Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Analysis
What’s next for Syria: HTS appoints PM, Kurds caught in the crossfire, Israel makes a move
HTS appoints PM for Syria’s transitional government
The Shura Council of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, has appointed Mohammed al-Bashir as interim prime minister of its proposed 18-month transitional government of Syria.
Who is Mohammed Bashir? Born in 1983 in a village in Jabal Zawiya, an area of Idlib province, Bashir graduated from Aleppo University in 2007 with a bachelor's in electrical engineering, and from Idlib University with a degree in Sharia and Law in 2021. He also worked as an engineer for a gas plant affiliated with the Syrian Gas Company. Bashir is proficient in English and has been conducting press conferences for the SSE for the past year, as well as speaking with the media during the recent HTS campaign. It is not known if he is a hardliner or more moderate in his views.
What were Bashir’s previous roles with HTS? Bashir served for a year as head of the HTS-linked Syrian Salvation Government, or SSG, in Idlib in northwestern Syria, as well as Minister of Development and Humanitarian Affairs for the SSG under his predecessor there, Ali Keda. Before that, he was the director of Islamic Education at the SSG’s Ministry of Awqaf for two and a half years. According to his SSG profile, in Idlib Bashir focused on modernizing government processes using technology, encouraging investment, strengthening the economy, and “meeting the humanitarian needs” of displaced persons.
Concern for the Kurds
Will Syria’s Kurdish minority face renewed persecution – and possibly lose its autonomy - under an HTS government? While many cheer the ouster of Bashar Assad, there is concern about how they will be treated under the new Turkish-backed regime.
Who are the Kurds? Syria’s 2.5 million Kurds, primarily Sunni Muslims, comprise about 15% of Syria’s population. A third live in the Taurus Mountains near Aleppo, another third along the Turkish border in the Jazirah, around 10% near Jarabulus northeast of Aleppo with the remainder residing on the outskirts of Damascus. The Kurds were nomadic until the end of the Ottoman Empire when their population was divided across several nation-states. The Syrian government began stripping the Kurds of their Syrian nationality in 1962 and has conducted a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing designed to erase their culture and identity.
In neighboring Turkey, Kurds comprise about 18% of the population and have been severely oppressed by successive governments, including the current administration of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Armed resistance by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party has resulted in over 40,000 deaths since the 1980s.
What is the Kurds’ geopolitical significance? The US supported the Kurds – and relied on them – in its fight against the Islamic State in the 2010s, and according to senior government officials, will continue to do so under the new regime. However, since the defeat of ISIS in 2019, the diminished US presence left many Kurds at the mercy of Turkish troops. Now, Turkey has announced that it will be reopening its border with Syria, to facilitate the return of Syrian refugees. An estimated 3 million refugees are currently living in Turkey – and facilitating their return could also provide an opportunity for Erdogan to eliminate the Kurdish presence on the border.
Israel’s buffer raises Egypt’s ire
On Sunday, Israel seized Syrian land near the Golan Heights, citing security concerns as Assad’s forces vacate the area and the new HTS government takes shape. Israel claims that its 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement with Syria is no longer in force with Assad’s ouster, creating a power vacuum in the area. Israel has sent tanks over the border into the buffer zone with Syria, calling the move temporary, limited, and aimed at ensuring Israel’s security. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the move is necessary and that Israel “will not allow any hostile force to establish itself on our border.”
What is Egypt saying? In response, Egypt has denounced the move as an opportunistic land grab, accusing Israel of exploiting the situation “to occupy more Syrian territories” and calling on the UN Security Council to take “a firm position towards the Israeli aggression on Syria.”
Egypt considers Israel’s control over the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War, an occupation. Israel annexed the Heights in 1981, a move that has only been recognized by the US.
Already since his reelection, an unusual set of waves have crested. In South Korea – a key US ally – the declaration of martial law last week stunned the domestic and international audience. After widespread protests broke out, President Yoon Suk Yeol issued a quick (but not immediate) retraction with more fallout yet to come. Elsewhere, in France, Prime Minister Michel Barnier lost a no-confidence vote after parliamentary budget talks stalled. The measure reveals the fractures and radicalized forces that continue to plague one of Europe’s leading economies. And in Syria, Islamist militants turned Aleppo and Damascus into a hot zone once again – raising tensions in an already active neighborhood – before spectacularly overthrowing Bashar Assad’s government on Saturday.
