What began as quite possibly a simple, off-hand joke by President Trump has become a rising topic of interest: what if Canada truly does become the 51st state? Based on the constant mention by the president of this idea, both online through tweets and in serious interviews, it may actually be a serious proposal from the President-elect. With this, we need to ask whether this is possible and what would happen if Canada really did become the 51st state. Let us find out.
Manifest Destiny & Beyond
The United States, just like every other country, has had its own experiences with expansion. For America, it is a long, very patriotic one. A significant factor that contributed to this expansion, as your historians and average United States history like to say, is Manifest Destiny1. Manifest Destiny was the belief that it was America’s God-given right to expand from the East to the West Coast. However, even before the term Manifest Destiny was officially used, America had already been expanding, but at a much slower rate. Since America was made up of the 13 colonies, and later the first 13 states, we were constantly growing and crossing boundaries to expand. After America gained independence, settlers crossed the Appalachian Mountains and later doubled in size due to Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France. But it didn’t just stop there. Alaska was bought from Russia, often called Seward’s Folly, and we faced boundary disputes with the British in the North. There then was a new era in American History. President James K. Polk fueled the drive for Manifest Destiny and expansion, going after Texas and later Mexico into what was the Mexican-American War. From this unbalanced war, America won and gained a hefty portion of land, making up the remaining western states, in what was known as the Mexican Cession.
Manifest Destiny has been accomplished long since, and yet here we are looking into adding two more countries under our name. Is the United States getting greedy, or have they been intentional? The United States and Canada have been on excellent terms, as they are neighboring countries and allies with each other. But what about Greenland? The United States wouldn’t just randomly be another country to list, that’s for sure. We don’t know the real intentions, but we can make a few guesses.
Strategic Locations & Resources
America, or rather President Trump’s, newfound interest in Greenland could strongly correlate to its position on the global stage. Greenland is located within the Arctic Circle: a polar region located at the northernmost part of Earth. The Arctic Circle has 8 countries in or touching it: Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark [Greenland & The Faroe Island], Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the United States, and Russia. The Arctic Circle serves as a significant and strategic geopolitical point in the world, primarily due to the shipping routes of that region. One country that is more keenly interested is China.
Monitoring China
China is the largest exporter, with over 3.5 million exports, and relies heavily on maritime trade to connect the global markets. China primarily uses established shipping routes in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, owned and operated by non-Chinese allies. The Malacca Strait, in the Indian Ocean, is the shortest passage linking China to markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and is controlled by India. In the Pacific Ocean, the Suez Canal is entirely within Egypt, bordered by the Red Sea, and neighboring to this is Israel- a United States ally. Earth being a globe allows for distances along the poles to be shorter than the equator. For this reason, Arctic shipping routes are more efficient and highly valued. Although the United States has a position in the Arctic Circle with Alaska, Greenland’s location is a far more critical vantage point for monitoring and potentially controlling Arctic sea routes and airspace, both of which are becoming increasingly accessible due to global warming and the melting ice. Its position on the eastern side of the Arctic allows the United States to monitor both the North Atlantic and Arctic regions. As Russian and Chinese activities have been expanding in the Arctic, it is reasonable for the United States to also want a position in the area. 2
Global Warming
Relating to global warming, the melting ice and glaciers making up Greenland, contrary to its name, has recently given way to a plethora of valuable resources that have been in increasing demand in the global technology and energy sphere. The United States would want to get its hands on these rare earth minerals, oil, and natural gas before other countries do. Canada also serves as a major holder of resources, which in abundance would significantly boost and benefit the United States in many ways. Canada is the United States’ largest trading partner, with the trade in goods and services between the two worth nearly $1 trillion annually in recent years. Key components of trade include heavy machinery, vehicles and automotive parts, agricultural products, electronics, minerals, and energy products. The U.S. itself is the largest supplier of crude oil, and its top foreign supplier is Canada, providing over 50% of United States crude oil imports. Gaining Canada allows the United States to gain access to these oil reserves and resources, while also creating a single North American superpower spanning the Arctic and southern U.S. border, guaranteeing them greater control and security at multiple locations.
