When the president is frustrated, he lashes out at friends harder than he does enemies.
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
When Donald Trump looks at a map, he doesn’t see nations. He sees property. All of those pretty colors do not represent actual places filled with human beings who have distinct cultures, languages, and histories; the planet, to Trump, is a big board game, like Risk or Monopoly. Greenland isn’t a real location—it’s a valuable chunk of territory nestled between Boardwalk and Park Place. The Strait of Hormuz isn’t an international waterway—it’s a thing to control somewhere between Kamchatka and East Africa.
This inability to grasp the existence of independent nations drives the president to fury when countries and their governments refuse to play along with his delusions. Trump cannot understand why Iran won’t bend to his will, why NATO won’t instantly obey his orders, why South Korea and Japan won’t just write checks or provide troops on demand. The only people Trump seems to respect are the autocrats in Beijing and Moscow and Pyongyang who, like him, view the world as a brutal competition for power and territory.
Now Trump has declared economic war on Canada, a nation that has vexed him for years. Even by the standards of Trump’s many fixations, his obsession with Canada has become not only weird but truly destructive. He has opened a giant political and economic rift with one of America’s biggest trading partners, a sister nation, and an ally in the common defense of North America and Europe. Why does Trump hate Canada so much?
We can only speculate about what goes on in the president’s head, but his actions suggest a pattern. When Trump is frustrated about something he can’t control, he lashes out at friends harder than he does enemies. He took out his anger about the Epstein files on legislators from his own party, even though he had campaigned on releasing those documents. Stymied by Iran on multiple fronts, Trump decided to blame South Korea for not helping him, and curtailed military exercises with a vital U.S. ally. (This decision also had the side benefit of allowing Trump to make another embarrassing overture to the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a bromantic gesture that went unreciprocated.) Trump values absolute loyalty over everything else—not that he always returns it—and he detests any sign that others, especially those who are supposed to be his friends and allies, might have views and interests of their own.
The American economy is stalling, and Trump’s poll numbers are in the basement, so the next obvious move is to pick a huge fight with a nation that is essentially family to Americans. Canada is most definitely a foreign country, which is one reason I like to visit. (Go ahead—try to find a convenience store in America that sells Aero chocolate bars or wine gums.) But to the utterly incurious Trump, it probably looks like an extension of upstate New York.
Canada and America are bound by deep cultural and historical bonds, but ironically, the superficial similarities are likely driving much of Trump’s vitriol. How dare these people—whose country is, to him, just a cheap knockoff of America—defy him! After all, most of Canada speaks English; its cities look like ours (if definitely cleaner); we share pop stars and TV shows; they even call their money “the dollar,” despite its colorful look and plasticky feel. Canada, in the president’s eyes, is less a sovereign nation than a real-estate parcel he forgot to buy because it’s in a neighborhood he never visits.
The fact that Canada is led by someone Trump accidentally helped put in office probably irks him too. Early last year, Canada’s Liberal Party had been in power for 10 years and was facing a huge defeat in what seemed to be an impending “change” election. Trump, as usual, could not control himself when it came to the internal politics of an allied nation: He imposed tariffs during the lead-up to the Canadian vote while banging on about making Canada the 51st state. The Liberal leader Mark Carney—an unflappable public figure who is completely different from Trump in both temperament and intellect—pivoted quickly and campaigned on standing up to the American president. Carney almost overnight went from a no-hoper to prime minister. And now he has shown that he is perfectly willing to retaliate against Trump’s policies rather than fold. If Trump wants tariffs, Carney will provide them—in spades.
Imagine how all of this looks to Trump, who has made clear that Canada shouldn’t even exist as an independent state. I am humiliated as an American, and as a friend of Canada, to admit this, but Trump’s attitude toward Canada is almost indistinguishable from the way Russian President Vladimir Putin sees Ukraine: not as a state but as some kind of historical anomaly that should be returned to its rightful owners. Trump might think it’s funny to post memes of Canada with an American flag superimposed on it, but those jokes are a lot less hilarious to people in places such as Ukraine, who are fighting a war against a dictator who feels exactly the same way about their country.
Canadians are probably scratching their head over Trump’s willingness to hurt his own people and especially his own party. Trump may hate Canada, but it’s hard to imagine what he thinks he’ll gain by causing economic pain to Americans along the Canadian border, especially in states such as Maine and Michigan, where Republicans are facing tight battles for congressional seats. What the Canadians may not realize is that, with this president, none of it has to make sense, and that if recent history is a guide, he will back down, perhaps after declaring victory over Ottawa. Trump will then move on, leaving ordinary Americans and their Canadian friends to deal with the damage.
Related:
Here are four new stories from The Atlantic:
Today’s News
- Last night, U.S. forces struck five Iranian oil tankers, sinking one, after Iran targeted a U.S. Navy warship. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at an air base in Jordan that the U.S. uses. Jordan said it received 20 ballistic missiles and was able to destroy 18.
- Republican former Senator John Sununu and Democratic Representative Chris Pappas won their U.S. Senate primaries in New Hampshire last night, setting up a competitive general-election race in November.
