American states and Canadian provinces and territories
From the independence of the United States until today, various movements within Canada and the United States have campaigned in favor of U.S. annexation of parts of or all of Canada. Historical studies have focused on numerous small-scale movements which are helpful in comparisons of Canadian and American politics.
In the early years of the United States, many American political figures were in favour of invading and annexing Canada, and even pre-approved the admission of the Province of Quebec (previously known as Lower Canada) to the U.S. in the Articles of Confederation in 1777. During the American Revolutionary War, the Americans invaded the St. Lawrence River Valley, but were repelled. Americans also fought the British and allied Indigenous peoples in the Ohio Country — what was then the southwest of Quebec; at the end of the war, the land south of the Great Lakes was ceded to the newly independent United States and became the Northwest Territory. In the War of 1812, the Americans again invaded Canada in reprisal for the British impressment of American sailors on the high seas and support for Indigenous peoples resisting American westward expansion, but were repulsed again.
Since the Treaty of Washington in 1871, when it first de facto recognized the new Dominion of Canada, the United States has never suggested or promoted an annexationist movement in Canada. No serious force has appeared on the American political scene that aimed to persuade or coerce Canadians into joining the United States. And, in fact, no serious initiative for any move in this direction has come from the Canadian side either.[4]
Surveys have suggested that a minority of Canadians would potentially support annexation, ranging from as many as 20 percent in a survey by Léger Marketing in 2001[5] to as few as seven percent in another survey by the same company in 2004.[6]
After his election victory in 2024, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has renewed calls and discussion for a possible annexation of Canada to the United States, to which the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau replied on X, "There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Canada would become a part of the United States".[7][non-primary source needed]
Historical annexationist movements inside Canada were usually inspired by dissatisfaction with Britain's colonial government of Canada. Groups of Irish immigrants took the route of armed struggle, attempting to annex the peninsula between the Detroit and Niagara Rivers to the U.S. by force in the minor and short-lived Patriot War in 1837–1838. Not all rebels desired union with the United States; some fought for a separate nation independent from Britain and for liberal social reforms.[citation needed]
Despite some unrest, Canadian resentment of British rule never reached the degree that led to the American Revolution in 1775. Notably, Canada's population growth in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was spurred largely by United Empire Loyalists, who left the American colonies during the Revolution because of their loyalty to Great Britain. In the period from 1790 to 1837, imperial officials repeatedly denounced American-style republicanism and tried to suppress it.
Between 1848 and 1854, a significant and articulate minority of conservatives in Upper Canada advocated constitutional changes modelled on the American federal-state system and the US Constitution. They critiqued Canada's imitation of British parliamentary government as simultaneously too democratic and too tyrannical. They believed it destroyed the independence of the appointed governor and Legislative Council and further concentrated power in the Cabinet. This critique led many conservatives to argue that the American model of checks and balances offered Canada a more balanced and conservative form of democracy than did British parliamentary government.[citation needed] These "republican conservatives" debated a series of constitutional changes, including annexation to the United States, an elected governor, an elected Legislative Council, a federal union of British North America, and imperial federation, within this framework. These conservatives had accepted "government by discussion" as the appropriate basis for political order.[8]
Around 1850 there was a serious annexationist movement on the border region of Quebec's Eastern Townships, where the American-descended majority felt that union with the United States would end their economic isolation and stagnation as well as remove them from the growing threat of French Canadian political domination. Leading proponents of this bipartisan movement were careful not to appear disloyal to Britain, however, and they actively discouraged popular protest at the local level. Fearful of American-style democracy, the local elite also expressed revulsion toward American slavery and militaristic expansionism. Consequently, the movement died as quickly in the Eastern Townships as it did in Montreal after Britain expressed its official disapproval and trade with the United States began to increase.[9]
In Montreal at midcentury, with little immigration and complaints that the repeal of the Corn Laws had cut the region off from its British trade links, a small but organized group supported integrating the colonies into the United States. The leading organization advocating merger was the Annexation Association, founded in 1849 by an alliance of French Canadian nationalists and Anglophone businessmen in Montreal who had a common interest in the republic. Many of its members, including Louis-Joseph Papineau, were participants in the 1837-38 rebellions.[citation needed]
The Montreal Annexation Manifesto was published in 1849. It was hoped a merger with the United States would give Canada markets for its goods, ensure national security, and provide the finances to develop the west. A half measure was the Canadian–American Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 that linked the two countries economically.[citation needed]
However, the movement died out in 1854. Annexation was never a very popular choice. Many Canadians were loyal to the Crown and Great Britain, especially the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists. French Canadians worried about being an even smaller minority in a larger union, and were concerned about American anti-Catholicism. The American Civil War, further, convinced many Canadians that the American experiment was a failure.[citation needed]
United States Secretary of StateWilliam Seward predicted in 1860 that western British North America, from Manitoba to British Columbia, would with Russian Alaska join the United States. Many in Britain, such as Goldwin Smith and The Times of London, were pessimistic about the future of British North America and agreed with Seward; The Times said that Britain would only object if the United States attempted to take the territory by force.[10] In the late 1860s, residents of British Columbia, which was not yet a Canadian province, responded to the United States' purchase of Alaska with fear of being surrounded by American territory. Some residents wanted the colony to be the next American purchase. Local opinion was divided, as the three Vancouver Island newspapers supported annexation to the United States, while the three mainland newspapers rejected the idea. Even opponents of the annexation scheme admitted that Great Britain had neglected the region and that grievances were justified. Nonetheless, annexation sentiment disappeared within a few months and prominent leaders moved toward confederation with Canada.[11]
