Throughout American history, strong leaders have emerged during times of crisis to preserve the nation and its founding principles. Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump, though separated by over a century and facing vastly different challenges, share a striking parallel in their leadership. Lincoln fought to preserve the Union by preventing Americans from leaving, while Trump seeks to preserve the Union by enforcing immigration laws and ensuring that those who have no legal right to stay are removed.

Lincoln’s Fight to Keep Americans In

Abraham Lincoln took office at a time of unprecedented division. Southern states, convinced that their way of life was under threat, moved to secede from the Union. Lincoln’s primary goal was clear: to stop the Union from breaking apart. He was willing to use every tool at his disposal to prevent the dissolution of the United States, believing that preserving the nation was paramount. His leadership through the Civil War reaffirmed the idea that the Union was indivisible.

Trump’s Fight to Keep Illegals Out

While Trump’s battle is different in nature, his objective mirrors Lincoln’s in a profound way. Where Lincoln sought to stop Americans from leaving the country and dividing the Union, Trump fights to remove those who have entered unlawfully, seeking to preserve the nation’s sovereignty, security, and identity. Just as Lincoln faced fierce opposition from those who wished to reshape the nation through secession, Trump faces relentless resistance from those who seek to redefine America by erasing its borders and undermining the rule of law.

A Slogan That Defines Their Parallel Struggles

The essence of their leadership can be captured in a simple yet powerful slogan:
"Lincoln preserved the Union by keeping Americans in; Trump preserves the Union by keeping illegals out."

Ironically, the Civil War was often seen as the North invading the South to preserve the Union. Yet today, one of the greatest threats to the Union comes in the form of an invasion moving northward—mass illegal immigration. Lincoln fought to stop the nation from breaking apart, while Trump fights to stop it from being overrun. Though their battles were different, their mission was the same—protecting America’s sovereignty, identity, and future.

Different Battles, Same Mission

Both leaders understood that a nation cannot survive without law and order. Lincoln’s struggle was against those who sought to fracture the United States, while Trump’s struggle is against those who seek to weaken its borders and dilute its national character. In both cases, opposition forces resisted fiercely, yet both men stood firm in their convictions.

As history continues to unfold, the legacy of both Lincoln and Trump will be debated. However, one thing remains clear: their commitment to preserving the Union was, and is, unwavering. Different times, different threats—but the same fight to keep America strong.

The Big Statement That Gets Everyone Talking

If Donald Trump were to suggest that Canada should become the 51st state, media outlets would run with the story, Canadian officials would issue statements of outrage, and political analysts would scramble to figure out what it all means. But would Trump actually be pushing for annexation? Not likely.

Instead, this would be part of his well-known negotiation strategy: start with a bold, attention-grabbing statement, spark debate, and use the momentum to push for real policy changes that advance an America First agenda.

To understand why Trump would float an idea like this, we have to break down how Canada, if hypothetically part of the U.S., would fit into the political system—and then compare that to what Trump actually wants when it comes to U.S.-Canada relations.

What Would a 51st State Look Like?

If Canada were absorbed into the U.S., its 40 million residents would make it the second-largest state by population (after California). Using the U.S. House of Representatives’ population-based seat distribution, Canada would likely receive 50-55 seats in the House—similar to California, which has 52.

Here’s how those seats would likely be distributed across Canada’s provinces and territories:

House of Representatives Projection

• Ontario (16-18 seats) – Population: 15M (similar to Texas)
• Quebec (12-14 seats) – Population: 8.5M (between New Jersey and Georgia)
• British Columbia (8-9 seats) – Population: 5.5M (similar to South Carolina)
• Alberta (6-7 seats) – Population: 4.7M (comparable to Louisiana)
• Manitoba (2-3 seats) – Population: 1.4M (like Hawaii)
• Saskatchewan (2-3 seats) – Population: 1.2M (like Maine)
• Atlantic Canada (4-5 seats combined) – Population: 2.4M (like New Mexico)
• Territories (1 seat total, possibly at-large) – Population: 125K (like Wyoming but combined)

Canada would also gain 2 Senate seats, which would have significant political implications since the country has historically leaned liberal.