Trump is, of course, not responsible for any of these developments. But the world is on edge. His posts in recent weeks on Truth Social have done little to assuage the anxieties and instead serve as kerosene to various burning fires. Trump roiled markets in late November when he announced plans to impose 25% tariffs on all products coming into the US from Mexico and Canada with an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods. The market remarkably found the news surprising despite Trump’s avowal throughout his 2024 election campaign that he would again rely on the tariff lever as president.
More recently, Trump posted to warn that if the hostages held by Hamas are not released before his inauguration there will be “ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” Trump’s commitment to “hit harder” those responsible at a historic level strikes a distinctly different tone than the one regional actors have become accustomed to with Joe Biden’s administration.
In response to the preexisting condition of volatility and the forthcoming infusion of Trumpredictability, the world is preparing “go bags” for the year(s) ahead. For both global political leaders and private sector firms, this preparation involves kicking the tires on current strategy, stress testing supply chains and sourcing, evaluating budget plans, and checking in with the man himself.
After Trump’s tariff threats, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew immediately to Mar-a-Lago to assess the damage. Inremarks afterward, Trudeau said it was an “excellent conversation” and that he “look[ed] forward to the work we can do together, again.” In his own posts, Trump said the two had discussed many important topics that would require the US and Canada to work together, including trade, illegal drugs, and energy. In the days that followed, Trump posted a photo of himself staring out at snow-capped mountains with the Canadian flag at his side – after jokingly saying the country could become America’s 51st state. It was a reminder to Trudeau that one dinner will not resolve everything.
European leaders, meanwhile, are debating a lot more defensive spending for the journey ahead. At early December meetings of NATO foreign ministers, Secretary-General Mark Rutte thanked Trump for getting NATO territory allies to the 2% defensive spend target, calling it the “Trump push.” Rutte went on to say that – and not just because of Trump – he now believes strongly the 2% is not enough for long-term deterrence. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock similarly called on NATO to make big investments in European security beyond the standard 2% defensive target.
In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has seemingly demonstrated a new willingness to consider negotiations as a Trump return looms. After repeatedly vowing to continue the fight, Zelensky indicated this week he would be open to Western troops deploying in Ukraine as a security guarantee and step toward NATO membership to halt the war with Russia. The shift comes as polls suggest that Ukrainians are increasingly inclined toward a negotiated solution, but also after months of Trump campaign pledges to swiftly drive settlement and end the war. With Assad’s toppling in Syria, having long been propped up by Russia, Putin will be recalculating his own ambitions in Ukraine in real time in the coming weeks.
Unsurprisingly, Trump is not immune to the effect he is having on global behavior. He launched a site to track the “Promises Kept,” which tallies “securing our border,” “working towards international peace,” and “propelling economic growth” among his pre-inauguration successes.
The world at the close of 2024 stands on the precipice, awaiting the impact that another Trump presidency will bring. Trump 2.0 will be all-encompassing. His administration will pursue policies that reshape the global economy and international trade patterns. It will target ongoing fault lines and new challengers. And there will be unpredictability. Global leaders of all stripes are counting on being kept on their toes. Some across Europe have even begun ramping up crisis capabilities for citizens with initiatives advising on stockpiling and bunker building. They have six weeks to pack their bags.
Syria’s government has fallen, precipitating change across the region and beyond. How did things get here, and where could they go?
Syria under Assad
The Syrian civil war, sparked by the Arab Spring of 2011, began as protests against the dictatorship of Bashar Assad, who took over from his father after Hafez Assad died in 2000. Known as “the Butcher of Damascus,” Bashar Assad killed and imprisoned thousands of political opponents and minority populations withthe support of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. The conflict killed over500,000 Syrians and displaced half the country’s population of 26 million people, prompting a refugee exodus to neighboring Turkey as well as Europe, the USA, and Canada.
Over the weekend, Assad fled with his family and was granted asylum in Moscow.