Petitions circulated in favour of American annexation. The first, in 1867, was addressed to Queen Victoria, demanding that the British government assume the colony's debts and establish a steamer link, or allow the colony to join the U.S. In 1869, a second petition was addressed to President Ulysses S. Grant, asking him to negotiate American annexation of the territory from Britain. It was delivered to Grant by Vincent Colyer, Indian Commissioner for Alaska, on December 29, 1869. Both petitions were signed by only a small fraction of the colony's population, and British Columbia was ultimately admitted as a Canadian province in 1871.[citation needed]
Most Canadians were strongly opposed to the prospect of American annexation. Reports of the Annexation Bill of 1866 — a bill that, contrary to myth, never came to a vote — might have been one of the many factors behind Canadian Confederation in 1867. Much more serious were the Fenian raids made by Irish Americans across the border in 1866, which spurred a wave of patriotic feeling that helped the cause of Confederation.[12]
Nonetheless, a substantial annexationist movement existed in Nova Scotia, and to a lesser degree in New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, during the 1860s. Nova Scotia anti-confederationists led by Joseph Howe felt that pro-confederation premier Charles Tupper had caused the province to agree to join Canada without popular support. Howe in London unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the government to free Nova Scotia from the pending British North America Act by threatening American annexation. A significant economic downturn occurred after the end after 1866 of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854; the colony was heavily dependent on selling fish to Americans, causing many to believe that free trade with the United States was necessary for prosperity. Anti-confederationists won all but two seats in the 1867 provincial election; as in British Columbia they did not necessarily support annexation. They again sent Howe to London to free Nova Scotia but in 1868 the British government again refused, believing that New Brunswick would likely follow Nova Scotia out of the dominion and cause the new nation to collapse.[13]
Angry Nova Scotians began talking seriously of annexation. An alarmed Howe — who wished Nova Scotia to be free of Canada but still with Britain — warned his supporters against disloyalty, dividing anti-confederationists. The provincial government, dominated by extremists who now also opposed Howe, decided that if another appeal to London failed it would seize federal offices and unilaterally declare annexation, believing that Britain would not use force to stop Nova Scotia. Believing he had no choice, Howe left the anti-confederationists. Although he narrowly won reelection to his federal parliamentary seat in March 1869 as a confederationist, support for secession and annexation grew that year; however, by 1871 the movement had mostly disappeared. The federal government promised changes to taxes and tariffs, the economy revived, and the United States agreed to free trade for Canadian fish.[13]
A Quebec-born homeopathic physician, Prosper Bender, expressed disappointment with the Canadian experiment in the 1880s and 1890s. An author and the former host of a literary circle in Quebec City, Bender suddenly moved to Boston in 1882. After celebrating the promise of Confederation, he became a strong proponent of annexation to the United States and something of an intercultural broker; he helped interpret French-Canadian culture to American readers.[14] Bender wrote in the North American Review in 1883 that many Canadians believed that annexation by the United States would occur "within the present generation, if not sooner". He believed that Irish Catholics — about one quarter of Canada's population — would prefer annexation because of the British rule of Ireland. They would be joined by the majority of those under 40, who viewed the United States as a prosperous, fast-growing neighbour providing many opportunities. (The author attributed the absence of an active annexationist movement in part to many who would favor such an effort taking the "easiest and quietest method of securing the benefits of annexation, by themselves silently migrating to the Republic", as more than a million already had.)[15]
Bender believed that Prime Minister John A. Macdonald's promise of a transcontinental railway linking eastern Canada to British Columbia to be overambitious and too expensive, and unfavourably compared the Canadian government's growing debt to the United States' rapid reduction of its Civil War debt.[citation needed] He stated that Canadian businesses would benefit from duty-free access to the American market, while "wondrous American enterprise, supported by illimitable capital" would rapidly prosper Canada, especially its vast undeveloped interior. Bender concluded with pessimism about the likelihood of success of a nation divided in two parts by 1,200 miles of "forbidding, silent wilderness stretching from the head-waters of the Ottawa to Thunder Bay, and thence to Manitoba".[15]
In 1891, Goldwin Smith posited in his book Canada and the Canadian Question that Canada's eventual annexation by the United States was inevitable, and should be welcomed if Canadians genuinely believed in the ideal of democracy. His view did not receive widespread support.[16]
In January 1893, concerned about Canada's possible annexation, a goal then being pursued by the Continental Union Association, a group of Ontario and Quebec Liberals, Prime Minister Sir John Thompson delivered a speech on tolerance, Canadian nationalism and continued loyalty to Britain. Thompson eventually learned that the desire to make Canada part of the U.S. was confined to a small minority amongst the Liberals.[citation needed]
In 1901 W. T. Stead, a newspaper editor in London, England, discussed in The Americanization of the World possible annexations of Canada and Newfoundland. He believed that because of its size and strength Canada would likely be the last of Britain's possessions in the Americas to join the United States. Stead cited several reasons for why he believed annexation seemed "inevitable", however, including rapidly growing economic ties and migration between the two countries, the French Shore, and disputes over the Alaska boundary and fishing rights in the Atlantic.[17]
After the discovery of gold in the Yukon, many Canadians proposed to annex parts of Alaska currently controlled by the United States, by calling for a revision in the original map of the boundary line between the Russian Empire and the United States.[citation needed] The US offered to lease the territory but not to give it back. London and Washington agreed on arbitration, with one member of the panel from Canada. In 1903 the Chief Justice of Britain sided with the Americans to resolve the map dispute in favour of the United States. Many Canadians felt a sense of betrayal on the part of the British government, whose own national interest required close ties to the United States, regardless of the interests of Canada.[18]
The 1932 establishment of the International Peace Garden on the North Dakota–Manitoba border honored the long lasting friendship between the two countries rather than attempts at annexation.[citation needed]
While the Dominion of Newfoundland was still separate from Canada, prior to 1949, a party known as the Economic Union Party sought closer ties with the United States. However, Canada objected to the possibility, and the British government, which administered the Dominion of Newfoundland as a de facto colony under an appointed Commission of Government, would not allow it to consider annexation with the United States in any referendum. Instead, the EUP sought to resume "responsible government" and would then explore American annexation.[19] A referendum showed a plurality in support of independence, but not a majority; a runoff referendum resulted in Newfoundland instead confederating with Canada to become the tenth province.[citation needed]
