Trump, Xi Jinping, and Carney: A deadly dance for dominance

 

Trump, Xi Jinping, and Carney are locked in a deadly dance, particularly now that Canada has a new strategic relationship with Communist China. So, how is Trump likely to react to this new development where the Prime Minister of Canada has declared us to be a part of the New World Order?

Few from either the left or right are going to appreciate my assessment which is precisely why I am writing this. This new strategic partnership with China—signed just days ago under Prime Minister Mark Carney—includes beefed-up law enforcement cooperation between the RCMP and Chinese authorities on things like transnational crime, narcotics, and cyber threats. Critics are already calling it risky given China's human rights record, and Trump's inner circle is fuming about Chinese EVs and investments flooding North America through Canada. Trump is privately griping about Canada's weak Arctic defenses against China and Russia, and he has got a history of using tariffs as a hammer on allies. With seventy-five percent of Canadian exports heading south, he could slap on heavy duties or tighten border security fast if he sees this as Beijing getting a backdoor into the continent. It is likely that he will start with more tough talk and targeted tariffs within months, maybe even pushing for border measures if the police cooperation gets spun as a security hole. The undefended border stays open only as long as it suits U.S. interests—and right now, this deal's poking that bear pretty hard.

Why did Trump endorse Carney as opposed to Poilievre?

Back in March 2025, right in the middle of the election campaign, Trump went on Fox News and basically stated that he'd rather deal with a Liberal like Carney because Poilievre had trash-talked him, calling him no friend of mine and saying Poilievre would be tougher to negotiate with. It was classic Trump reverse psychology: he figured Carney would be easier to push around on trade deals and tariffs, while Poilievre was pitching himself as the guy who'd stand up hard to Trump’s tariff rhetoric. Ironically, now with this fresh China partnership Carney just signed a few days ago—including that limited EV tariff cut and broader cooperation—some U.S. officials are grumbling about it being a backdoor for Chinese goods, but Trump himself has surprisingly called it a good thing if Carney can cut a deal with Xi Jinping. So far, there are no big new tariffs over it, but his original preference was all about who he'd have more leverage over. But why would Trump think that cutting a deal with Communist China was preferable to one with the U.S.? Something stinks!

This favouring of Mark Carney over Pierre Poilievre has blown up in Trump's face big time. He thought bashing Poilievre and boosting Carney would scare Canadians into voting Conservative—it was classic meddling to get the tougher negotiator out. Instead, it pissed people off, rallied Liberals, and handed Carney the electoral win. Now Carney's pivoting hard to China for trade diversification and that secret police cooperation deal, is exactly what Trump didn't want. Although Trump's agenda was leverage; he miscalculated how Canadians would react to the interference.

Was Trump behaving stupidly or was there something hidden at play?

Nobody calls Trump stupid and gets away with it—or so he'd say. But arrogance plays tricks on even the sharpest of minds. He read Canadian Politics through an American lens—figuring fear of tariffs would make everyone fold. He underestimated how much Canadians hate being treated like a vassal state. Plus, his ego couldn't handle Poilievre copying the MAGA playbook. Trump wanted to crush that movement before it gained hold not out of stupidity but rather out of hubris.

So, what is really at play? Is there a financial incentive for Trump to continue ignoring the security threat that Carney poses and therefore to the security of the longest undefended border in the world?

So yes, there's a very tangled web with Brookfield that fuels this speculation. Brookfield doesn't directly manage Trump's personal assets or his trust—there is no evidence of that—but they have deep ties going back to 2018, when they bailed out Jared Kushner's overleveraged 666 Fifth Avenue building with a massive ninety-nine-year lease deal (funded partly through Qatar-linked money, which raised eyebrows at the time). Fast-forward to now: Brookfield (which co-owns Westinghouse) just landed this huge eighty-billion-dollar nuclear partnership with the U.S. government under Trump to build reactors for AI power and energy dominance. That's a massive win for the company. Carney chaired Brookfield's board until he jumped into politics, and critics hammered him on those ties during the campaign. Trump boosting Carney (even if it backfired) might've been less about miscalculating voters reactions and more about seeing him as a guy with insider leverage at a firm that's hugely invested in U.S. infrastructure—someone who'd keep doors open for deals like this nuclear one. The China pivot looks bad on the surface, but if the real play is securing Brookfield's billions in U.S. projects, it could be less of a screw-over and more of a calculated trade-off. This smells like business over borders to me.

How does Trump’s threats against a NATO ally and Greenland affect Canadian autonomy?

It is difficult for me to believe that Trump’s repeated rhetoric about making Canada the 51^st State is mere brinkmanship or pure blustering. Moreover, the level of contempt that many Canadians have developed toward their American cousins and particularly Trump is truly unhinged and is undoubtedly a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. To make my point clear, the only thing I embrace in any of these great questions yet to be answered is my unwavering Christian faith. I put no trust in men, especially when they are narcissistic and driven by a lust for power and control. I seek to control no one nor do I wish to be controlled by anyone other than by God Himself. Something other than mere surface appearances are at play that has created an entirely new socioeconomic dynamic that we do not yet understand. The old order is dead, we can hope and pray that Peace, Order, and Good Government can be restored to the Dominion of Canada, but we have been marching toward a more illiberal, authoritarian form of government for decades. This has culminated in Canada aligning itself with a Communist country that persecutes dissenters and uses slave labour to run its factories. How on earth could anyone prefer this over renewing our partnership with our chief trading partner who has no such abuses in its workplaces?