- President Trump gave $45,000 apiece in cash as holiday gifts to three White House aides last year, including his executive assistant, Natalie Harp, according to financial-disclosure forms. The White House said the payments were personal gifts unrelated to the aides’ government work.
Dispatches
- The Weekly Planet: The Netherlands will never be rid of Louisiana crawfish, Hannah Docter-Loeb writes. What will it take for the Dutch to eat them?
Explore all of our newsletters here.
Evening Read
The Anniversary I Wish I Didn’t Share With My Husband
By Ellen S. Bakalian
During a visit in May to the Maritime Museum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, I watched a film about a 1917 cargo-ship explosion that killed more than 1,700 townspeople and injured many more. The grainy black-and-white images of the flattened city catapulted me back to the devastation of Lower Manhattan after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Halifax suffered a blizzard following the cargo-ship catastrophe, and the sight of the city covered in a deep blanket of snow recalled the dust and debris from the once-glimmering towers that coated the Financial District. When I heard the recorded voices of the Haligonian survivors recounting their memories, I walked out of the small theater to cry.
Twenty-five years on from September 11, 2001, an image or memory can still evoke the very moment I learned that my 36-year-old redheaded husband, Jeffrey R. Smith, would not be coming home from work that day.
More From The Atlantic
Culture Break
Debate. Don’t watch The Shards (streaming on Hulu). Go read the book instead, Jeremy Gordon argues.
Read. Francis Fukuyama has long been considered a naive triumphalist. Gal Beckerman explores Fukuyama’s new memoir and why the end of history is so miserable.
Rafaela Jinich contributed to this newsletter.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Facts Only
* Donald Trump views the planet as a board game, focusing on property rather than nations.
* Trump expresses frustration when countries and governments do not comply with his will.
* Trump appears to respect autocrats in Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang who view the world as a competition for power and territory.
* Trump initiated economic actions against Canada.
* The author suggests that when frustrated, the president lashes out at friends more than enemies.
* Trump’s obsession with Canada has reportedly created a political and economic rift with a major trading partner.
* The author links Trump's attitude toward Canada to a view where the country is less a sovereign nation and more a real-estate parcel.
* Trump imposed tariffs during the lead-up to the Canadian vote while advocating for changes in US statehood.
* The Canadian Liberal leader, Mark Carney, campaigned against Trump's policies regarding Canada.
Executive Summary
The text speculates on the reasons behind Donald Trump's reported frustration and declared economic actions against Canada. The author suggests that when the president is frustrated, he tends to direct anger toward friends more intensely than enemies. The piece posits that Trump's perception of the world is based on property rather than sovereign nations, viewing territories like Greenland or the Strait of Hormuz as assets to be controlled. This perceived inability of other nations to align with his will drives his reaction when they refuse compliance. The author observes a pattern where frustration leads to lashing out at allies, referencing past instances where Trump directed anger toward individuals and entities that did not comply with his wishes.
The analysis suggests that the animosity toward Canada stems from superficial cultural similarities rather than deep geopolitical concerns. The piece notes shared elements such as the English language, similar city appearances, shared pop culture references, and the use of the dollar, suggesting these seemingly minor connections fuel Trump's vitriol. Furthermore, political maneuvering is suggested; the author points to Trump's actions during Canadian elections and the subsequent reaction of Canadian politicians, implying that Canada’s independent leadership complicates Trump’s worldview. The ultimate implication is that external economic pain inflicted on the border regions may be a means for Trump to redirect internal dissatisfaction among American constituents.
Full Take
The narrative operates on a framework where the perceived lack of sovereign nationhood is central to defining geopolitical relations, suggesting that external adherence to an individual's desires is the ultimate metric of legitimacy. This pattern echoes historical dynamics where power structures attempt to impose monolithic definitions onto diverse realities. The move toward framing Canada as a real estate parcel highlights a foundational conflict: the tension between abstract, conceptual control and tangible, human-based political reality.
The mechanism deployed involves leveraging superficial similarities—cultural touchpoints like language or currency—to generate antagonism, suggesting that perceived difference is weaponized to justify hostility against an ally. This reflects a strategy of reducing complex international relations into simplistic, personal grievances against perceived deviations from an imposed worldview. The focus on the subsequent political maneuvering by Canadian leadership suggests an observation of reactive power dynamics: when established structures resist external pressure, they mobilize for defense.
The implication for agency rests on whether acknowledging the structural nature of these conflicts—that some entities operate outside the simplistic territorial framework valued by certain actors—can shift the basis of interaction from personal animosity to pragmatic coexistence. If frustration drives actions, understanding *what* is being frustrated (the concept of sovereign reality versus arbitrary control) is crucial for assessing potential shifts in behavior rather than just reacting to the resulting fallout.
Bridge Questions: What are the long-term consequences when economic pain is used as a tool against allied nations? How does the constructed reality of "property" versus "nation" influence international cooperation frameworks? If the underlying pattern involves a reaction to perceived imposition, what would constitute a genuine shift in diplomatic behavior from both sides?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like an opinion essay or op-ed, utilizing a critical and highly subjective lens to analyze the relationship between Donald Trump's political style and his perception of Canada, rather than presenting verifiable news facts.