America’s newfound interest in making Canada the 51st state would be seen as shocking, while Greenland’s is not the first. In 1946 an offer to purchase Greenland had been declined. However, with the rekindled offer, there are reports of the offer being put into consideration by Greenland.
However, the expansion of the United States doesn’t just stop there. Rather than expansion, it’s a matter of taking back U.S. property: The Panama Canal.
History of the Panama Canal
The Panama Canal was created to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans following the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. Previous attempts by the French in the 1800s were unsuccessful due to mismanagement and engineering challenges, deeming it difficult to build. Furthermore, the United States needed to negotiate an agreement with the British to cancel an earlier treaty in 1850 (called the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty) that stated that any canal in Central America was under joint British-U.S. control. When it was approved to be built by the United States alone, President Roosevelt set to work. (This was followed by the signing of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty with the new Panama government, a rebellion- that allowed the U.S. total control of the Panama Canal Zone in exchange for financial compensation) Starting in 1904 and finishing in 1914, the canal was finally completed. It was not until 1978 that President Jimmy Carter negotiated a new treaty that gradually transferred the operation and control of the Panama Canal from the United States to the Panamanians. Since then, the canal has been owned and operated by Panama. Initially, the Panama Canal was built under President Roosevelt’s “Big Stick Policy”, building the reputation of the United States as a world power. The canal remains a vital choke point for global trade between the East and West, as approximately 6% of world trade passes through the canal annually. Any disruption could significantly impact U.S. trade and military logistics, and as China is slowly becoming one of Canada’s biggest users, it could potentially limit U.S. strategic leverage in the region. Following up at the inauguration, President Trump clarified he would be taking back the canal, saying, “We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.” 3
Although there has been a strong expression of disapproval from world leaders about acquiring these countries and the canal, we should still consider and analyze the possibility of these coming true. Going back to Manifest Destiny, the United States has accomplished this in several ways over time.
Conquest and Annexation:
- They would use military force to invade and take control of another territory.
- We saw this during the Texas annexation, which sparked the Mexican-American War
- Hawaii’s annexation overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy.
- Purchase:
- Louisiana purchases from France, doubling the size of the US.
- Alaska purchase: provided several valuable minerals and resources
- Treaties: territorial gain from a war
- Mexican Cession following the Mexican-American War (gave us most of the current-day western states)
- Negotiated boundary adjustments:
- Peaceful negotiations
- The Oregon Treaty with Britain gave us Oregon territory.
- Gadsden Purchase to build a railroad
- Peaceful negotiations
- Statehood from existing territories
- Northwest ordinance
It is important to note how several can be crossed off due to how the world has changed and specific laws put in place preventing countries from purchasing or joining with other countries efficiently.
God, Gold, and Glory
In the 17th and 18th centuries, expansion was the primary goal of European countries. As Europe was small and countries were established and growing in rivaling power, they set out for new land to expand elsewhere. The three Gs: God, Gold, and Glory became the fueling motivator for conquistadors and explorers as each sought and went in different directions to make claims for their country. (God to spread religion, Gold for search for valuable resources, and Glory to expand power and influence) It led to the discovery of new land, the Americas, and colonization commenced. At this point, the world was expanding. There was open, unclaimed land readily available. (That is controversial, considering natives owned and called the lands their home before Europeans arrived) Today, as we have established boundaries and countries, annexation and purchasing land are not possible. National sovereignty prevents countries from being sold without the consent of their governments and citizens. Furthermore, it would violate the principle of self-determination, which asserts that the people of a country have the right to decide their political future.