The Unionest Party was a provincial political party in Saskatchewan in 1980 that promoted the union of the western provinces with the United States. It was the most politically successful annexationist group, but its success was both short-lived and extremely limited in scope. The party briefly had two members in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, both of whom crossed the floor from another party, but dissolved within a few weeks after failing to qualify for official party status.[20]
The original Parti 51 was a short-lived political party in Quebec in the 1980s that advocated Quebec's admission to the United States as the 51st state. The party won just 3,846 votes, or 0.11 percent of the popular vote in the province, in the 1989 election — fewer votes than the Marxist–Leninists or the satirical Lemon Party — and was dissolved the following year.[21]
In 2016 Hans Mercier, a pro-American lawyer from Saint-Georges, Quebec, revived the party for a second time.[22] Mercier told La Presse that the times have changed since the party's previous era, as Quebec sovereigntism has waned in popularity. Mercier argued that Americans would be welcoming of a new Quebec state, and pointed to a survey taken during the administration of George W. Bush that suggested nearly 34 per cent of Quebecers would support joining the United States.[23] The revived party ran five candidates and received just 1,117 votes provincewide in the 2018 Quebec general election, representing 0.03 percent of the provincewide popular vote.[citation needed] The party ran again and received just 689 votes provincewide in the 2022 Quebec general election, representing 0.02 percent of the provincewide popular vote.
One poll in the 2020s, noted by the Toronto Star, showed that about 50% of Americans are against Canada joining, 25% are in favor, and 25% are not sure.[24]
Proposals to annex Canada by President Donald Trump
Graphic used by pro-annexationists depicting Canada as the 51st state of the United States.
Starting in December 2024, then President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters began expressing support for Canadian annexation into the United States of America as its 51st state. This came after months of tariff threats on Canadian goods and renewed demands by Trump for Canada to increase its military spending and prioritize border security.[25] However, most Canadian politicians dismissed this notion, and numerous Canadians expressed their opposition to the proposed merger, as indicated by public opinion surveys.[26][24] President Trump has continued to make proposals to annex Canada following his inauguration as President of the United States.
In December 2024, during a tense meeting at Mar-a-Lago over trade deficits and border security, Trump suggested Canada consider becoming the 51st U.S. state if Prime Minister Trudeau felt his planned tariffs would hurt Canada's economy. He referred to Trudeau as "Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada" and said he looked forward to meeting the him again to continue talks on tariffs and trade.[27][28][29] During an appearance on Fox News, Ontario Premier Doug Ford humorously referred to the situation as former U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempt at revenge for the War of 1812. Ford joked that Trump might still harbor a 212 year-old grudge over the burning of the White House during the conflict.[30]
On December 3, In response to an individual suggesting that Canada would be too liberal, Trump suggested that Canada would enter the Union as two states, one more conservative, one more liberal.[31] Under this initial proposal, Canada would not remain as its current configuration of ten provinces and three territories,[32] but would instead occupy at least two new positions in the U.S. federal structure, becoming the 51st and 52nd states. In a similarly humorous vein, Independent but left-leaning Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said he would back Trump's plan to bring Canada in as a state, if they could expand Canada's state-run health care system to all Americans.[33]
On December 18, 2024, Trump posted on Truth Social advocating for Canada to become the 51st state. Trump claimed that many Canadians favor statehood due to potential tax savings and increased security. Trump continued to refer to Trudeau as the Governor and suggested that Canadian taxes would drop significantly, businesses would grow, and security would improve under U.S. statehood.[34][35] He then jokingly proposed that Canadian ice hockey player, Wayne Gretzky, consider a run for Prime Minister or as the Governor and attested that he could win easily.[36] Following speculation regarding Trudeau's resignation, Trump reiterated his annexation proposals, claiming that this move would enhance trade and bolster national security by eliminating the border.[37] Following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's resignation, former U.S. President Donald Trump reiterated his suggestion that Canada join the United States. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump cited several factors, including the perceived Canadian interest for the idea, alleged U.S. deficits and subsidies, and the notion that these circumstances contributed to Trudeau's resignation. Trump argued that statehood would eliminate tariffs, reduce taxes, and enhance security.[38][39]
On January 7, 2025, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump ruled out the use of military force to annex Canada, instead advocating for "economic force" to pressure Canada into joining. He argued that merging would enhance national security and reduce U.S. expenses on border protection.[40] Trump then posted an image on Truth Social with the U.S. flag emblazoned across the territories of the U.S. and Canada with the caption referencing the national anthem of Canada.[41] On the same day, Fox News commentator Jesse Watters expressed during a broadcast the desire for a military invasion of Canada saying that it would "quench his imperialist thirst".[42] He also stated that Canadians should consider it a privilege to be taken over by the United States.[43][44][45][46]
Trump's Mar-a-lago pre-inaugural comments on January 7 were widely condemned by Canadian politicians. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated there was "not a snowball's chance in hell" of Canada joining the United States.[47][48][49]Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre affirmed, "Canada will never be the 51st state. Period. We are a great and independent country."[50]New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh criticized Trump as a "bully" and dismissed his proposal as absurd, saying, "Cut the crap, Donald. No Canadian wants to join you." Statements criticizing Trump's comments on Canada joining the US have also been made by other federal and provincial leaders and politicians.[51][52][53]
Following the Mar-a-lago remarks, Canadian government officials were reportedly no longer seeing Trump's comments as satirical, but were now taking Trump's "threats" seriously, with Minister Dominic LeBlanc stating on January 8, "the joke is over."[54]
During his inaugural address on January 20, 2025. President Trump stated that during his second presidency the United States would expand its territory, which was in keeping with his pre-inaugural remarks, about annexing territory of other nations, including Canada's.[55][56][57]
Prior to taking office for a second time, Trump had indicated his intention to apply heavy tariffs on Canada, as well as stating on January 7 that it was his ambition to use "economic force" to force Canada into joining the United States. Since taking office, Trump has continued to threaten Canada with broad tariffs.
