel, surrender, or do something in between?

How the Imperial System Worked

To answer that question, it is worth looking at what provoked the Thirteen Colonies to revolt 250 years ago. Britain had maintained an arms-length relationship with them for much of their existence. It relied on British colonial governors to be its eyes and ears on the ground. They worked with local legislative assemblies. It exerted control by regulating trade through the Navigation Acts. Under the Acts and related legislation, Britain restricted what the colonists could trade, who they could trade with, what ships they could use, and the citizenship of sailors. 

There were British customs duties on imports, but they were only loosely enforced. British policy discouraged colonial manufacturing that might compete with merchants in the British Isles and encouraged the colonies to ship raw materials to the motherland, where they were turned into manufactured goods and sold back to the colonists at a higher price. In return, the British army and navy provided defence. This was especially important when a hostile France controlled Canada.

From Friction to Breakdown

There was some chafing under the trade and manufacturing restrictions. And not every British governor got along well with his legislative assembly. But by and large the system worked until 1760, when the British drove the French out of Canada and made it a British colony. The absence of a foreign enemy on their doorstep freed the colonists to focus on their grievances with Britain. 

These grew as Britain, weighed down by war debts, tried to reorder its finances and reorganize its vastly expanded empire. It decreed the Navigation Acts should be strictly enforced, imposed a series of new taxes, and warned the colonists not to occupy lands they coveted west of the Appalachian Mountains. Protests, like the Boston Tea Party of 1773, were swiftly met with punitive measures. Petitions to the king and the British parliament for mercy went unanswered. The king and his ministers either did not know or did not care that the colonists were suffering.

Ultimately, events pushed the colonies toward confrontation. Anger turned to outrage, but there was no agreement on how to respond. Only a fringe group advocated independence at the start. Many wanted to change the terms of the relationship but remain part of the British Empire. Another group thought it was disloyal to question any of the king’s actions. It could have gone either way. Eventually, those calling for independence won enough support to drag the doubters along and punish the loyalists. 

When the Continental Congress decided to take up arms against Britain, it faced a set of challenges whose broad outlines may feel familiar to Canadians contemplating a break with the United States: the Thirteen Colonies were suddenly on their own when it came to security. They were woefully unprepared. Each colony had a militia, but there was no joint army or navy, nor much ability to manufacture the weapons they needed. In letters from that time, delegates to the Continental Congress discussed how to make or where to find something as essential as gunpowder.Benjamin Franklin wanted to manufacture pikes to skewer the enemy. Security was not their only worry. Dependent on Britain for trade, they had to find new markets for their exports and new sources of imports overnight. And they had to find the money to pay for it all. 

Entreaties were made to France, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Tuscany, and the United Provinces (the Netherlands) for support. France answered the call, calculating that a prolonged war would weaken its longtime enemy Britain. It supplied ships, men, weapons, and ammunition; advanced increasingly large loans; and opened its ports to trade. Its foreign minister, the Comte de Vergennes, worried throughout that the colonies would reconcile with Britain and renew their former trading relationship. His fears were realized when the peace treaty (the Treaty of Paris) was signed in 1783. Merchants in Britain and the newly created United States recommenced their trans-Atlantic trade. France was out in the cold.

Canada’s Position Today

There are differences between the position of Canada today and that of the American colonists. An ocean separated the colonies from Britain. Canada lies right next door to a country that a majority of Canadians believe is the greatest threat to their security. Geographic proximity complicates the trade picture. It is easier for Canadian manufacturers to sell goods and services in the US rather than to customers farther away. Canadians do not consider themselves Americans, whereas the colonists thought of themselves as loyal Britons right up to the point when they did not. As citizens of a sovereign country, Canadians supposedly already have the liberty to govern themselves that the colonists were seeking.

Yet the similarities between the two cases are striking. Trump’s punishing and provocative tariffs on Canadian goods mirror the king’s taxes on colonists. They have provoked a similarly anguished response. Trump, like the king, seems oblivious to the economic damage he is causing and how his actions and dismissive attitude have soured a once-friendly relationship. According to an Environics Research poll, the percentage of Canadians who see the US as a friend tumbled to 36 percent at the start of the year, down from 60 percent in 2020 and 89 percent in 2013. Four in ten think an American invasion is possible. A poll by Nanos Research in January indicated 58.1 percent of Canadians see the US as Canada’s greatest security threat. 

Searching for Alternatives

Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney’s attempts to find new trade partners echo the scramble in the colonies to find other markets for their goods. The prime minister travelled to 25 countries and signed 20 trade or defence agreements in his first year in office and hopes to sign three major deals, including one with India, by the end of 2026. 

The strategic partnership with China announced in January stood out, partly because it attracted the ire of President Trump, who threatened 100 percent tariffs if Canada took it further. But it also signalled a warming of Canadian attitudes towards China, which had turned frosty after China jailed a Canadian diplomat and a businessman in 2018 on suspicion of espionage and held them for more than 1,000 days. Renewing engagement with China is not unlike the colonists turning to France, their traditional enemy, in their hour of need. 

Security and Dependence

The similarities continue with defence. After years of being content to devote a minimum of resources to security, the government is pouring tens of billions into arming, equipping and paying its armed forces. This year Canada finally reached the agreed target among NATO countries of spending 2 percent of GDP on defence and is aiming to hit the new target of 5 percent by 2035. The colonists created and equipped an army and a navy to fight their revolution, albeit with substantial aid from France. 

They did this while managing deep divisions between groups that advocated for reconciliation and those bent on independence. The divisions are not quite so stark in Canada. There are those who are open to joining the European Union, which would be akin to rebellion in the eyes of President Trump. One poll indicated that 42 percent of Canadians liked the idea. They do not include Prime Minister Carney, who said he seeks closer collaboration with the 27-member bloc but membership “is not the pathway we are on.”

Resist, Adapt, or Accommodate

Surrendering to U.S. threats has its adherents, although it is not characterized as such. Steve Globerman of the Fraser Institute argued that while retaliation against tariffs might feel good, it would ultimately hurt the Canadian economy. Former Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole warned against “silly mentions of the War of 1812,” and suggested Canada should address American concerns and discuss better integration at the border and an energy partnership in the hopes of eventual reconciliation. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been chided by critics for travelling to Mar-a-Lago in what they saw as an effort to appease Trump.

Prime Minister Carney has hedged his bets. He acknowledged in an April video address that “many of our former strengths, based on our close relationship with America, have become our weaknesses, weaknesses we must correct.” He talked of Canada “taking back control of our security, our borders, and our future.” The video began with some martial-sounding drumbeats, and the prime minister used words like “overwhelming force.” But he sees the relationship continuing, just in an altered form, with Canada becoming “less reliant on the United States,” while still retaining the Canada-US-Mexico trade agreement. His continued popularity suggests that Canadians support the course he has laid out.

Whether the unpredictable  Trump will continue to tighten the screws on Canada with higher tariffs and bellicose talk of annexation is unclear. King Charles might have given him pause when he reminded the American president during his state visit to Washington in April that he was also King of Canada. It was a subtle way of saying hands off. Trump, who fancies himself a king, might take a hint coming from a fellow monarch. It is the kind of diplomacy King George would have understood.