No, Canada Will Not Be the 51st State

Trump's suggestion that Canada become the 51st state is, in practice, a political stunt with no realistic path forward. While the notion of merging two of the world's most closely intertwined democracies may spark curiosity or even amusement, a closer examination reveals that the idea is not only unworkable but also deeply unpopular and fraught with political, legal, and cultural obstacles.

The legal mechanisms required for such a transformation are politically insurmountable. The U.S. Constitution allows for the admission of new states, but the process demands majority approval in both chambers of Congress and the President's signature. Historically, new states have emerged from U.S. territories (hey Puerto Rico, how's that going?) or, in rare cases, from independent republics like Texas, but always with the clear consent of the population involved and the existing federal structure⁷. For Canada, the path is even more complex. Under Section 41 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, any move to dissolve the federation or transfer sovereignty would require unanimous consent from the federal Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures—a political feat that borders on the impossible³⁶.

Canadian public sentiment is overwhelmingly against the idea. Recent polls show that about 80% of Canadians reject the notion of joining the United States, citing concerns over sovereignty, healthcare, gun laws, and political culture⁵⁶. Canadian leaders across the political spectrum have condemned Trump's rhetoric, with Prime Minister Trudeau and opposition figures alike labeling the proposal as either a joke or an affront to Canadian sovereignty²⁴. Even as Trump's comments have shifted from jest to apparent policy, the Canadian response has only grown more unified in opposition.

From an American perspective, there is no serious legislative movement to admit Canada as a state. The U.S. Congress has not entertained such a proposal, and the political will is entirely absent. The practical consequences would be staggering: Canada's population (over 41 million) would make it the largest state, surpassing California by more than 10 million residents. This would grant Canada approximately 55 House seats and two U.S. Senators, dramatically altering Congressional representation and the Electoral College balance. In essence, admitting Canada as a single state would be equivalent to adding another California to the Union – but one with even more progressive voters.

If Canada's provinces were admitted as separate states instead, the political landscape would transform even more dramatically. Ontario (15 million residents; 22 electoral votes) would be comparable to Illinois in both population and progressive urban-centered politics⁸⁹. Quebec (8.8 million; 14 electoral votes) would parallel New Jersey's population but with stronger social democratic leanings⁸¹³¹⁵. British Columbia (5.3 million; 10 electoral votes) would mirror Colorado in size but resemble Washington state's progressive environmental politics⁸¹⁰¹¹. Alberta (4.6 million; 8 electoral votes) – Canada's most conservative province – would be similar to Kentucky in population but closer to Utah in voting patterns⁸¹²¹³¹⁵. Together, these new "states" would add up to 26 new Senators, with potentially 20 or more reliably voting with Democrats¹³¹⁴¹⁵. Ironically, this proposal would be deeply counterproductive to Republican political interests for generations to come. Canadian voters overwhelmingly favor progressive policies on healthcare, climate change, gun control, and social issues—precisely the positions that Republicans have opposed¹³¹⁴¹⁵. The addition of millions of left-leaning voters would likely cement Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress for decades¹³¹⁴¹⁵. Beyond politics, the integration of two vastly different legal, healthcare, and social systems would create chaos rather than cohesion¹⁴.

That's 272 electoral votes for the Democrat candidate, and 320 electoral votes for the Republican candidate based on the 2024 election, which was a "landslide" for Trump.

... on second thought, maybe this is something to consider.

Trump's strategy appears to be less about genuine policy and more about political theater. His comments have coincided with aggressive tariff threats and economic pressure, which have already triggered significant backlash and retaliatory measures from Canada⁴. Canadian officials and commentators have described Trump's tactics as "insulting," "deeply flawed," and even "an act of war" in the rhetorical sense⁴⁶. Rather than advancing any realistic agenda, Trump's remarks serve to inflame nationalist sentiment on both sides of the border and distract from substantive policy debates.

If Canada were to refuse (and all evidence suggests it would) the matter would end there. There is no legal or moral mechanism for the United States to annex a sovereign, democratic neighbor against its will. Any attempt to do so would be a violation of international law and would irreparably damage one of the world's most important bilateral relationships¹³.

Additional Reading:

Citations: