Prime Minister Mark Carney says Canada examined the possibility of U.S. military action as an “extreme tail risk,” while insisting that an American invasion is not Ottawa’s base-case scenario.
Carney made the comments in a wide-ranging interview released Wednesday, September 23, as his government advances a broader strategy to reduce Canada’s dependence on the United States in technology, defence procurement, trade and critical infrastructure.
Table of Contents
Mark Carney describes contingency planning as risk management
Asked whether he had taken seriously the possibility that U.S. President Donald Trump could order military action against Canada, Carney said leaders have a responsibility to consider highly unlikely events that could carry severe consequences.
He characterized the exercise as risk management rather than a prediction that military conflict is imminent.
Carney also said such an invasion was “not the base case,” but argued that failing to prepare for the possibility would be irresponsible.
The comments come after repeated statements from Trump about Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state and amid a sharp deterioration in the economic relationship between the two countries.
Carney has continued to speak with Trump, including after trade negotiations broke down in August, but the prime minister has also signalled fierce U.S. trade talks and said Canada must become less vulnerable to decisions made in Washington.
Ottawa is widening its options beyond the United States
Carney’s remarks fit into a policy shift that links national security with economic resilience.
The federal government is seeking new markets, suppliers and defence partners as tariffs and political pressure expose the risks of relying too heavily on one country, a trend explored in reporting on how Canada faces deeper Trump trade pressure as its European ties grow.
During a September visit to Europe, Carney proposed a deeper Canada-European Union partnership covering trade, energy, critical minerals, defence, research and advanced technologies, according to the prime minister’s account of efforts to deepen ties with trusted allies.
Canada also applied to join the United Kingdom-led Joint Expeditionary Force and discussed defence cooperation through the Global Combat Air Programme.
At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Ottawa highlighted a new coalition focused on multilateralism, international law and peace, as outlined in the government’s statement on collective security, climate and peace priorities.
The government said the initiative is intended to strengthen cooperation among countries facing a more uncertain international order.
The discussion forms part of a foreign policy reset taking centre stage at the UN.
The government’s approach does not mean Canada can quickly unwind decades of integration with the United States.
The two countries remain closely connected through energy, manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, digital services and defence supply chains.
Carney has therefore framed diversification as a way to create options and bargaining power rather than as an effort to sever the relationship with Washington.
Defence procurement and technology are central to the plan
The interview also placed attention on Canada’s reliance on American military equipment and satellite communications.
Carney said Ottawa is considering alternatives in areas where dependence could create a strategic vulnerability, including satellite internet services and fighter-jet procurement.
Any change to major defence purchases would carry financial, operational and diplomatic consequences.
Canada’s armed forces rely on interoperability with the United States and other allies, while replacement systems would require years of planning, training and investment.
Ottawa has already begun building a policy framework aimed at strengthening domestic defence capacity.
Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy calls for more secure supply chains, Canadian production and a “build-partner-buy” approach that prioritizes domestic capabilities and trusted allies.
The strategy also identifies Europe, the United Kingdom and Indo-Pacific partners as important areas for defence cooperation when Canada cannot produce a capability entirely at home.
That direction closely matches Carney’s broader argument that sovereignty depends on having more than one viable source for essential goods and systems, as the Canada-U.S. trade war expands into procurement and Europe.
What the comments mean for Canada-U.S. relations
Carney’s disclosure is likely to intensify debate over the state of the Canada-U.S. relationship.
For decades, military conflict between the two countries was treated as virtually unthinkable in public policy discussions.
The prime minister’s comments do not indicate that Ottawa expects an attack.
They show instead that Canadian officials are examining a wider range of scenarios as the United States uses tariffs, political pressure and security demands to pursue its interests.
The distinction matters.
Contingency planning is not evidence that military action is expected, but it is evidence that the government believes Canada must prepare for risks that would previously have been dismissed as implausible.
That calculation is also influencing economic policy.
Carney has called for more investment in Canadian infrastructure, domestic production and international trade links, arguing that Canada needs the capacity to withstand pressure from any single partner.
What happens next
The immediate test will be whether Ottawa can turn the diversification strategy into concrete capabilities.
That includes expanding defence production, improving Arctic and northern security, securing communications infrastructure and building new commercial relationships without damaging essential cross-border industries.
Canada must also balance resilience with cost.
Replacing American systems or duplicating supply chains could be expensive, and some industries may not have practical alternatives in the short term.
Carney’s government is expected to continue pursuing closer European ties while maintaining working-level contact with Washington.
The prime minister has signalled that Canada intends to remain a partner to the United States, but on a less dependent and more balanced basis.
For Canadians, the significance of the latest disclosure is less about an imminent military threat than the direction it reveals: Ottawa is planning for a world in which the country can no longer assume that its closest ally will always be a predictable source of security, technology and economic access.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Mark Carney say about a possible U.S. military action against Canada?
Carney said Canada had examined the possibility as an extreme tail risk and that it would be irresponsible not to prepare, while stressing that an invasion is not the base-case scenario.
Does Canada expect the United States to invade?
No. Carney’s comments described contingency planning for a highly unlikely but potentially catastrophic scenario, not an expectation that an attack is imminent.
Why is Canada reducing its reliance on the United States?
Ottawa says diversification would give Canada greater resilience and flexibility if tariffs, political pressure or supply disruptions affect access to American markets, technology or equipment.
Is Canada considering alternatives to the F-35 fighter jet?
Carney indicated that alternatives to American defence systems are being considered, but any change to fighter-jet procurement would require detailed military, financial and interoperability assessments.
How is Canada strengthening its defence capacity?
The federal Defence Industrial Strategy emphasizes Canadian production, secure supply chains, trusted international partnerships and a build-partner-buy approach for military capabilities.
Fact-Checked: Key claims were checked against Government of Canada statements on Canada’s defence strategy, European partnerships and the prime minister’s September 2026 international engagements, alongside multiple current reports of Carney’s interview comments.
Disclaimer: This article describes contingency planning and diplomatic risk assessment; it does not indicate that military conflict between Canada and the United States is expected or imminent.