New rebel leadership
In just two weeks, insurgents seized control of major Syrian cities including Aleppo, Homs, Hama, and the capital, Damascus, and officially toppled Assad’s regime on Saturday. The main rebel force, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, is led by Abu Mohammad al-Golani, a former al-Qaida militant whoin the last decade has transformed from radical jihadist to ostensible pragmatist. Skeptics question the authenticity of his change of heart, however, andHTS is still designated as a terrorist group by many countries, including the United States.
Regional impacts
Iran: The collapse of Assad’s regime deals a significant blow to Iran’s "Axis of Resistance,"severing a crucial conduit for arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and diminishing Tehran's influence in the region. This leaves it more vulnerable to anydirect conflict with Israel.
Lebanon: US envoy Amos Hochstein believes the Syrian war’s outcomewill have a “massive impact” on Lebanon as it reduces Iran’s ability to send weapons to Hezbollah. Syria’s instability could also worsen Lebanon’s fragile economic state.
Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuattributed Assad’s fall to Israel’s “forceful action against Hezbollah and Iran.” Israel has nonethelessdeployed forces into the Golan Heights to protect its border andstruck military targets inside Syria to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of hostile forces including Hezbollah.
Turkey: Turkey has backed rebel forces throughout Syria’s 13-year war as part of its geopolitical rivalry with Iran, and the outcome is seen as a win for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Celebrations have erupted among Syrians in Turkey over Assad’s fall, and it is estimated that up to 50% of refugees theremay choose to return.
Superpower Stressors
Russia: Since the war began, Vladimir Putin has provided political support, military aid, and direct military intervention. This loss weakens Russia’s strategic position in the Middle East, including jeopardizing control over its Syrian air base in Hmeimim and naval air base in Tartus.
Russia’s military commitments in Ukraine are also blamed forweakening Moscow’s ability to support Assad’s regime. Following his ouster, US President-elect Donald Trumpcalled on Moscow for “an immediate ceasefire” in Ukraine.
The United States: The US has 900 troops in eastern Syria fighting against the re-establishment of the Islamic State and will remain there “to ensure [the group’s] enduring defeat, to ensure the secure detention of ISIS fighters and the repatriation of displaced persons,"according to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Daniel Shapiro. Under President Barack Obama, the US authorized thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq starting in 2014 as part ofOperation Inherent Resolve, part of an international effort to destroy the Islamic State.
This time around, US President-elect Donald Trumpposted to Truth Social on Saturday that the US “SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO” with the conflict in Syria. But Washington doesn’t appear to be listening: On Sunday, the US launched dozens of precision airstrikes against ISIS camps and operatives based in Central Syria, according to US Central Command.
And at a press conference on Sunday, US President Joe Biden not only took credit for helping topple the Assad regime through its sanctions against Syria and support for Israel’s efforts against Hezbollah, but he said the US will support Syria's neighbors, ensure stability in eastern Syria, protect against the Islamic State, and engage in a UN-led process to transition from Assad to an independent, sovereign Syria with a new constitution.
However, Washington will also “remain vigilant,” Biden added, noting that while the rebel groups that took down Assad “are saying the right things now,” the US “will assess not just their words but their actions.”
Opinion: Donald Trump is about to be something most voters can't stand
Donald Trump has broken more norms than I have space to detail in 700 words. But suffice it to say that he is a politician who thrives on challenging, and often overcoming, assumptions about how politics work in a democracy.
So how do politics work in democracies these days? It’s a question that we had a lot of fodder to answer this year, being that more people voted in elections in 2024 than ever before. By some measures, some two billion eligible voters weighed their options across more than 70 countries.
One big thing we learned is that where voters have a real choice, they want to “throw the bums out” almost immediately. In election after election, incumbent leaders or parties got thrashed. The licking was even worse for many “establishment” parties.
In the UK, Tory PM Rishi Sunak surrendered power to the Labour Party for the first time in 14 years. In France, only a strange bedfellows tie-up with the resurgent hard left kept Emmanuel Macron’s centrists from losing to the far-right party of Marine Le Pen. And in the EU Parliament, rightwing anti-establishment groups made big gains too.
Meanwhile, South Korea’s midterm elections delivered a rebuke to conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol that was so resounding that this week he tried to pull off a coup just to marginalize the opposition. (Spoiler: It didn’t last long or go well.)