Legal Issues: UN and National Sovereignty
Legally speaking, under modern international law and frameworks- like the United Nations charter- the sovereignty of a nation is upheld. Meaning that countries have the right to self-determination and cannot be ‘sold’ without the consent of their governments and citizens. If a country was to be added, the citizens must overwhelmingly agree to the integration. A formal treaty would have to be negotiated and designed between the two countries, specifying terms such as governance, representation, and economic integration. This treaty must also comply with international law and respect the sovereignty of both nations. Both nations would amend their constitutions to legalize the merger or acquisition.
Canada
If a country were to be purchased, there would need to be provisions to govern the new territory, and the acquired country might need to dissolve its existing government structures. The United Nations would need to recognize the merger, and any disputes or concerns would refer to the International Court of Justice. With this, other countries would also need to formally recognize the new political arrangement, including potential changes in borders or sovereignty. Hypothetically, let’s consider that Canada is ready to be added to the United States. It would go through Section 41 of the Constitution Act of 1982, which essentially states/outlines specific matters in Canada that require the unanimous commencement of Parliament and all provincial legislatures. If Canada were to cede sovereignty, Section 41 would be vital as there would be a profound change to the political structure and a departure from the monarchy. According to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Meaning that Congress has the authority to admit new states into the Union, and there is no explicit limit on the number of states added. However, if a new state forms, it cannot be done within the territory of an existing state without the consent of the involved state legislature and Congress.
Treaties were used to dispute land gains or losses, often from wars. Greenland and Canada are involved with NATO- an organization the United States has set up where allied countries support each other. To attack Canada would be attacking a member of NATO, betraying the trust of Canada and other members of NATO, essentially causing a rift or even some dissolution of this organization. Or, it would cause the other countries to attack the United States, as in their agreement, the countries assist each other and provide protection when one is under attack.
Greenland
For Greenland, it would be relatively similar. Greenland is under Denmark, another country that is a part of NATO. Attacking Greenland would cause a more extensive and unnecessary outbreak of conflict. However, Greenland is a self-governing territory under the Danish Realm. Although it has control over its internal affairs, Denmark oversees foreign policy and defense. It would require consent from the Greenland government and population to be purchased. And while Greenland does have a growing independence movement, it would be most unlikely that they would be welcoming towards being so to another country. Furthermore, any attempt to purchase Greenland could act as a form of neocolonialism, which would undermine the self-determination of Greenlanders and strain diplomatic relations with the country, Denmark, and other nations.
Panama Canal
This is the same with Panama. If the United States attacks Panama for the canal, it would be highly illegal under modern international law unless it meets specific criteria. It would violate multiple international agreements, including the UN Charter. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force unless for self-defense or if approved by the UN Security Council as a collective measure to maintain international peace and security. The United States and Panama are both parties to this and have to oblige. Doing so would violate Panama’s sovereignty.
An attack on Panama would result in sanctions, condemnation from allies, and isolation globally, as well as severely damaging United States relations with Latin America and the broader international community. If the United States were to purchase the Panama Canal, it would be a violation. The canal is a source of national pride and sovereignty. Attempts to buy would require Panama’s government and citizens to agree. Furthermore, the United States transferred full ownership to Panama, ending the United States’ sovereignty over the canal and solidifying its status as a national asset. Doing so would require significant compensation and even strain US-LA relations, and as the canal is crucial for international trade, could lead to immense anti-American backlash and opposition to U.S. ownership for fears of monopolistic control or political exploitation.
Global Response
The United States is a very powerful and influential country, meaning that its actions have severe implications not only for itself but several other countries. The United States has notoriously called out the Russia Crimea Annexation establishing its stand in the geopolitical sphere. To do something similar would receive immense global backlash. Countries such as Russia and China wouldn’t stop calling out the U.S.’s hypocritical behavior, as would smaller countries like Ukraine or Taiwan feel betrayed by this behavior. They would feel even more threatened, as the U.S. adding Greenland or Canada could be seen as a new wave of imperialism/colonialism in the world, sparking others to do the same.
