Canada could always call Trump's bluff on his 51st State gambit

Has anyone asked Speaker Mike Johnson?

News report: What to know about Trump’s calls to make Canada the ’51st state’ (The Hill)

“He’s doing it to rattle Canadian cages,” Butts said. “When someone is trying to get you to freak out, don’t. #protip.”

But Trump on Tuesday seemed to indicate he wasn’t bluffing.

The president-elect in a press conference ruled out using military force to annex and acquire America’s neighbor to the north but threatened “economic force” to get it done.

If you’d like to figure out if someone is bluffing, whether it be in a NYC real estate deal or a venture capital negotiation, the easiest thing to do is “call them on it.” First, you’ll want to size up where you stand, validate the cards that you have, and determine if the other side would (or could) ultimately make good on their threat/promise. This strategy only works if you’re prepared to say “yes” in the event the other side agrees to whatever it is you’ve tabled in response to their so-called bluff.

In the case of President-elect Trump’s undiplomatic call to annex Canada through “economic force” and strong arm us into being America’s 51st state, it’s a safe bet this topic will die a quick and appropriate death if we were to test his thesis.

If you wonder why the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are highly unlikely to ever achieve Statehood, you need look no further than the impact that four additional Senators would have on the balance of power in the current 100-member U.S. Senate. Spend some time in Washington, D.C., and you’ll see local licence plates that read “Taxation Without Representation” — referring to the fact that D.C. residents don’t have all of the luxuries of Statehood, despite paying taxes to the U.S. Treasury and being subject to any future military draft, like every (other) State.

As Mr. Trump has already offered Canada slot #51, the byproduct of his stance is that we’d get two Senate seats, plus our share of the existing 435 Congressional Representatives and the resulting Electoral College votes. After all, it would be disingenuous to offer us Statehood without the benefits of being one.

With a combined CDA/USA population of 375 million, Canada’s 40.1 million contribution (using 2023 figures for argument’s sake) would represent 10.7% of NewCo. We’d replace California as the highest-populated U.S. state. If we apply California’s representation formula, Canada would be awarded 47 of the 435 Congressional seats and 49 (of the new 540) Electoral College votes.

We can assume the Senate would just expand to grant us our two seats, but things would be different over in the House of Representatives. Imagine all of the existing Members of Congress who would lose their current seat once “redistricting” takes place — Canada’s 47 new Districts would have to come from somewhere, and the 1929-era Permanent Apportionment Act sets the maximum number of Representatives at 435.

Even if Mr. Trump could get a majority of Senators and Congressional Reps to go for this “beautiful” real estate play, you have to wonder if he’s considered the political consequences. One 2024 poll I saw had 82% of Canadians preferring VP Kamala Harris over then-candidate Donald Trump, and another had Ms. Harris polling at 64%. In the winer-take-all Electoral College format, Ms. Harris would have been awarded all 49 of the State of Canada’s Electoral College votes.

It’s likely safe to assume that Harris’ Canadian supporters would also vote for the local Democratic candidate down ballot, despite Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s vast lead over the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Poilievre is no offshoot of Mr. Trump, as we saw with Ms. Harris’ relative popularity.

Even with redistricting, I still think Mr. Trump would have won the proforma Electoral College (285-255 vs 312-226), but Republicans would have lost the House (231-205 for the Democrats, if Harris polled 82%, or perhaps 222-213 if she garnered 64%). Over in the Senate, the Republicans would have still won a majority (53-49, instead of 53-47), but Mr. Trump’s ability to push legislation through that Chamber is much harder if Republican Senators Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski hold the balance of power between them.

What a different political dynamic it would be for the incoming President if the Democrats controlled the House. Of course, none of this would undermine Mr. Trump’s second term if Canada’s entry into the U.S. didn’t take effect until after the 2026 Congressional elections.

But it requires a huge leap of faith to think that Republican Speaker Mike Johnson would be open to losing his current slim (three swing vote) majority in 2028 (he has to get through 2026, too), or that future Republican Presidential Candidates (like Senator J.D. Vance) would be prepared to risk Blue-leaning Canada holding 49 Electoral College votes in the next Presidential campaign.

None of this sausage-factory stuff should be misunderstood to be my support for anything other than a free, independent and revitalized Canada.

An Economic Union, as that horrible negotiator Kevin O’Leary proposes (see representative prior post “America discovers the mirage that is Kevin O'Leary's investment prowess” Apr 2-23), would have us being another Puerto Rico. You can see why KO failed so badly at sizing up the political and social landscape in Canada: first as a Conservative leadership candidate himself, and then to publicly predict in 2022 that leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre was so “polarizing” that it’s “impossible for him to win a majority federal mandate.” I need not remind readers of this Substack that Mr. Poilievre’s CPC is ahead in the polls by an average of 25 points, implying 236 seats out of 338 in the next election.

Although he’s merely playing to Mr. Trump and the MAGA audience, Mr. O’Leary wants us all to believe the route to a stronger Canada is to give up our Canadian passport, border and currency (at a low 72 U.S. cents on the dollar), without receiving commensurate political representation in the process. Talk about a bad business deal, as is a merger of unequals.

The simple point is this: the Republican Party is highly unlikely to risk the long term political consequences of creating a second California-like voting bloc by granting Canada Statehood. Instead of beating our sovereign chests, it might make more sense to call Mr. Trump’s bluff — in jest, of course — and ask him if he’s checked with his teammates.

That’s the moment we can move on to the business at hand (see prior post “Canada has win-win deals it can make to satisfy Trump” Dec 30-24).

MRM

(this post, like all blogs, is an Opinion Piece)