Trump's Greenland and Venezuela actions raise questions about Canadian vulnerability

The White House said using military force to obtain Greenland remains an option, and experts are divided over whether recent U.S. actions signal a direct military risk to Canada or primarily political and economic pressure.

U.S. statements about Greenland and moves in Venezuela have prompted debate in Canada about national vulnerability. The White House has said using military force to obtain Greenland remains an option. The administration's new national security strategy emphasizes reasserting U.S. pre‑eminence in the Western Hemisphere. That posture and related comments have led some Canadian experts to question whether Canada could face coercion. Key points: - The White House said this week that using military force to obtain Greenland remains an option, despite Greenland's status as a semi‑autonomous territory of Denmark. - The administration's actions in the region and a national security strategy stressing U.S. pre‑eminence have prompted discussion about possible coercive measures against neighbouring countries. - Some Canadian observers quoted in the article, including Bob Rae and Adam Gordon, warned Canada should not assume it is immune from U.S. pressure; others, such as Gerald Butts and Imran Bayoumi, said they do not see imminent U.S. military action but expect political and trade pressure. - Analysts noted the U.S. push on Greenland could affect Arctic sovereignty debates, including questions about patrolling and use of the Northwest Passage. Summary: The reporting highlights a divide between experts who view recent U.S. statements and actions as increasing the plausibility of coercion and those who see the likely impacts as political or economic pressure rather than military intervention. Undetermined at this time.