In some places, long-ruling incumbents held on but were taken down a peg. In India, home to the “largest election on earth,” popular PM Narendra Modi’s BJP-led alliance, now in power for a decade, won the contest but still fell more than 100 seats shy of its expectations.
And in South Africa, the African National Congress lost its absolute majority for the first time since bringing down Apartheid 30 years ago – capping what one observer has called “an annus horribilis for parties of power in Africa’s democracies.”
With the exception of Mexico, where an immensely popular populist managed to bequeath his magic to a preferred successor, incumbents in democracies had a lousy time.
Why is that? Naturally, each unhappy country is unhappy in its own way. But writ large, voters are simply pissed off and impatient. Prices are rising, and trust in governments is falling.
The catastrophic social and economic shocks of the pandemic are still working their way through societies around the globe. Once-fringe criticisms of free trade, alliances, and immigration are now mainstream.
Trust in institutions of all kinds – government, media, experts – continues to plummet, and anger at “the establishment” is a defining feature of our time.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in what was, globally speaking, the most consequential election of all. Trump, felony convictions and all, handily defeated Vice President Kamala Harris, who was unable to escape the sense that the Biden administration had presided over “bad times.”
But now Trump faces a familiar challenge: Elected by people who are unhappy about the way things are going, he will soon be the person responsible for the way things are going.
That’s even more true since his Republican Party will (narrowly) control both chambers of Congress, and the Supreme Court features the conservative-leaning bench that he helped to shape during his first term.
Trump will, of course, have immense leeway to pursue the radical agenda that people voted for: imposing hefty tariffs to bend trading partners to US terms, deporting potentially millions of undocumented migrants from towns and cities across America, taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy.
But these are plans that, even in the best scenarios, will inflict significant short-term disruptions on America’s economy and society. Take tariffs, for example. Even if you accept the argument – and you don’t have to! – that in the longer term they will help to secure better trade deals and resuscitate manufacturing jobs in the US, they are virtually certain to nudge up inflation, one of the key grievances that caused people to break so strongly Trumpward in November.
If prices go up, will it be Trump’s fault? Or will he be able to pin it on the usual suspects: The Deep State, The Media, The Radical Left?
It’s a delicate balancing act for a leader known for many things other than delicacy. But if the buck stops at all now, it’ll stop with Trump. Will he face a comeuppance in the 2026 midterms? Will whoever he chooses to carry the mantle of MAGA into the 2028 race be able to buck the trend of anti-incumbent outrage?
Or might the new rules of democracy – where no one keeps power for long – help the Democrats to find a way back from their richly deserved wilderness sooner than they think?
One month out from the election, the dust is settling around Democrats’ new reality. The final outstanding congressional race was called on Wednesday, solidifying Republican control of the House and Senate. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is entering the White House after winning the Electoral College and the popular vote, and the conservatives hold a majority on the Supreme Court.
But enough about the Republicans. We get it, they’ve got a lot of power. So, where do Democrats go from here?
Analysts are still picking apart exactly what doomed Kamala Harris in the last election, but it’s clear that the Democrats bled base voters. Trump made gains among Black voters, Latino voters, and voters who make under $50,000 a year. These groups are at the heart of who the Democratic Party sees itself as serving and standing for, leaving the party “listless and leaderless,” according to Eurasia Group US analyst Noah Daponte-Smith. “The shift toward Trump among ancestrally Democratic voters has really jolted the party,” he adds, but what will they take away from this reckoning defeat?
In the short term, the Democrats will undergo a leadership transition, and new faces are likely to skew younger. Part of this is generational, as the party’s “old guard” of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer fade from the scene. Lining up to take their places are representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is poised to win control of the powerful House Oversight Committee and is far more politically adroit than her fellow progressive “Squad” members. Meanwhile, governors whose names were floated to replace Joe Biden’s on the ticket — including Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Shapiro — will spend the next four years positioning themselves for a fierce primary fight in 2028.
In the long term, Democrats will be looking to win back the House in 2026, which Daponte-Smith predicts “should be eminently possible” thanks to Republicans having only a narrow majority and because the opposition party almost always makes gains after losing a presidential election.