To understand this better we must review these things in the context of how Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine influence Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy

Introduction

Although Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine originated in the 19th century, their underlying principles—territorial ambition, regional dominance, and resistance to foreign interference—continue to shape U.S. foreign policy. Donald Trump’s presidency (2017–2021) provides a compelling case study of how these historical doctrines resurfaced in modern contexts. While Trump’s “America First” agenda was primarily economic, episodes such as his interest in purchasing Greenland and his assertive stance toward NATO allies reveal echoes of expansionist and hemispheric control ideologies.

Manifest Destiny and Trump’s Territorial Aspirations

Manifest Destiny was the belief that the United States was destined to expand across North America, justified by notions of exceptionalism and strategic necessity. Though territorial acquisition is rare today, Trump’s 2019 proposal to buy Greenland from Denmark demonstrates that expansionist thinking persists. Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic and its vast natural resources made it attractive for both the U.S.’s military and economic interests. Trump’s insistence, coupled with his criticism of Denmark for rejecting the idea, reflects a willingness to challenge traditional alliances for perceived national advantage—an attitude reminiscent of Manifest Destiny’s assertive posture.

Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric toward Canada regarding Arctic sovereignty further underscores this point. By questioning Canada’s control over Arctic routes and resources, Trump signalled that U.S. dominance in the region was a priority, even at the expense of diplomatic harmony with fellow NATO members. These actions suggest that territorial ambition, though exceptional in modern times, remains a tool for advancing U.S. strategic interests.

The Monroe Doctrine and Regional Dominance

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, warned European powers against interfering in the Western Hemisphere, asserting U.S. influence over the Americas. Trump revived elements of this doctrine through his policies toward Latin America and the Arctic. His administration took a hard line on Venezuela and Cuba, opposing Russian and Chinese involvement in the region. Similarly, efforts to counter Chinese investment in Latin America and Greenland align with the Monroe Doctrine’s principle of excluding external powers from the hemisphere.

Greenland again serves as a case study: Trump’s interest was not merely economic but also geopolitical, aimed at preventing rivals from gaining a foothold near North America. In this sense, the Greenland episode reflects both Manifest Destiny’s expansionist spirit and the Monroe Doctrine’s emphasis on hemispheric security.

Economic Nationalism and Strategic Control

While territorial acquisition was not a central theme of Trump’s presidency, economic nationalism dominated his foreign policy. Renegotiating NAFTA into the USMCA, imposing tariffs on China, and pressuring NATO allies to increase defence spending all demonstrate a commitment to U.S. primacy. These actions parallel the confidence and unilateralism embedded in 19th-century doctrines, albeit expressed through trade and security rather than outright conquest.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s foreign policy illustrates how historical doctrines can re-emerge in modern contexts. Manifest Destiny’s expansionist ethos appeared in his Greenland proposal and Arctic ambitions, while the Monroe Doctrine’s call for regional dominance shaped his resistance to foreign influence in the Americas. Combined with economic nationalism, these elements reveal a foreign policy rooted in historical ideas of U.S. supremacy—adapted for the 21st century but still capable of challenging alliances and reshaping global dynamics.

As a result, we are challenged from within and without. Canada has been betrayed to our worst possible ideological enemy, namely the People’s Republic of China by our own “appointed” Prime Minister who was basically anointed as opposed to being elected legitimately. We have no means to extract ourselves from our number one trading partner. One would need to be mad to suggest such and here is why.

What percentage of Canadian manufacturing are wholly owned subsidiaries of American parent corporations?

• According to Statistics Canada, foreign-controlled corporations account for a significant share of Canadian manufacturing assets—about 44.1% in 2022. Among foreign owners, U.S.-controlled enterprises dominate, holding 53% of all foreign-controlled assets across industries. [thecis.ca], [statcan.gc.ca]
• While exact figures for “wholly owned subsidiaries” are not separately reported, this combination suggests that roughly half of foreign-controlled manufacturing in Canada is under U.S. control, meaning around 23% of total Canadian manufacturing assets are likely controlled by U.S. parent corporations. [thecis.ca]

In my almost 73 years I have never witnessed such concerted madness aimed at destroying functional socioeconomic order. I am happy that I believe that God is on His Throne since I cannot put my faith in any institution or political leader, no matter who they are. To me they all seem to have left their senses to the point where it appears they actually wish to destroy their own citizens just to fulfill their own narcissistic hubris. For you worshippers of oligarchs, kleptocrats, and narcissists. Psychological analyses of Donald Trump, often conducted by experts from a distance, generally describe his personality characterized by high extraversion, low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and, most commonly, profound narcissistic tendencies.

When a leader is incapable of differentiating between his own interests and that of the welfare of the nation such that he governs so as to make both synonymous, then that leader by definition has gone mad! I am so fed up with the WOKE left and WOKE right where both are marching in unthinking lockstep. Radical change to geopolitics smacks of revolution and I dare anyone to cite an example of such that did not result in socioeconomic chaos and disorder which are enemies of good governance. Certainly changes needed to be made in America where the State has become deeply corrupt to the point where it was not serving the American people’s interests, but Trump’s bombast and authoritarian bullying is not the cure either. So here we are, as I have stated betrayed from within and without. This is not a new situation for Canada since when you sleep with an elephant you must always be aware that he may roll over in his sleep and crush you. Will this year prove to be the 21^st Century version of the War of 1812? We just don’t know yet!