Political Leanings of Canada’s Congressional Seats

• Liberal-leaning (Likely Democratic):

  • Ontario (Toronto & suburbs, similar to NYC & Chicago)
  • Quebec (Montreal, progressive & French-speaking areas)
  • British Columbia (Vancouver, similar to Seattle/Portland)
  • Atlantic Canada (Socially liberal, like New England)

• Swing/Competitive:

  • Ontario (Rural areas could be battlegrounds)
  • Alberta (Urban areas like Calgary & Edmonton could be competitive)
  • Manitoba & Saskatchewan (Could split depending on urban vs. rural vote)

• Conservative-leaning (Likely Republican):

  • Alberta (outside cities) – Canada’s version of Texas, oil-rich and conservative
  • Saskatchewan (outside Regina & Saskatoon) – Prairie, small-government mindset
  • Rural Manitoba & BC Interior – More socially conservative

If we applied U.S. voting patterns, Canada would likely lean Democratic overall, with its major metro areas outweighing its rural conservative base. That would give Democrats a long-term advantage in presidential elections, unless Republicans could make inroads in places like Alberta and rural British Columbia.

But again—Trump isn’t actually advocating for Canada to become a U.S. state. Instead, his real focus is on reshaping trade, energy, and national security policy in ways that put America First.

What Trump Actually Wants: A Stronger, America First U.S.-Canada Partnership

While the idea of Canada joining the U.S. is far-fetched, Trump has long pushed for a more favorable economic and security relationship between the two countries.

1. Trade Fairness

• Canada has historically protected certain industries (like dairy and lumber) with tariffs and subsidies, making it harder for U.S. businesses to compete.
• Trump would use the “51st state” discussion to demand better trade deals—pressuring Canada to open its markets in exchange for continued access to the U.S. economy.

2. Energy Cooperation & North American Energy Independence

• Canada has massive oil reserves in Alberta, yet Biden’s policies (such as canceling the Keystone XL pipeline) have limited U.S.-Canada energy collaboration.
• A Trump-led America First policy would likely seek to restart key pipeline projects and encourage joint U.S.-Canada energy development to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

3. National Security & NATO Contributions

• Canada currently spends only about 1.3% of GDP on defense, far below NATO’s 2% target.
• Trump has criticized NATO allies for underfunding their militaries, and if he were to push for Canada to become a U.S. state, the real message would be: "Start contributing more to defense, or we’ll take matters into our own hands."

A Best-Case America First Scenario for U.S.-Canada Relations

Instead of annexation, the best possible outcome would be a stronger, independent partnership between the U.S. and Canada that aligns with America First policies.

What this could look like under a Trump administration:
✅ Fairer trade agreements that remove Canada’s protectionist policies and open up more economic opportunities for American farmers and manufacturers
✅ Energy independence through expanded U.S.-Canada pipeline projects, reducing reliance on Middle Eastern oil
✅ Increased military cooperation, with Canada stepping up its defense spending to align more closely with U.S. strategic goals

By using the idea of Canada as a 51st state as a negotiation tactic, Trump would drive attention to these core issues and create leverage to push Canadian leadership toward policies that better serve American interests.

So, if you ever hear Trump joke about annexing Canada, don’t take it literally. Instead, look at what he’s really trying to accomplish: a better deal for the United States, without the usual political stagnation.

Sources

Trump’s Negotiation Tactics & Bold Rhetoric

• Schwartz, Tony. The Art of the Deal (1987) – Trump’s own playbook on negotiation.
• Eilperin, Juliet & Dawsey, Josh. "Trump’s Strategy: Make an Extreme Demand, Then Compromise" – The Washington Post, 2018.