“That will allow them to block the Trump legislative agenda in 2027-28,” he says, “and will give them the gavels to conduct investigations, as they did in the first Trump term.” A win in the House would give them renewed hope going into 2028. That being said, if they don’t win, true panic will set in.
But sometime between then and now, Democrats need to find clarity on their platform. The problem? There is no consensus on what led to their downfall in this election. While Harris’ defeat has some Democrats ready to start from scratch, many blame her loss on the party moving too far left and alienating dependable Democrats in the center. Others believe that the party’s message was fundamentally sound, but Biden’s late withdrawal and unpopularity doomed Harris from the get-go. Meanwhile, supporters of Bernie Sanders echo that the party lost because they left the working class behind.
Daponte-Smith says his big question about the Democrats’ next platform is which parts of the Trump 2.0 agenda they concede, like how Biden maintained Trump’s China tariffs. Potential contenders, in his view, could be RFK’s Make America Healthy Again agenda or a more restrictive stance on immigration.
We will get some clarity on the Democrats’ new direction on Feb. 1, when the party elects a new chair. Back in 2016, this election turned into a proxy fight between progressives and mainstream Democrats. This time around, it has the potential to be the same. So far, the field remains wide open, with four candidates who have officially put their hats in the ring and a dozen or so others whose names are being circulated. We will be watching this race as it will undoubtedly be an inflection point for how the party plans to move past their disastrous 2024 performance.
Amid all the geopolitical chaos, the best advice of the year: Don’t panic.
As they dined at Mar-a-Lago on a main course of tough, over-cooked tariff talk, President-elect Donald Trump suggested to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — in what the Canadians present later called a joking manner — that Canada might make a good 51st state. Naturally, people freaked out. First, Trump threatens to destroy the Canadian economy with 25% tariffs on everything, and now this? An invasion?
As the breathless coverage spilled over the international media, my colleague Gerry Butts went on Bluesky with a message: “Trump used this 51st state line all the time with Trudeau in his first term. He’s doing it to rattle Canadian cages. When someone wants you to freak out, don’t.”
It is sound advice. Don’t freak out.
Canada is no more going to become the 51st state in the next four years than California, British Columbia, and Oregon are going to break away and become Cascadia. Jokes are not policy.
So what’s up?
Trump is a zero-sum negotiator. He uses the powerful leverage he has to create “I win, you lose” deals. Threats give him a real negotiation advantage before the actual negotiations happen. That is the prerogative of the Big Dog countries, especially those run by strongmen, mercantilist leaders like Trump. Trump threats are simply the expected prelude to any deal. But what is real and what is rhetoric? And how to respond?
Invasion: Rhetoric. Dismiss.
Tariffs: Real. Discuss.
Rule One: Stick With Facts. Don’t get caught up in the torrent of tweets and taunts. Don’t give anything away until the actual negotiations start. Facts are your best friends.
Facts? Really? You might think that since Trump has ushered in the post-fact world, facts are a diminishing currency. That is a dangerous bet. For example, at the root of the 51st state jab are the much more dangerous Trump threats to slap 25% tariffs on all goods coming in from Canada and Mexico. Trump based this threat on what he says is the heavy flow of fentanyl and illegal migrants across the border.
Initially, that threat caused panic. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith immediately went into appeasement mode, telling the CBC’s Power and Politics, “It’s incumbent, I believe, on the federal government, along with all of the provinces, to work together to address those concerns if we want to be able to avoid these devastating tariffs that’ll hurt all of us.”
She’s not wrong that the Trump rhetoric needs to be addressed, which is why Trudeau immediately got on a plane and took his team for a strategic schmooze fest at Mar-a-Lago. Trump prizes personal relationships above all else, so a connection matters.
Rule Two: Don’t Take It Personally. Even though Trump has a long-standing sour relationship with Trudeau — he’s even called the Canadian PM “two-faced” — in Trumplandia, that doesn’t matter. His relationships with people change like the weather in the Rocky Mountains: If you don’t like what is happening, wait five minutes. It will change.
Trump is quick to anger and quick to forget. Can he get over his past irritations with Trudeau? Well, he got over JD Vance comparing him to … that guy who ran Germany in the war. He nominated former rival Marco Rubio, whom he used to mock as “Little Marco,” for secretary of state. Trump doesn’t hold the very grudges he creates, and the best way to get over that is to find a way to make nice, show loyalty, and suck up. That’s what the Trudeau visit was all about. Feelings first. Facts second.