Trump's video speech at WEF where he states Canada can avoid being given high tariffs by becoming a State
Speaking at the World Economic Forum on January 23, Trump dismissed Canada’s importance as a trade partner, asserting that the United States does not rely on Canadian oil, gas, vehicles, or lumber. During his speech Trump reiterated his threats of broad tariffs, prompting concerns among Canadian political leaders and sparking discussions about potential countermeasures. Trump’s remarks align with his longstanding perspective that Canada poses a trade imbalance for the U.S.[58][59] He has pointed to the U.S. trade deficit and argued that American self-sufficiency reduces the need for Canadian imports, However, this view is at odds with the economic reality that the U.S. depends heavily on Canadian crude oil to supply its refineries.[60][61] During the speech at the WEF Trump stated, that Canada could avoid the tariffs by becoming a U.S. State. According to the press, Trump's comment on Canada becoming the 51st State to avoid tariffs was met with shocked gasps in the hall.[62][63]
On February 1 2025, President Trump announced 25% Tariffs on all Canadian goods, that would take effect on February 4 2025; this decision was met with anger by Canadian officials.[64] The following day on February 2, taking to Truth Social, Trump reaffirmed his desire to annex Canada in a statement saying that Canada should become the "Cherished 51st State" promising no tariffs and guaranteeing their military security if they do.[65]
On January 24, whilst holding a press conference in North Carolina, President Trump reaffirmed his stance that Canada should become the 51st state, making claims that under an American controlled Canada, Canadians would be offered "lower taxes" and "better health care."[66][67]
This section needs expansion with: Policy, action, and measures done within the Canadian government in tackling Trump's tariff threat or annexation proposal. You can help by adding to it. (January 2025)
President Trump's proposals have been received broadly negatively in Canada, with it being condemned by all major political parties and leaders as well as causing increasing strain on Canadian - U.S. relations. Polling conducted on the proposals have shown extremely little support by Canadians to the proposal of Canada becoming the 51st State.
Trump's proposals have been widely condemned by Canadian officials at both a provincial and federal level. As Trump's comments progressed, the stance of Canadian officials has changed from viewing the U.S. President's proposal as satirical to viewing it more as a legitimate threat.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is publicly against the proposal of Canada joining the United States, stating its not going to happen.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre stated that Canada will never become the 51st State.
In a press conference, the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, hit back at the proposals from President Trump at length, stating the comments were "never funny." May highlighted that Canada and the U.S. are very different, with Canada being a constitutional monarchy with a king as head of state, compared with America's republican system with a president.[68] May also jokingly invited three U.S. States to join Canada.[69][70]
The King of Canada, Charles III, who is Canada's head of state and his representative, the Governor General have not commented on Trump's proposals, due to the non-partisan role they play in the Canadian political system. A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace stated that Trump’s annexation threats are “not something we would comment on.”[71] Experts have said, however, that if the situation with the United States continues, the Canadian Government could ask the King to get involved in a limited capacity, such as by visiting Canada.[72][73]
In early 2025, in response to President Trump's increasing proposals that Canada should be annexed by the United States, an Ottawa based design firm owned by Liam Mooney created a hat, bearing the phrase "CANADA IS NOT FOR SALE." The hat is designed to mimic the Make America Great Again hat worn by Donald Trump and his supporters.[77]
The hat rapidly grew in popularity in Canada, receiving widespread media and political attention and support.[78] Most notably Ontarian Premier Doug Ford, who has been a vocal critic of President Trump's annexation proposals, has worn the hat frequently since January 2025, notably wearing it at a meeting of Canadian premiers, discussing the state of the U.S.-Canadian relationship, held on January 15, 2025.[79]
Since Donald Trump's comments on his support of annexing Canada, there have been a number of opinion polls conducted asking Canadians on their opinion of the proposal. The responses from Canadians have been overwhelmingly against Canada joining the United States as the 51st state.
Polls asking Canadian Citizens
Should Canada join the United States of America as the 51st state
Some polls have also been conducted asking American opinions on Canada being annexed as the 51st state. An Angus Reid poll reported 49% of Americans opposing the proposal and 25% supporting it, with 26% being unsure.[24]
Two modern provincial political parties have proposed that their province secede from Canada to join the United States. Neither attracted significant support.
