Wayne Eyre says U.S. military action against Canada is remote

The discussion follows an interview published by The New York Times in September 2026, in which Prime Minister Carney acknowledged he had considered “extreme tail risk” regarding U.S. President Donald Trump potentially ordering military action against Canada. Carney described this consideration as standard risk management rather than a base-case scenario, stating it would be irresponsible not to account for such possibilities when a foreign leader threatens national sovereignty.

Military Planning and Tail Risk Assessments

General Eyre, who led Canada’s defence staff from 2021 to 2024, characterized the probability of U.S. military action as “very, very small.” He explained that military planners must imagine various scenarios to develop operational plans, though they prioritize efforts based on what is most probable.

Eyre noted a distinct change in strategy since his tenure. He stated that U.S. military action against Canada was never considered a probability while he was serving in his official capacity. According to Eyre, the current necessity of discussing this scenario indicates how significantly the security environment has evolved.

“As the prime minister said, it was extreme tail risk: so very, very small probability,” Eyre told Kapelos, when asked about Prime Minister Mark Carney telling The New York Times he had considered the possibility that U.S. President Donald Trump could order military action against Canada.Source: CTV Power Play

Carney’s Sovereignty Concerns and Risk Management

In the transcript published by The New York Times, Prime Minister Carney explained that risk assessments must adjust as the “tail fattens” when a leader of another country threatens sovereignty. When asked by a reporter if he had made specific preparations for potential military action, Carney declined to provide further details, stating he would leave his answer where it was.

The Toronto Sun reports that Carney has spent a portion of the last 18 months preparing for the risk that President Trump might order military action. This preparation coincides with a period of deteriorating relations between Ottawa and Washington.

Trade Conflict and U.S. Political Rhetoric

Tensions between the two nations have intensified during Donald Trump’s second term, characterized by a tit-for-tat trade war and rhetoric regarding Canadian sovereignty. The Toronto Sun notes that Trump has repeatedly mentioned the idea of Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state. While Trump ruled out the use of military force for annexation in January 2025, he stated he would consider using “economic force” to achieve that goal.

The trade dispute escalated in August 2026 after bilateral talks collapsed. Carney told reporters in Ottawa that Canada was “at war” with the United States over trade, alleging that the Trump administration’s demands would infringe upon Canadian sovereignty.

President Trump countered these claims on Monday, telling reporters in the Oval Office that Canada has treated the U.S. unfairly. Trump expressed his belief that Canada will concede on the trade dispute within the next three to four weeks.

Economic Influence and Resource Dependencies

Despite the friction, Carney indicated a reluctance to use Canada's energy exports as a bargaining chip in the trade conflict. In the New York Times interview, Carney highlighted Canada’s role as a middle power and its integration with the U.S., specifically citing the auto industry and the supply of potash for fertilizer used in the U.S. and Mexico.

Carney stated that maintaining the status of a reliable partner and supplier of food and energy creates a “very, very, very high threshold” for changing export policies, though he noted he would “never say never” regarding such measures.