That doesn’t mean giving anything away. And that’s where the facts come in. On fentanyl and border security, the reality is far different than the rhetoric. Canada is hardly a major threat to the US on either issue.
“The facts are hard to deny,” Kirsten Hillman, Canada’s whip-smart ambassador to the US, pointed out on X. “Last year, 0.6% of illegal crossings and 0.2% of fentanyl seizures by US authorities were at the northern border.”
That’s right. Only .2% of fentanyl seizures happened at the Canadian border. If you want to go deeper, check out the latest stats from the US Customs and Border Protection agency, which shows that the problem of fentanyl is largely at the Mexican border, not the Canadian one.
In fact, the CBP’s top official, Troy Miller, has an extensive interview on the US government website about fentanyl coming over the US border. Guess what? He mentions the southwest border 21 times and Mexico specifically seven times. Canada? Not a word. Canada and the northern border are not mentioned a single time. Why? It is simply not a major issue.
Rule Three: Know What Actually Needs Work. On the other hand, illegal migration is a real issue, both internationally and domestically. There is a key section along the US-Canadian border called the Swanton Sector (which covers parts of New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire), and illegal immigration rates there have spiked according to stats from the CBP. But how bad is it? 23,000 arrests were made at the northern border between October 2023 and September 2024. That is up from 10,000 in 2023. Compared to Mexico, where over 47,000 arrests were made in November of this year alone, it’s a trickle (700 were arrested in November in Canada). Still, politically it is an issue Canadians will have to deal with if they want to avoid tariff punishments. Doing nothing is not an option.
Illegal migration is now driving election outcomes in France, Ireland, Germany, and many other places, so this ain’t a surprise. But proportionality matters, and the facts that prove that point can get lost in the storm of threats. It is critical this doesn’t happen.
Rule 4: Follow the Money. There is a high probability that a tariff-driven trade war — or skirmish — is coming very soon, and the facts here will be crucial. After all, high tariffs will hurt the very people Trump represents — namely, American workers. High US tariffs on Canadian goods will raise prices for US consumers and make life for them more miserable. That is a political loss for Trump.
Over 34 US states rely on Canada as their major trading partner, so expect state governors to pressure the White House to ease up on the tariff talk so as not to jeopardize the bilateral trading relationship that sees over US$2.7 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border each day.
To protect that, Canadian leaders will have to think hard about decoupling their trade relationship with Mexico, especially when the new US-Mexico-Canada trade deal gets renegotiated in 2026. The politics of the southern border have always cross-infected the northern one, but if the infection threatens to be economically fatal, there will be a change. The famed three amigos might be reduced to two.
But that is not for right now. Trade deals are not made on social media; they are negotiated face to face, when genuine swaps and deals can happen. Better to build relationships now over dinner, and serve up facts for dessert.
And don’t panic.
It hasn’t even started yet.
As if Justin Trudeau isn’t dealing with enough. His Liberal Party is down in the polls and struggling amid a House of Commons shutdown led by the Conservatives. Now it has to manage an incoming Trump administration intent on extracting as much as it can from Canada.
After nearly 10 years in power, the Liberals are politically weak, and they’re staring down another potential parliamentary showdown over what to do about Donald Trump. Last time, it was overTrump’s 2018 tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports. This time, it’s likely to be about the president-elect's latest tariff threat and border security politics.
What the tariff man wants vs. Canada’s choices
Trumprecentlyannounced an intended tariff policy that made Canadian leaders blanch: 25% across the board — levies that would cripple Canada’s economy. The tariff hike wasn’t a surprise, considering Trump campaigned on it, but the 25% rate was a shock, and the inclusion of Canada disabused optimistic Canadians of any hope that a long, close trade and security relationship between the countries would mean preferential treatment.
The president-elect has said Canada would pay the high tariffs “until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” So Trump has laid out his ground rules, but responding to his demands will be tough.
