The U.S. has a national security strategy. Where’s Canada’s?

The U.S. has laid out a clear, action-driven national security plan. Ottawa’s response so far raises questions about whether Canada has one at all

Interview requests

On Dec. 5, 2025, the president of the United States announced a new U.S. National Security Strategy. Each successive U.S. administration issues such a document at the beginning of its term, forcing a reassessment of national security at least every four years. It is a foundational exercise for government and for the public.

The release has gone largely unnoticed by Canadian media, save for a few comments from the Canadian Minister of National Defence. The minister said he was “taking note” of the new U.S. strategy but that Canada would follow its own National Security Strategy. Many Canadians are left wondering what that strategy actually looks like.

To understand why this matters, Canadians must first recognize that national security is one of six National Interests that define a nation. Those interests are Unity, National Security, Good Governance, Rights and Freedoms, Economic Prosperity and Growth and Societal Wellbeing. National security is deeply linked to all six. The new U.S. National Security Strategy makes this integration unmistakably clear.

National security itself is not confined to the military. It encompasses intelligence services, border and immigration services, critical infrastructure protection, police services, emergency management organizations, the judiciary, alliances and partnerships, and military forces. From the U.S. perspective, the strategy lays out these elements plainly and connects them directly to national interests.

This linkage is not new. Following Sept. 11, 2001, the United States repeatedly told Canada and the world that security trumped trade. When former U.S. President Barack Obama addressed Canada’s Parliament in 2016 and said “the world needs more Canada,” he did so after speaking across all six national interests and warning, diplomatically, that Canada needed to take its national defence more seriously.

Canada, however, has taken its relationship with the U.S. for granted and often appears to revel in a sense of moral or strategic superiority. The Liberal Party’s recent “elbows up” re-election strategy reflects a belief that Canada can assert independence without cost. Over the past decade, all six of Canada’s National Interests have eroded significantly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy recognizes this erosion with unmistakable clarity.

A review of the strategy shows that the current U.S. administration demands explicit links between all six National Interests and every element of national security. This is laid out in Part II of the document. The opening section defines what the United States “wants”: unity; protection of democratic institutions and way of life; border security and immigration control; critical infrastructure protection; strong emergency management and intelligence capabilities; a vibrant economy; a dominant military and military-industrial base; nuclear dominance; and the “restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health.”

The remainder of the document explains how these objectives will be achieved, in direct and explicit terms.

The administration does not accept the status quo. It sees the U.S. using its dominant military and economic power to reinvigorate the Monroe Doctrine and expects the Western Hemisphere to reassert its place in the world, either through its own actions or under strong U.S. pressure. This approach includes stability in the Middle East and U.S. dominance in the Americas. The strategy states plainly that these are “the United States’ core, vital national interests.” The intent is unambiguous.

The document then outlines its principles and priorities in plain language. The principles—Focused Definition of the National Interest, Peace Through Strength, Predisposition to Non-Interventionism, Flexible Realism, Primacy of Nations, Sovereignty and Respect, Balance of Power, Pro-American Worker, Fairness, and Competence and Merit—leave no doubt about the administration’s break from globalism, the UN, DEI, and the World Economic Forum agenda.

The priorities are equally explicit: the end of mass migration, protection of core rights and liberties, burden-sharing and burden-shifting, realignment through peace, and economic security. Together, they make clear that this administration intends to implement its national security vision within three years.

The strategy then applies these principles region by region, including the Western Hemisphere through the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine; Asia through economic competition and deterrence; Europe through burden-sharing and renewal; the Middle East through shifted responsibilities and peace-building; and Africa. The document reflects long-standing strategic thinking and presents a clear view of U.S. policy direction over the next three years.

The world should read this document closely. No nation, however, has more reason to do so than Canada. In its introduction, the strategy emphasizes the “essential connection between ends and means.” This is not rhetorical positioning. It is a statement of intended action. The administration is uninterested in platitudes, promises, symbolic meetings, or altruism. It is focused on U.S. National Interests and on concrete outcomes.

Against this backdrop, for a single Canadian minister—heading a ministry the U.S. knows has failed to deliver credible national defence—to say in a brief press conference that he merely “noted” a strategy personally signed by the president reveals a Canada that is deaf, dumb, and blind to U.S. intent.

Canadians must demand an immediate and serious discussion of the six National Interests that define the country. They must insist that their government produce a coherent, non-rhetoric-based strategy grounded in ends and means, with a clear vision for Canada’s future.

We know U.S. intent for the next three years. The question is whether Canada will still exist as a serious, sovereign actor when those three years are over.

David Redman had a distinguished military career before becoming head of the Alberta Emergency Management Agency in 2004. He led the development of the 2005 Provincial Pandemic Influenza Plan and retired in 2013. He writes for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.