Follow us on social

Pierre Poilievre Donald Trump Mark Carney

As Canadians go to polls, Trump keeps banging on annexation

President insists he’s not ‘trolling,’ that our northern neighbors would be better off as Americans

Reporting | QiOSK

As Canadians lined up to vote in today’s Canadian elections, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated President Trump’s assertions that Canada would be better off as the 51st American state, days after Trump said he was serious and was not “trolling” on the matter.

“What the President said, and he has said this repeatedly, is he was told by the previous Prime Minister [Justin Trudeau] that Canada could not survive without unfair trade with the United States, at which point [Trump] asked, ‘Well, if you can't survive as a nation without treating us unfairly in trade, then you should become a state,’” Rubio said on Meet the Press.

“We'll deal with a new leadership of Canada. There are many things we’ll work with cooperatively [with] Canada on…but we actually don't like the way they treated us when it comes to trade,” Rubio explained.

Meet the Press host Michelle Welker asked whether there were “policy steps” taken to annex Canada; Rubio did not provide any. She pressed him to answer explicitly whether the U.S. wants to make Canada the 51st state; in response, Rubio reiterated Trump’s comments.

“I think the president has stated repeatedly he thinks Canada would be better off as a state,” he responded.

Back in mid-March, Rubio previously framed Trump’s calls to annex Canada as a “disagreement” between Canada and the U.S., saying “the president has made his argument as to why he thinks Canada would be better off joining the United States for economic purposes. There's a disagreement between the president's position and the position of the Canadian government.”

Altogether, Rubio’s Meet the Press comments come amid souring U.S.-Canada relations, where repeated annexation calls and an intense tariff spat led Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to say the old U.S.-Canada relationship was “over” late last month.

Rubio’s statements also follow Trump’s recent comments in an interview with Time Magazine, published Friday, emphasizing he “wasn’t trolling” about annexing America’s northern neighbor. “I'm really not trolling. Canada is an interesting case. We lose $200 to $250 billion a year supporting Canada,” he told TIME magazine. “We’re taking care of their military. We're taking care of every aspect of their lives. We don't need anything from Canada. And I say the only way this thing really works is for Canada to become a state,” he said.

Today’s elections for the Parliament are primarily pitting the Liberal Party led by current Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, and the Conservative Party and its leader Pierre Poilievre. An Abacus Data poll yesterday found Carney in the lead, with Carney receiving 41% of the prospective vote over Poilievre’s 39%.

In comments made today, Trump even seemed to suggest Canadians should vote for him. “Elect the man who has the strength and wisdom to cut your taxes in half, increase your military power, for free, to the highest level in the World, have your Car, Steel, Aluminum, Lumber, Energy, and all other businesses, QUADRUPLE in size, WITH ZERO TARIFFS OR TAXES, if Canada becomes the cherished 51st. State of the United States of America,” he wrote.

“America can no longer subsidize Canada with the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars a year that we have been spending in the past. It makes no sense unless Canada is a State!”

As Canadians head to the ballot box, their politicians are telling Trump to butt out. “President Trump, stay out of our election. The only people who will decide the future of Canada are Canadians at the ballot box,” Conservative Party leader and PM hopeful Pierre Poilievre wrote today on X, emphasizing Canadians would “stand up” to America.

“Canada will always be proud, sovereign and independent and we will NEVER be the 51st state. Today Canadians can vote for change so we can strengthen our country, stand on our own two feet and stand up to America from a position of strength,” he wrote.


Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre (Shutterstock/Marlon Bartram); President Donald Trump (Joshua Sukoff/Shutterstock) and Canadian PM and Liberal Party leader Mark Carney (Shutterstock/Harrison Ha)
Reporting | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.