The entire neocolonialism scheme leads richer countries to increase wealth, and poor countries become increasingly poorer, creating even more economic dependence. There would also be debt diplomacy or other negative consequences, such as environmental damage that leaves a country in a worse state than before. Once the Americas were fully conquered, European countries turned to Africa. Previously, Africa was exploited for its people to use as slave labor, establishing the Triangular Trade. Once that ended and Europeans couldn’t gain resources from the Americas, they went to Africa with renewed eyes for its abundance of resources. It led to several conflicts and potential disputes between these powers due to a lack of clear boundaries, leading to the Berlin Conference4 to establish rules to avoid war and conflict. In doing so, they established boundaries to prevent disputes between European nations and guaranteed free trade along the Congo and Niger rivers. Africa was divided, with no regard for the African people, their cultural differences, ethnical, or political boundaries and differences. It led to current and long-lasting artificial borders, contributing to conflict and instability. It includes the number of ongoing wars and coups in present-day Africa. African countries are among the poorest, whilst European countries thrived off of the resources that they exploited and colonized.
No longer speaking hypothetically, we need to consider just how likely any of these things are to happen.
Realistic Analysis
The process for adding Canada as a new state to the United States is extensive for both sides and would take an expansive amount of time to modify the constitutions, governments, and economic systems- to name a few- to make this joining complete. One issue of such would be representation. Representation is a heavily touched subject and a founding value in the United States, being a fueling reason for independence against the British. With the addition of Canada, the question that begs to ask is how it would be represented. Would it follow the representation of a single large state, or would its already divided 10 provinces and three territories be upheld as is, and each becomes an individual state? Would there be a rise of a third political party or even a fourth? Furthermore, according to Section 41, all provincial legislatures would need to approve. This includes Nunavut, a predominantly indigenous territory that is home to the Inuit. With America’s brutal history with its natives, it would be unlikely for the Inuit to approve of this behavior or even agree. There are also differences between Canada and America5. Canada has universal healthcare, and the U.S. has private companies. Canada also has stricter gun laws. Regarding culture, Canadians pride themselves in multiculturalism and moderation and value their distinct identity, while Americans emphasize individualism, freedom, and patriotism. In a US-dominated society, Canadians would most likely lose their cultural identity. Canada’s mixed economy is different from the US market-driven economy, leading to potential disputes over resource management and taxation.
Even with the difficulty, current jurisdictions under the United States such as Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico have been trying to apply for statehood for decades but haven’t gotten close to accomplishing this, making it even more unlikely for Canada to join the United States.
At this moment, it is unsure about how President Trump is hoping to acquire the Panama Canal. However, it would potentially damage Panama and Latin American relations with the United States. It would also be more damaging to Panama, as the United States helped Panama achieve independence from Columbia and establish itself as a country but is now taking away something of its natural pride, culture, and national assets. With Greenland, it’s a different story. Greenmark is already rising to become independent from Denmark. With this, it seems rather unlikely that they would be in any way open to joining the United States. However, if the United States offers a reasonable proposal, then it is possible. After all, Greenland manages its internal affairs, just as states in the United States do. The only matters the United States would have to manage include foreign policy and other foreign issues. So it is possible; unlikely but possible.
Opinion from an American Citizen
Citizens of every country, not just me, want their leaders to protect them from any danger. Although the methods it has been accomplished recently are questionable, we have to think about how it may be necessary in a changing world. American blood is strongly valued, and casualties or deaths of American lives are taken very seriously. Guaranteeing a military advantage to make sure this doesn’t happen would be expected by the United States, and that is what they are doing.