One of the most successful secessionist/annexationist movements to the United States was that of Albertan separatism. These movements have proposed various paths, including forming an independent nation, joining the United States, or creating a union with other Western provinces. Key issues driving separatist sentiment include a perceived power imbalance with Ottawa, long-standing economic grievances,[2] a distinct cultural identity, and dissatisfaction with federal policies—particularly those affecting Alberta's energy sector.[3][89] The province's early economic ties leaned heavily southward-midwest, with trade networks connecting Alberta to the United States rather than to eastern Canada.[7] This north–south orientation contributed to feelings of alienation, as did fiscal policies such as equalization payments. Many Albertans view these payments as disproportionately burdening the province's resource-rich economy. Such frustrations date back to Alberta's establishment as a province in 1905, when initial hopes for fair treatment under Confederation gave way to concerns about overreach from the federal government.[6]
The roots of separatist movements can be traced to the 1930s, particularly within the Alberta Social Credit Party under William Aberhart. Aberhart's attempts to implement social credit policies to combat the Great Depression were stymied by federal disallowance, fueling resentment toward Ottawa.[12] Although Aberhart himself urged moderation, his party's struggles laid the groundwork for later separatist ideas.[9] In the postwar era, the discovery of oil in Alberta transformed its economy. However, protectionist policies hindered industrial diversification, deepening grievances about federal control.[90] By the 1970s, separatist sentiments had coalesced into more organized movements.[91] Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program (NEP), introduced in 1980, became a major flashpoint. The NEP imposed taxes and royalties on Alberta’s oil, triggering economic decline and widespread discontent.[89] This period saw the rise of movements like the Western Canada Concept, which gained some traction despite internal divisions.[92] The eventual dismantling of the NEP under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in the mid-1980s diminished the momentum of these separatist efforts. A renewed wave of separatist sentiment emerged in the late 2010s-20s, driven by federal policies under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Many Albertans perceived these policies as detrimental to the province’s energy sector and its economic autonomy. Polls reflected increasing frustration, and movements such as Wexit—drawing inspiration from Brexit—garnered attention.[93][94][95] Groups like Wexit Alberta sought political legitimacy,[96] though secession or outright annexation remained unlikely. A University of Alberta study found that support for separatism was approximately 29% in November 2019, but this figure declined to 19% by April 2022.[97][98] While this separatist sentiment has simmered for some time, the Canadian government’s freezing of bank accounts during the "Freedom Convoy" protests in early 2022 escalated tensions. Although financial restrictions were lifted after two weeks, the incident amplified existing grievances, including government overreach on gun control, high taxes, and centralized management of Alberta's natural resources.[99] Currently, two registered separatist parties, the Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta and the Independence Party of Alberta, promote independence without advocating annexation by the United States.[98] Few among Albertan secessionists supported actual annexation.[100]
Insofar, the most vocal group in Alberta advocating for annexation to the United States is the Alberta 51 Project, founded in 2023.[98][101] The Alberta 51 Project, according to its official website, calls for Alberta to adopt a new constitution and join the United States as a state. This would grant Alberta approximately six electoral votes in Congress. Among the group's stated goals are the elimination of customs barriers, a stronger military presence, enhanced protection for land and resources, and economic stability through the U.S. dollar. To support its efforts, the Alberta 51 Project raises funds on its website through the sale of bumper stickers, claiming that it has collected nearly $1,100 through a fundraiser intended for promotional billboards.[101] A Change.org petition organized by the Alberta 51 Project from October 2019, advocating Alberta's statehood had garnered over 52,000 signatures as of June 2024. Although the petition does not carry as an official document, as the Alberta elections office has reported no active citizen initiative petitions related to this cause. Achieving statehood would require significant legal and political steps, including constitutional amendments by Canada's Parliament and successful referendums in Alberta. Polling data suggests that fewer than a third of Albertans support annexation. Both Canadian officials and political analysts have pointed to the significant challenges involved, with many viewing the proposal as improbable.[99] During an event in Calgary where American political commentator Tucker Carlson spoke with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a minor demonstration by members of the Alberta 51 Project took place. Demonstrators displayed signs and a Trump 2024 campaign flag in support of Alberta annexationism.[102]
In recent years, Alberta has undertaken a multimillion-dollar campaign to promote itself across the U.S. to establish a more pronounced diplomatic presence and influence energy policy. It opened offices in Chicago, Seattle, and Denver within Canadian consulates and launched a $1.7 million ad campaign through the Canadian Energy Centre, promoting itself as a reliable energy partner at the eve of the Russo-Ukrainian War. An additional $2 million will be spent on public relations over two years to enhance its reputation. Former Premier Jason Kenney has frequently expressed Alberta's dissatisfaction with both Canadian and American federal policies during his tenure. His criticism of U.S. President Joe Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for not lobbying Biden to preserve the project reflects long-standing frustrations and led to the government to initiate the program. Premier Jason Kenney reiterated the belief that Alberta’s economic contributions are often overlooked or undervalued, echoing a historic desire for greater recognition and autonomy from the federal government.[103]
