Trump’s Bombardier threat is an 'own goal' for Canada-U.S. defence ties, analysts say

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As both Canada and the United States enjoyed a day off and family BBQs on Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump was busy posting on his social media platform.

In one update, he declared that Canada’s aerospace giant, Bombardier, could no longer sell in the United States.

“NO MORE SELLING BOMBARDIER IN THE UNITED STATES! Their products aren’t good enough! Over 50% of their revenue comes from the United States,” the president wrote. He complained that Canada blocked Gulfstream Aerospace from doing business in Canada — a reference to a certification issue earlier this year that has since been resolved.

The 114-word missive also included a number of “America First” rallying cries about buying, flying, and sailing American — and enjoying American liquor.

Bombardier reported total revenue of $9.55 billion in 2025, with over half generated by sales to U.S. customers.

The timing of Trump’s Labour Day post was telling, with 12 hours before Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on more than 700 U.S. products entering Canada — covering CA$27.6 billion in annual imports — were set to take effect at 12.01 am Tuesday. They have since been implemented.

So was Trump’s post a sign that he was rattled by Ottawa’s refusal to back down over tariffs? At the very least, it was more evidence that the president is willing to go extreme for leverage, analysts say.

“I think (Trump) is definitely frustrated that Canada hasn’t caved. He knows the retaliatory tariffs will have economic impacts in the United States, and he’s hoping more escalation will force Canada to back down,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

But Richard Shimooka, senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, says Trump’s additional pressure is likely part of the deal-making process.

“I think that he tries to create more and more and more leverage, and at a certain point a deal gets made however it is, and then that’s it,” he said, pointing to what happened between the U.S. and North Korea.

He recalled how Washington and Pyongyang exchanged nuclear threats, and then, “all of a sudden, they’re best buddies,” while noting that he’s not sure a resolution is coming for Ottawa anytime soon.

Shimooda also questioned whether “this is smart policy for them” with the U.S. midterms looming and polling in the U.S. showing low levels of support for Trump’s tariffs on Canada. Hurting Bombardier, which has several U.S.-based facilities and employs more than 3,000 people, would mean affecting U.S. voters in those areas.

Shimooka also suggested it may be time to wait Trump out because his power is waning.

“In the second half of the second term, the political power of a president at this stage is increasingly limited,” he said.

The midterms are also among the reasons why Kavanagh doesn’t think Trump will follow through with his threat.

“I don’t think he’ll do it because, given the focus on inflation, increasing U.S. manufacturing, and countering deindustrialization, and economic concerns going into the midterms, it would just be a very strange move to alienate a really important group of voters.”

She also pointed out that U.S. policy doesn’t change by decree of a social post.

“He can’t just ban their sale,” she said, while noting what he can do: “He can try to impose tariffs. He can impose other economic barriers. He can ask the FAA to decertify them. There are other things he can do, but he can’t just ban it like that.”

“This is all about grievance … This has become, in his head, a way to punish Canada.”

Shimooka said he thought decertification would quickly land the U.S. administration in court.

Christopher Coates, director of foreign policy, national defence, and national security at Macdonald-Laurier Institute, thinks tariffs would be the most likely route.

“The ground is a little bit prepared if they wanted to go down that path,” he said, referring to the Section 232 aviation tariffs.

If Trump’s threat becomes a reality, Coates said Bombardier would survive. But he also said it would “probably have to consider moving (its) operations out of Canada,” meaning the final assembly facilities would likely need to move south.

These types of threats are nothing new. Trump has taken aim at aerospace companies before — including Bombardier — but could this latest smack in the Canada-U.S. trade spat bleed over into the longstanding defense cooperation between the two countries? Could it hinder Arctic defense, NORAD and cross-border intelligence sharing and operations?

Shimooka is not too concerned at this point, noting that the military-to-military relationship is fine.

His defence colleagues “see this as business as usual,” he said, noting that’s why Admiral Samuel Paparo recently reacted so negatively when he was asked whether he would follow an order to attack Canada. Paparo called it “preposterous.”

The friction is starting to show at the senior political and bureaucratic level, Shimooka said — at the undersecretary and deputy-minister level, where figures like Elbridge Colby are pushing a harder line.

Coates, who worked in NORAD headquarters during the first Trump administration, says staffers were aware of frictions and trade matters but that the joint military organisation “remains largely apolitical, and it’s in the best interest of both of our nations that our militaries are largely apolitical,” he said.

But the danger may not be an imminent rupture of an organisation like NORAD so much as a gradual corrosion of the political confidence and day-to-day cooperation that make continental defense work efficiently.

“This approach to working with Canada on economic issues is an own goal,” said Kavanagh, noting that while the U.S. doesn’t need Canada for its defence cooperation, the relationship does make defending North America a lot easier than it would be otherwise.

“One of the things that makes the United States safe and secure is that it has oceans on two sides and friendly neighbours to the north and south,” said Kavanagh. “So why turn a friendly neighbour into an adversary over what seem to me to be very small economic grievances?”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.