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.
{{ subpage.title }}
U.S. President Joe Biden and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau during a bilateral meeting at the North American Leaders' Summit in Mexico City, Mexico, January 10, 2023.
Biden-Trudeau talks focus on immigration and defense
Amid the pomp and pageantry accompanying President Joe Biden’s first official visit to Canada, he and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau are looking to make some deals.
Even before Biden’s arrival late Thursday, news broke that the two countries had reached an agreement on irregular migration flows across the US-Canada border, a sticking point for both governments. An influx of asylum-seekers across the Roxham Road crossing into Quebec has dogged relations, with nearly 40,000 migrants crossing in 2022 alone.
Trudeau has been asking the US to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires asylum-seekers who cross select border points to be sent back to the country where they first entered. Why? Because it encourages migrants to enter at irregular crossings like Roxham Road, and once they’re in Canada they can legally make asylum claims.
The precise details of the new migration deal are still under wraps, but Canada has reportedly agreed to take in 15,000 migrants from the Western Hemisphere through official channels. The agreement also would reportedly allow both countries to turn away asylum-seekers who cross the border without authorization.
The Biden-Trudeau talks on Friday are also expected to turn to defense. Last month’s Chinese spy balloon fiasco has led to increased pressure on both leaders to ramp up security. North Korean missile tests and Russian advances in missile technology have added more urgency to North American defense.
A new Maru Public/GZERO poll finds that the vast majority of Americans and Canadians (93% and 91%, respectively) want the two countries to boost security efforts, and most Canadians favor either a joint missile-defense system or having US missiles on Canadian soil.
With both Canada and the US being behind on the modernization of the North American Aerospace Defense Command – much of its radar systems are from the 1980s – Friday’s discussions are likely to touch on NORAD investment.
Biden is expected to push Trudeau on military spending – like many NATO members, Canada lags behind its defense spending target of 2% GDP. Canadian NORAD officials complain that current military capabilities are sluggish. Last year, Trudeau’s government pledged $4.9 billion to upgrade NORAD, but Americans are skeptical about the speed at which Canada can deliver.
The war in Ukraine is also putting Arctic defense back on the map. The Maru/GZERO poll showed that majorities in both the US and Canada support a joint military presence in the Arctic. Receding ice in the region has freed up shipping lanes, portending new access to lucrative resources like oil and rare-earth minerals. The region’s security would take on even more geopolitical importance should Finland and Sweden join NATO, possibly making it a new frontline pitting Russia against the West.
There's no shortage of thorny issues for Biden and Trudeau to tackle, from defense and immigration to trade and Ukraine. For more on the presidential visit, be sure to join us on Twitter Friday at 12pm ET. We’ll be talking with Forbes' Diane Brady, Eurasia Group's Gerald Butts, and GZERO's Evan Solomon, breaking down what Biden and Trudeau need to accomplish during their meeting. Set a reminder here.
To stay up to date on crucial US-Canada relations, be sure to subscribe to our new newsletter, GZERO North.
NATO flag
What We’re Watching: NATO members’ defense budgets, Social Security as a political weapon, China’s support for Sri Lanka
NATO chief wants more defense spending
As Russian aggression in Ukraine enters year two, NATO members need to boost their defense spending. That was the message from NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg Wednesday after a summit with member states’ defense ministers. Back in 2014, around the time of Russia’s invasion of Crimea, NATO states committed to raising their respective defense spending to 2% of gross domestic product. (NATO’s direct budget is separate from national defense budgets.) Still, while many have increased their spending on military equipment and training, most NATO states – including Germany, France, Italy, and Canada – still fall short of the 2% threshold. The US, for its part, leads the pack, spending 3.47% of GDP on defense. (You’ll likely remember that former President Donald Trump made a habit of slamming NATO members, particularly Germany, for not paying their fair share. As war ravages Europe again and tensions with China soar, Stoltenberg says that the 2% target, which expires next year, should be the floor – not the ceiling. Finland and Sweden, both vying to join the bloc, respectively spend 2% and 1.3% of GDP on defense.
