Washington, Jan 24: US President Donald Trump has issued a sharp warning to Canada, suggesting the nation could be “eaten up” by China following Ottawa’s rejection of the proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system over Greenland. The President’s remarks on Friday signaled a deepening rift between the two neighbors as Canada pursues closer economic ties with Beijing.
The dispute centers on the “Golden Dome” project, a US-backed security initiative intended to provide missile protection across the region. Trump noted that Canada’s decision to prioritize a new trade deal with China over the defense project leaves the northern ally vulnerable. “Canada is against The Golden Dome being built over Greenland, even though The Golden Dome would protect Canada. Instead, they voted in favour of doing business with China, who will ‘eat them up’ within the first year!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Tensions flared earlier this week during the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Trump directly addressed Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The President suggested that Canada should show more appreciation for the security benefits it receives from the United States. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements,” Trump said, adding that Canada should be “grateful” for what he described as security “freebies.”
The friction follows Prime Minister Carney’s announcement of a significant trade agreement with China, valued at over $7 billion in export markets. As part of the deal, Canada will reduce its 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for China lowering tariffs on Canadian canola seeds from 84 percent to approximately 15 percent. Carney described China as a “more predictable” partner compared to the current administration in Washington.
The Prime Minister’s Office defended the shift in strategy, stating that Canada is working to diversify trade partnerships to build a more resilient economy in an uncertain global climate. Carney’s remarks in Davos also included a critique of “tariff coercion,” which was widely interpreted as a response to Washington’s ongoing economic pressure and its stated interest in Greenland.