For one thing, the US Drug Enforcement Agency says that while Canada’s border was a fentanyl threat a decade ago, it’s no longer a core part of the drug-poisoning crisis. Mexico poses a bigger threat — almost 500 times more fentanyl was seized by US Border Patrol coming from Mexico than Canada in 2023.
Still, border crossings are up. Encounters between irregular migrants and authorities along the US-Canadian border in 2023 account for just a fraction of the 1.5 million along the US-Mexico border, but the Canadian numbers are higher than ever. Along the northern land border — the world’s longest at 5,525 miles — border patrol reported 189,000 encounters last year, a 73% uptick from the year before — and nearly 600% higher than in 2021.
The Liberal government has promised to be “very visible” on border policy in response to Trump, adding more staff and equipment, including additional helicopters and drones to monitor the frontier. It is also pledging additional resources for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police aimed at curbing human smuggling across the border. They’ve also launched an online ad campaign — in 11 languages — to dissuade refugees from making asylum claims in Canada.
The Mounties, in turn, plan to send more police to the border if necessary, largely in response to Trump’s plan for mass deportations, which it expects will lead to a surge in illegal crossings. The exact number of pledged Mounties is unclear, though the increase could involve sending cadets to the border. The Canada Border Services Agency says it would need up to 3,000 more officers to manage its share of increased border activity.
Border security poses domestic challenges for Trudeau
Any new Canadian border security plan will cost money the government must come up with as part of its budget in early spring. Since the Liberals rely on support in a minority parliament, they require support from opposition parties to pass legislation.
At least one province isn’t waiting around for Trudeau. Alberta is working on its own border plan, which may include a special sheriff unit to patrol the crossing between it and Montana. But the bulk of any plan will come from Ottawa.
While he can’t implement policy, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre — whose side leads the Liberals by 20 points in the polls — can cajole and pile more political pressure on Trudeau. Poilievre’s podium sign during a recent speech read: “Fix the broken border,” and he’s calling for a plan to be presented to Parliament by the Liberals that includes more border patrols, stricter visa rules, a cap on how many asylum-seekers the country accepts, and more.
Trudeau met with opposition leaders on Tuesday to discuss border security and the tariff threat, but Poilievre has political reasons to keep calling it “Trudeau's broken border.” After all, the Conservatives, if their polling holds, are set to replace the Liberals, and the country is due to vote by October 2025.
To pass legislation in the meantime — including the crucial budget Trudeau needs to tighten border controls and keep Trump’s tariffs at bay — the Liberals must win the support of another party in the House of Commons, most likely the NDP, if anyone.
In theory, Poilievre might back a robust Liberal border plan, which Conservatives would claim as their own. But it may be more likely that they’ll reject whatever the Liberals come up with as insufficient and wait to present their own plan if they form a government after the next election.
The Conservatives won’t hand Trudeau a win, says Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group’s global macro-geopolitics practice, and will likely respond to the Liberals’ border plan with: “Great, but it’s too late and not enough.” So they’d “vote against it for being too spendthrift and for not doing enough on security and defense.”
That would leave Trudeau with two choices for a partner: the Bloc Quebecois, who are also set on defeating the Liberal government, or the New Democratic Party, who are taking things one day — and one vote — at a time. So far, on the border, the NDP is calling on the government to hire 1,100 new border agents and to expand the agency’s powers.
Thompson says the left-wing Bloc and NDP “might not be the most excited about okaying massive expenditures on border security.”
For the NDP to vote against the Liberals, they’d likely have “to find the budget insufficiently generous when it comes to economic and social supports for Canadians,” Thompson says. But if they simply say the Liberals have gone too far on border and defense spending? “Then suddenly you’re in a situation where the Liberals have lost both flanks, and that could be a trigger for an election,” he adds.
Such a border security showdown could lead to an early election, says Thompson, as the Liberals try to navigate competing demands from Trump and opposition parties at home.
Could a new government fare better?
Should the Conservatives replace the Liberals in 2025, the changing of the guard may give Canada a stronger negotiating position vis-à-vis Trump. Poilievre’s Conservatives, for example, could scrap Liberal policies such as the Online Streaming Act and the digital services tax that irk the US, giving them leverage in negotiations with Trump.
Meanwhile, Trudeau’s ability to navigate tense US-Canada relations could determine his political fate and Canada’s economic future.