The politics of entitlements
President Joe Biden has made crystal clear that he believes the protection of Social Security and Medicare benefits – federally protected pension and healthcare entitlements for seniors – is a powerful political weapon that Democrats can wield against Republicans. Some in the GOP have inadvertently helped him. A number of Republicans have signaled support for plans to reduce spending on these programs by raising retirement ages and finding other ways to reduce future benefits, and Florida Sen. Rick Scott has proposed a plan that would require Congress to reauthorize all federal programs every five years. The GOP’s House and Senate leaders, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell, respectively, have said publicly they have no such intentions. But politics aside, the funding problems that Republicans point to are real. On Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report warning that Social Security and Medicare spending will grow much faster than federal tax revenues over the next decade as the fast-rising number of retirees puts measurable strain on the solvency of both programs. Biden says the gap can be filled without cutting benefits by asking wealthier workers to pay more in payroll taxes. Republicans counter that tax increases on the needed scale would weigh heavily on future economic growth. The two parties remain miles apart on solutions.
Will China offer Sri Lanka debt salvation?
Sri Lanka is grasping for debt relief as it heads into a key international meeting with foreign lenders organized by the International Monetary Fund on Friday. Colombo hopes to pump the brakes on the country’s downward economic spiral that saw the country run out of foreign currency and experience its first-ever default last year, triggering food shortages, power cuts, and the wrath of protesters, which forced the resignations of the president and prime minister. The island nation pines for cuts in its debt from international backers, especially China, as the Middle Kingdom is one of Sri Lanka’s biggest creditors, holding about 10% of its $51 billion debt. Beijing has so far been opaque about debt reduction. It expressed ‘support’ for Sri Lanka this week heading into the meeting but stopped short of committing to lowering the debt. Doing so would be a dodgy proposition, not just for Chinese creditors who want to be paid, but for fear that other heavily indebted poor countries will want reductions in their debt burden as well. This puts the 22 million-strong nation, often cited as a cautionary example of China’s debt trap, in yet another tough bind: It needs an emergency IMF loan, but the Fund wants creditors to reduce Sri Lanka's debt beforehand. We’ll be watching to see how far China goes for Sri Lanka.The Graphic Truth: FIFA War Cup
The quarter-finals of the 2022 men's soccer World Cup begin Friday in Qatar, with five teams from Europe, two from South America, and one from Africa. It's going to be war on the pitch in each of the four games, but what would happen if each side actually went to war with each other? We look at who would win each round — and the World Cup — if what counted was not soccer skills but rather military muscle, measured by percentage of GDP spending on defense.
who spends the most on the military?
The Graphic Truth: Who spends the most on the military?
Russian President Vladimir Putin upped the ante this week by announcing a partial mobilization of 300,000 reservists to Ukraine. (For context: Russia invaded Ukraine in February with 150,000 troops.) This development, analysts say, is one of the surest signs to date that Putin’s war is flailing. In fact, since the beginning of the war, observers have been stunned by the ineptitude and ill-preparedness of the Russian military considering that almost 11% of the Kremlin’s total budget goes towards military expenditure. How does Russia’s military investment – and active military personnel count – compare to other G20 nations? We take a look.
This article comes to you from the Signal newsletter team of GZERO Media, a subsidiary of Eurasia Group that offers balanced, nonpartisan reporting, and analysis of foreign affairs.
The Graphic Truth: The cost of America's post-9/11 wars
In the two decades since 9/11, the US government has spent an astounding $8 trillion on the resulting Global War on Terror, which included invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and more limited involvement in other conflicts around the Middle East and Asia. The human costs in affected countries are staggering: almost a million dead, and 38 million refugees or internally displaced people. Meanwhile, a select group of US-based arms companies benefited immensely — if you'd invested in them in 2001, you'd have seen a return twice as large as the average for blue-chip firms during that time frame. Here we take a look at US military spending, top US defense contractors' stock prices, death toll, and displaced people in the US-led Global War on Terror.
Editorial note: An earlier version of this graphic incorrectly listed the amount spent on US veterans' care and the breakdown of deaths in the Global War on Terror. We apologize for the errors.