Initially, current Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith, believed that Trump’s comments about annexing Canada were made in jest.[104] However, amid escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States following Trump's annexation proposal, Smith refused to endorse a joint statement from provincial leaders and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau regarding Canada’s response to threats of U.S. tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.[105] Previously, Following the first ministers’ meeting in Ottawa, Smith expressed in a tweet of concerns about the federal government’s approach to energy policy. She claimed that federal officials were considering measures such as cutting off energy supplies to the United States and imposing export tariffs on Alberta’s energy and other products. Smith stated that Alberta could not fully support the federal government’s plans to address threatened tariffs unless such proposals were abandoned, further putting emphasis on Alberta’s opposition to export tariffs or bans on its energy and other products. Alberta's refusal to sign the joint statement left it as the sole province opposed to a retaliatory policy. Instead, Alberta advocated for increasing U.S. purchases of Alberta oil and rejected measures such as curtailing, suspending, or taxing energy exports. This stance placed Smith at odds with the federal government and other premiers across Canada.[106][107]
We’re all part of Team Canada, because what happens to any part of us happens to all of us, and we will be there to respond strongly, to fight for Canada, and to do it in a united way that makes sure that it’s fair across all industries, across all regions.[107]
—Justin Trudeau on the absence of Premier Danielle Smith, 16 January 2025
On 12 January, Premier Danielle Smith set up an impromptu meeting with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, as a guest of Canadian businessman and television personality Kevin O’Leary,[108] discussing U.S.-Canadian energy relations.[109] After her meeting with Trump, Smith has warned that blocking energy exports to the U.S. in response to President-elect Donald Trump's tariff threats could lead to a "national unity crisis" in Canada. Smith emphasized that oil and gas resources are primarily owned by the provinces, particularly Alberta, and that such a move by the federal government would not be tolerated. She also remarked that, had the federal government proceeded with an export ban, she could not "predict what Albertans would do."[110][111] While Kevin O’Leary expressed support for Trump’s proposal,[112] Premier Smith remained noncommittal, refraining from taking a definitive stance on the issue of annexation.[113]
Since Trump took office on the 20th of January, the Alberta provincial government, under Premier Danielle Smith, is actively lobbying U.S. lawmakers to prevent the implementation of former President Donald Trump’s proposed 25% levy on all Canadian goods, primarily that of Alberta’s key oil and gas exports.[114] The tariff, originally set to take effect immediately, has been delayed until February 1, providing a brief window for negotiations.[115] Smith has emphasized Alberta’s significance to the U.S. energy supply, noting that while Americans consume approximately 21 million barrels of oil daily, domestic production stands at only 13 million barrels. She also suggested reviving infrastructure projects such as the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines to strengthen energy transportation and distribution.[116][114] Critics, including Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, criticised Premier Smith’s actions for prioritizing Alberta’s interests over Canadian national unity.[114] Smith then blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for damaging Canada’s relationship with the current U.S. administration, claiming it has further complicated the country’s position.[117]
In response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim at the World Economic Forum on January 23 that the United States does not rely on Canadian oil, gas, vehicles, or lumber, Smith maintained a diplomatic stance. Smith re-emphasized the value of cross-border collaboration in the energy sector and rejecting public calls for retaliatory measures. She then urged the federal government to address concerns raised by Trump regarding border security and defense spending, while affirming that his remarks at the World Economic Forum have not altered her stance.[59] Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and other critics, meanwhile, have characterized Trump’s statements as unrealistic, noting Canada’s essential role in the U.S. energy supply chain.[118] Smith has cautioned that proposed U.S. tariffs on Canadian imports could lead to a sharp rise in gasoline prices in the United States, particularly in the Midwest, a politically significant region that heavily relies on Canadian crude oil. With Canadian crude comprising up to two-thirds of the gasoline supply in Midwestern markets, and 15 states entirely dependent on Canadian imports, Smith contends that such tariffs would ultimately harm American consumers rather than provide benefits. With the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security as key allies who could advocate for the preservation of the cross-border energy partnership, Smith had hopes of lobbying U.S. Lawmakers away from tariffing Alberta. To reinforce Alberta’s role in continental energy security, Smith has launched a cross-border advertising initiative titled “Alberta is the Answer.” This campaign aims to raise awareness among U.S. decision-makers about Alberta’s critical contributions to energy, food, and data security.[119] Former trade negotiator Steve Verheul emphasized that Canada’s success in renegotiating NAFTA relied on a cohesive national approach. He expressed concern that Alberta’s recent deviation from this strategy has significantly weakened Canada’s position. Verheul suggested that federal leaders work to bring Alberta’s government into alignment with the broader national strategy. Though at this time, other premiers have voiced some discontent over how the federal government’s should act on tariffs.[120][121]