Trump on U.S.-Canada Trade Relations

• United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) (Signed in 2018, replacing NAFTA) – USTR.gov
• Trump’s criticism of Canada’s dairy tariffs – BBC, "Trump Rips Canada Over Trade Policies" (2018)

Trump & Energy Policy (Keystone XL Pipeline)

• Desjardins, Jeff. "Canada's Oil Sands and Keystone XL: What’s at Stake?" – Visual Capitalist, 2020.
• Reuters, "Trump Revives Keystone XL Pipeline, But Faces Legal Challenges" (2017)

Canada’s Defense Spending & NATO Commitments

• NATO Official Reports: "Defense Expenditure of NATO Countries (2022)" – NATO.int
• Trump’s NATO Criticism: Politico, "Trump Slams NATO Allies for Not Meeting Defense Spending Goals" (2018)

Justin Trudeau has just made a disastrous economic miscalculation. His announcement of a 25% tariff on $30 billion worth of U.S. goods, set to take effect on Tuesday, with another $125 billion in tariffs following in 21 days, is nothing short of economic suicide for Canada. If Trudeau believes he can strong-arm the United States, he is about to face a brutal reality check.

Starting February 1, 2025, Donald Trump has already imposed his own 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, making it clear that his administration will prioritize American interests. If Trudeau chooses to escalate, he should expect Trump to double down—potentially imposing 50% tariffs that would devastate Canada’s already fragile economy.

Canada Needs the U.S. More Than the U.S. Needs Canada

The simple truth is this: Canada is far more dependent on the United States than vice versa. American businesses will find other trading partners, while Canadian industries—particularly in agriculture, manufacturing, and energy—will struggle to survive without access to the U.S. market. Trudeau’s virtue-signaling might score political points with his leftist base, but it won’t keep Canadian businesses afloat when their largest and most essential trading partner responds with crushing tariffs.

A full-blown trade war with the U.S. would be catastrophic for Canada. The nation is already struggling under Trudeau’s reckless economic policies, and this latest stunt could be the final straw that pushes the country into a severe recession.

Trump’s America First vs. Trudeau’s Weak Leadership

During his presidency, Donald Trump prioritized American prosperity, ensuring that so-called allies engaged in fair trade instead of leeching off U.S. economic strength. Under Trump’s leadership, America reasserted its dominance, forcing trade partners to play fair.

Trudeau, on the other hand, is recklessly gambling with Canada’s economic future. His delusional belief that he can take on the United States without severe consequences is the height of arrogance and incompetence. If he thinks this move will solidify his political standing, he is sorely mistaken.

Trump’s Tariffs Are a Necessary Response to Canada, Mexico, and China

Every single day, an average of 300 Americans are murdered by fentanyl—a deadly drug that originates in China, is funneled into Mexico and Canada, and then smuggled into the U.S. by Mexican cartels operating on both our southern and northern borders.

Yes, Mexican cartels are now operating in Canada, and neither the Canadian nor Mexican governments have done anything to stop the flow of human trafficking and drug smuggling into the U.S. Meanwhile, China continues to supply these cartels with the poison that is killing American citizens.

And this isn’t just about fentanyl. The horrifying effects of drug trafficking and human smuggling are eroding American society, burdening our communities, and forcing U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for the crisis.

Shame on the governments of Canada, Mexico, and China for allowing this to happen.

The Economic Reality: The U.S. Holds the Power

While trade accounts for 67% of Canada’s GDP, 73% of Mexico’s GDP, and 37% of China’s GDP, it makes up only 24% of U.S. GDP. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on international trade than our so-called allies, and yet, in 2023, the U.S. trade deficit in goods was the largest in the world at over $1 trillion.

For decades, America has been taken advantage of by globalist policies that put foreign nations before our own people. But that era is over.

We Will Win This Trade War

America is tired of getting kicked in the teeth by weak leaders who refuse to stand up for our nation. President Trump is finally fighting back—and he’s using tariffs, a powerful and proven tool of economic leverage, to protect our national security and economic interests.

By imposing 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, Trump is making it clear that the days of America getting exploited by foreign nations are over. If Trudeau wants to play economic games, he will lose—because when push comes to shove, Canada needs the U.S. far more than the U.S. needs Canada.