United States strategies
In the aftermath of World War 2, The United States emerged as a central superpower due to the war never touching its mainland. In both world wars, the majority of the wars were in Europe as all the countries were next to each other, resulting in losses and extreme destruction all over. In comparison, the United States is on an entirely different continentsurrounded by water on two sides. As a result, the American industries continued manufacturing, giving it an upper hand over other countries. With this, the United States is trying to guarantee they can prevent future wars from ever coming to the mainland. For this, they have strategically placed bases in over 80 different countries so that they can be there at any moment. However, America still doesn’t have the upper hand- something that is very crucial for them. At the moment, they can fight a war on two fronts, and presently, there are the Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars, the Taiwan-China conflict, and tension in Korea. An upper hand – especially over Russia and China- will permit them to maintain a balance between countries and be more powerful. By joining Canada and gaining Greenland, America gains the upper hand over Russia by having control and access to the Arctic Circle. Having Canada will make North America a dominant geopolitical entity, making it a more assertive counterbalance against China and Russia on the world stage. It’s also beneficial to NATO- an organization made against the Soviet Union and can fight against Russia.
The potential question here would not be should the United States make Canada or Greenland new states to the United States, but are the risks and response from allies and other countries worth the step? At this point in the global playing sphere is it necessary to, and how would the United States work around these potential issues or even any other tissues if they make a different decision? Not only that, what are the other countries they could be interested in adding? President Trump won’t just stop at three countries, especially if he is successful enough to add them to the United States. So wheredo we draw the line? That’s something to consider, but for now, we should only worry about Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal.
References
- Westward expansion. (2009, December 15). HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/westward-expansion? ↩︎
- Arctic ambitions: China’s engagement with the Northern Sea Route. (2023, November 24). The Diplomat – Asia-Pacific Current Affairs Magazine. https://thediplomat.com/2023/11/arctic-ambitions-chinas-engagement-with-the-northern-sea-route/ ↩︎
- Trump reignites Panama Canal row during inauguration: ‘We’re taking it back’. (2025, January 20). New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/01/20/us-news/donald-trump-reignites-panama-canal-row-were-taking-it-back/? ↩︎
- Berlin West Africa conference. (1998, July 20). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Berlin-West-Africa-Conference ↩︎
- The differences between Canada and the U.S. remain significant. (2024, November 19). Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/december-2022/the-differences-between-canada-and-the-u-s-remain-significant/?utm_source=chatgpt.com ↩︎
Other References
China’s “Arctic Silk Road”. (2020, January 10). The Maritime Executive. https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/china-s-arctic-silk-road
Could Canada really become the 51st U.S. state? How Trump’s joke could become reality. (2024, December 12). nationalpost. https://nationalpost.com/news/could-one-way-to-make-america-great-again-be-a-transfusion-of-canadians
Gibbs, S., & City, P. (2025, January 21). Leader of Panama ‘wholly rejects’ Trump canal threat. The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today’s latest headlines. https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/panama-president-wholly-rejects-trump-canal-threat-p2czqwgcp?utm_source=chatgpt.com®ion=global
A guide to Canadian provinces and territories. (2008, October 28). TripSavvy. https://www.tripsavvy.com/canada-provinces-and-territories-1481740#:~:text=There%20are%2010%20Canadian%20provinces,Territories%2C%20Nunavut%2C%20and%20Yukon
Milestones: 1899–1913. (n.d.). Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/panama-canal
Spencer, R., & Correspondent, C. (2024, July 9). China and Russia plot course for ‘Ice Silk Road’ in the Arctic. The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today’s latest headlines. https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/china-and-russia-plot-course-for-ice-silk-road-in-the-arctic-rjbrclfk0
Tomlinson, H., & Washington. (2025, January 24). Trump berates Danish PM over Greenland in ‘horrendous’ phone call. The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today’s latest headlines. https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/trump-wants-to-buy-greenland-frederiksen-jvx0zt9mv?utm_source=chatgpt.com®ion=global?
Trump reignites Panama Canal row during inauguration: ‘We’re taking it back’. (2025, January 20). New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/01/20/us-news/donald-trump-reignites-panama-canal-row-were-taking-it-back/?
Wsj.com. (n.d.). wsj.com. https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/china-panama-canal-development-what-it-means-7c5dc870?