Amid ongoing tensions between the Alberta provincial government and Ottawa, Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson stated on January 29 that any Canadian countermeasures would be fair and would not disproportionately target Alberta. While preparing potential retaliatory tariffs, Wilkinson emphasized that these measures would be crafted to affect the U.S. more than Canada, focusing on goods for which Canadian consumers have viable alternatives. He expressed optimism that the tariffs could still be avoided, citing steps already taken to address U.S. border security concerns.[122] This statement comes after Howard Lutnick, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Commerce, reinforced the U.S. administration’s position, calling on Canada and Mexico to take stronger border security measures to avert the proposed tariffs[123]—concerns cited by U.S. President Donald Trump as key justifications for imposing 25% tariffs on Canadian imports In response. She has then invited Fox News to report from the Coutts border crossing and endorsed the use of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Black Hawk helicopters for patrols along the Alberta and Manitoba borders.[124][125] Smith then proposed that Canada appoint a "border czar" to work with U.S. officials on border security issues, particularly those concerning fentanyl trafficking and unauthorized crossings. Smith has argued that establishing such a position, alongside Ottawa’s $1.3-billion border security plan, would signal Canada’s commitment to improving border enforcement and could help prevent the imposition of tariffs. She has suggested that a retired military general, such as Alberta’s interim top bureaucrat Paul Wynnyk, could effectively fill the role, given their expertise in military operations and security logistics. While Smith acknowledged that appointing a border czar might not fully satisfy the Trump administration, she described it as a necessary step toward reducing trade tensions.[125]
Following statements by U.S. President Donald Trump expressing interest in annexing Canada, Alberta has emerged as the province most supportive of such a proposal. A recent poll by the Angus Reid Institute indicated that approximately 18% of respondents in Alberta favored Trump's annexation proposal, more than anywhere else in Canada.[126] Historically in the U.S., some conservatives have expressed sympathy for Alberta's position, but the same groups have previously opposed statehood bids from other territories, such as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.[99]
In his 2014 book The Accidental Superpower, geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan suggested that both Alberta and the United States could benefit if Alberta became the 51st U.S. state. Zeihan argued that Alberta's economic contributions significantly support the Canadian national budget, noting that it consistently contributes more than it receives.[127][128] He projected that, by 2020, Alberta's net financial contribution would exceed $20,000 per person, or $40,000 per taxpayer, which he characterized as one of the largest per capita wealth transfers in the Western world. Zeihan also highlighted the economic disparity between Alberta and other parts of Canada, suggesting that Alberta might maintain its prosperity more effectively outside of Canada.[129] Though Zeihan's assertion that Alberta would become the richest state in the Union remains speculative, it reflects ongoing debates about the province's economic future and political alignment. Economists have noted that Alberta's economy, often compared to that of Texas, has a strong reliance on oil, gas, and agricultural exports. Any shift in sovereignty would require complex negotiations, such as adopting new tax structures, renegotiating trade agreements, and determining how to manage Alberta's extensive national parks and public lands. There are also concerns that Alberta's exit from Canada could disrupt established trade relationships under existing agreements like NAFTA.[99]
Media commentator, Jordan Peterson, describes Alberta’s position as increasingly tenuous, caught between federal policies that he claims stifle the province’s energy industry and a U.S. administration that perceives Canada as economically dependent. He suggests that Alberta might consider U.S. statehood if Canada fails to provide a compelling reason to remain part of the federation. He outlines potential economic advantages Alberta could gain by joining the United States, including lower taxes, improved market access, and enhanced infrastructure support. Peterson stops short of advocating for Alberta’s secession however. Instead, calling for a renewed national vision focused on economic growth, strengthening national identity, and self-reliance. He warns that without a significant policy shift, Canada risks economic stagnation while the U.S. continues to grow its influence and prosperity.[130] Columnist, David Staples, argued that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s governance has alienated Alberta through policies that undermine its oil and gas industry, recalling past comments by Trudeau that framed Alberta’s influence as detrimental to Canada, reinforcing Western grievances about federal policies that restrict pipeline development and divert wealth from Alberta to the east. argues that an Alberta free from Trudeau’s policies could thrive economically, doubling oil production, reducing costs of living, and regaining regulatory autonomy.[131]
However, Political columnist Rob Breakenridge contended that President Trump's proposal for Canadian statehood would be particularly harmful to Alberta. He argued that Alberta would lose its provincial autonomy, resources, and distinct identity. Assets such as the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and energy royalties would come under centralized control, diminishing Alberta's self-determination. Breakenridge dismissed statehood as impractical, instead calling for Canadians to address internal political divisions and instead emphasized the need for new Canadian leadership to address challenges from the Trump administration while maintaining Canada's sovereignty and unity.[132]
While talking with a guest on Tucker Carlson Today sometime in January 2023, American commentator Tucker Carlson provocatively questioned, "We're spending all this money to liberate Ukraine from the Russians, why are we not sending an armed force north to liberate Canada from Trudeau?" Carlson then laughed at his own remark, describing it as a "frenzy."[133]
In modern Canadian political discourse, the idea of Canada becoming the "51st state" of the United States is much more often used as a scare tactic by Canadian politicians against political courses of action that may be seen as too "Americanizing". The use of this type of rhetoric may occur even if the proponents of such a course of action have not endorsed or proposed annexation.[citation needed]
Annexation fears can be found throughout Canadian History for Dummies, in which humourist Will Ferguson stated that for "John L. O'Sullivan, it was the 'manifest destiny' of the United States to annex and possess all of North America".[134] In fact, O'Sullivan's use of the term never extended beyond potential American annexation of Texas and the Oregon Territory; he explicitly wrote that he did not believe that the United States had a destiny to annex Canada.[135]
Satirical graphic used by anti-annexationists depicting the United States as the eleventh province of Canada.
Political satirists, including the Rhinoceros Party of Canada, have occasionally proposed reverse annexation, whereby all or part the United States would be annexed into an expanded Canadian federation.[136] Following the 2004 American election, some Americans distributed the satirical Jesusland map on the Internet, depicting a similar proposal under which the "blue states" were part of a new political entity called "The United States of Canada". In 2019, there was a petition calling for the United States to sell Montana to Canada to pay off the U.S. debt.[137][138]
On 8 December 2024, responding to Trump's Annexation proposal, Green Party leader Elizabeth May humorously suggested California, Oregon, and Washington join Canada instead, reviewing the idea of the Cascadia Movement. She offered universal health care and stricter gun laws just to "get rid of all these states that always vote Democrat."[139]
One article in Newsweek tried to analyze the economic, social, and geographic implications on the United States. They noted that Canada is slightly larger in population than California, the largest current US State by population, but has about 25 times the land area of California.[140] However, the economy is smaller than several US States, including California, New York, and Texas; overall the U.S. economy is ten times the size of Canada at the time.[140] Economically, such a merger is predicted to increase trade, but result in increased competition for businesses.[140]
Canadian author Don Tapscott analyzed and outlined conditions for a merger, including preserving Canada's healthcare system, maintaining provincial identities as states, and introducing legal reforms on campaign finance, education funding, and gun control. Tapscott also noted that Ontario would become the fifth-largest state in the U.S. with 16 million residents, and that Canada spends 11% of its GDP on healthcare compared to the U.S.'s 20%, while achieving longer life expectancy. But critics say if annexation happens, nearly half of the population present in provinces move and spread across in different states in US and provincial population would see much decrease.[141]
^McNairn, Jeffrey L. "Publius of the North: Tory Republicanism and the American Constitution in Upper Canada, 1848-54." Canadian Historical Review 1996 77(4): 504-537. ISSN 0008-3755.
^Shi, David E. (1978). "Seward's Attempt to Annex British Columbia, 1865-1869". Pacific Historical Review. 47 (2): 217–238. doi:10.2307/3637972. JSTOR3637972.
^Neunherz, R. E. (1989). ""Hemmed In": Reactions in British Columbia to the Purchase of Russian America". The Pacific Northwest Quarterly. 80 (3): 101–111. JSTOR40491056.
^ abDonald Creighton, John A. Macdonald: The Young Politician 1952 pp 438-43
^F. W. Gibson, "The Alaskan Boundary Dispute," Canadian Historical Association Report (1945) pp 25–40 at note 57
^Karl McNeil Earle, "Cousins of a Kind: The Newfoundland and Labrador Relationship with the United States" American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 28, 1998
^Stephen LaRose, "It's All About the Crude". Planet S, March 26, 2009.
^Jean Crête, "La vie des partis". L'année politique au Québec 1989-1990, Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.
^ abMcKenzie, Helen, ed. (1981), "Current Issues System: Western Alienation in Canada", Research Branch, Library of Parliament, Government of Canada, Ottawa
Angus, H. F., and R. M. MacIver; Canada and Her Great Neighbor: Sociological Surveys of Opinions and Attitudes in Canada concerning the United States Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1938
Cros, Laurence. "Le Canada et La Peur De L'annexion Americaine a L'epoque Victorienne, a Travers Les Dessins Politiques Canadiens" International Journal of Canadian Studies 2001 (23): 157–186. ISSN 1180-3991; Canadian cartoons often showed Uncle Same as a long, thin, vulture-like individual wearing striped pants and a starred top hat; Belonging to a generation of Victorians both prudish and fascinated by things erotic, Canadian cartoonists of the time took delight in concocting innumerable scenarios according to which Miss Canada would yield, willingly or unwillingly, to Uncle Sam's advances.
Cumming, Carman. "The Toronto Daily Mail, Edward Farrer, and the Question of Canadian-American Union" Journal of Canadian Studies 1989 24(1): 121–139. ISSN 0021-9495 Campaigned for annexation to protect Anglophone Protestants in Quebec.
Ellis, L. Ethan. Reciprocity 1911, A Study in Canadian-American Relations (1939)
Granatstein, J. L. Yankee Go Home: Canadians and Anti-Americanism (1997)
Keenleyside, Hugh, and Gerald S. Brown; Canada and the United States: Some Aspects of Their Historical Relations NY 1952
Kilbourn, William. The Firebrand: William Lyon Mackenzie and the Rebellion in Upper Canada Toronto: Clarke, Irwin, 1956 online
Levitt, Joseph. A Vision Beyond Reach: A Century of Images of Canadian Destiny Ottawa: 1982, twelve eminent Canadian intellectuals discuss annexation
Little, J. I. "The Short Life of a Local Protest Movement: the Annexation Crisis of 1849-50 in the Eastern Townships." Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 1992 3: 45–67. ISSN 0847–4478
McNairn, Jeffrey L. "Publius of the North: Tory Republicanism and the American Constitution in Upper Canada, 1848-54." Canadian Historical Review 1996 77(4): 504–537. ISSN 0008–3755
Neuhold, Hanspeter, and Harald Von Riekhoff, eds.; Unequal Partners: A Comparative Analysis of Relations between Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany and between Canada and the United States Westview Press. 1993
Neunherz, Richard E. "'Hemmed In': Reactions in British Columbia to the Purchase of Russian America". Pacific Northwest Quarterly 1989 80(3): 101–111. ISSN 0030–8803
Nevins, Allan. Hamilton Fish: The Inner History of the Grant Administration (vol 2 1936) online
Smith, Allan. Canada, An American Nation? (1994) intellectual history essays on continentalism and identity
Smith, Goldwin. Canada and the Canadian Question (Toronto: Macmillan, 1891) online
Tansill, Charles C. Canadian-American Relations, 1875-1911 (1943)
Warner; Donald Frederic. The Idea of Continental Union: Agitation for the Annexation of Canada to the United States, 1849-1893 (University of Kentucky Press, 1960) online
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
![Albertan secessionist flag with the addition of a lone star.[84]](/wiki/File:Albertan_secessionist_flag_(2023).svg)
![Albertan seal promoted by Annexationists.[85][86]](/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_Albertan_Annexationists.svg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.png)
