Canada’s relationship with the United States may be passing through one of its most difficult political periods in years, but the machinery that protects the continent is still running. Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan has stressed that military cooperation between the two countries remains strong even as trade negotiations have collapsed and Ottawa looks more aggressively toward Europe and other partners. Her assessment highlights an important distinction in the increasingly complicated bilateral relationship: elected governments can clash over tariffs, sovereignty and economic policy while soldiers, commanders and defence officials continue working together on shared security responsibilities. Recent joint meetings, NORAD cooperation and high-level military exchanges show that those institutional connections have not disappeared with the political tensions surrounding them.
The Military Relationship Has Continued Through the Political Dispute
Carignan made the distinction particularly clear during the Indo-Pacific Chiefs of Defense Conference in Victoria, British Columbia. Canada and the United States jointly hosted the gathering, putting senior Canadian and American commanders beside each other at precisely the moment their governments were dealing with an escalating economic dispute. Carignan described the job of defence chiefs as translating political objectives into military effects and said the two militaries continue meeting and coordinating their work. The message was that political leaders set national policy, but military professionals still have operational responsibilities that do not disappear when governments disagree.
Her American counterpart offered a similarly positive description. U.S. Pacific Command chief Adm. Samuel Paparo called Canada an “indispensable” partner and emphasized the importance of cooperation in both the Indo-Pacific and the defence of North America. Paparo said professional military relationships remain focused on the practical requirement to defend shared territory even during political disagreements. That does not mean commanders operate independently of elected governments. Rather, it demonstrates how deeply routine cooperation has become after decades of joint planning, exercises, intelligence sharing and continental defence.
NORAD Makes the Canada–U.S. Defence Relationship Unusually Deep
The strongest evidence of that institutional connection is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. NORAD is not simply an alliance consultation mechanism. It is a binational military command in which Canadian and American personnel work within a common structure to provide aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning for North America. Its origins stretch back to the 1950s, with the formal agreement establishing the command signed in 1958. Maritime warning was later added to NORAD’s responsibilities in 2006.
Canada contributes aircraft, bases, command-and-control infrastructure and roughly 1,000 Canadian Armed Forces personnel to NORAD activities. The Canadian portion of the North Warning System stretches across the North, while Canadian command facilities in Winnipeg and North Bay form part of the broader continental network. Ottawa is also implementing a $38.6-billion, 20-year modernization program covering surveillance, communications, weapons, northern infrastructure and research. Those investments illustrate why military ties cannot easily be switched on and off according to the political climate. The two countries have spent generations building defence systems designed to function together every day.
Recent Meetings Show Cooperation Is More Than Diplomatic Language
The Victoria conference offered a particularly visible example of continuing military coordination. Canada’s Department of National Defence said Carignan and Paparo jointly hosted the 28th annual Indo-Pacific Chiefs of Defense Conference from August 31 to September 2. Senior military leaders and security specialists gathered to discuss regional threats, cooperation and emerging challenges under the theme of strengthening collective security in a changing Indo-Pacific environment. NATO Military Committee chair Adm. Giuseppe Cavo Dragone also attended and met both commanders.
Only days later, Carignan travelled to Colorado Springs and visited the headquarters of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command at Peterson Space Force Base on September 10. U.S. military documentation said the visit focused on reinforcing the binational NORAD partnership, strengthening relationships among senior leaders and reaffirming Canada’s commitment to continental defence. The sequence is significant because these were not symbolic anniversary events left over from a more comfortable period in bilateral relations. They occurred while political and economic tensions were already highly visible. Operational contact between military leaders was continuing alongside, rather than being suspended by, those disputes.
The Political and Trade Dispute Is Still Significant
None of Carignan’s comments erase the substantial disagreements between Ottawa and Washington. Canada–U.S. trade negotiations collapsed in August after intensive talks failed to produce an agreement. The Trump administration subsequently imposed 50% duties on roughly $20 billion in Canadian exports across several categories, while Prime Minister Mark Carney announced dollar-for-dollar Canadian retaliation on selected American goods beginning September 8. Both governments blamed the other side for the breakdown.
Those disputes have since expanded into wider arguments about Canadian sovereignty and international partnerships. Carney has pursued deeper relationships with European governments while insisting that Canada will determine its own economic and diplomatic relationships. In September, tensions rose again after discussions about a closer Canada–European Union arrangement drew criticism and tariff threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. Carney responded by arguing for stronger Canada–Europe cooperation while saying it was not intended to create a rival bloc to Washington. The contrast helps explain Carignan’s emphasis: military cooperation remains strong, but it is operating against a much more difficult political backdrop than the one that existed for much of NORAD’s history.
Canada Is Diversifying Its Defence Relationships at the Same Time
Ottawa’s response to the changing international environment has not been to abandon the United States militarily. Instead, Canada has been adding other partnerships around the existing North American relationship. In September, the government formally applied to join the United Kingdom-led Joint Expeditionary Force, a rapid-response grouping involving 10 northern European NATO countries. Canada has also explored greater defence-industrial cooperation with European partners and participated as an observer in discussions connected with the Global Combat Air Programme.
That diversification matters because defence procurement and defence diplomacy are increasingly becoming part of Canada’s broader effort to reduce strategic dependence on any single partner. Reuters has reported that Canada and several European allies are seeking more non-U.S. defence options as questions about Washington’s long-term approach to alliances persist. At the same time, Canada’s geography makes extensive continental cooperation with the United States difficult to replace. NORAD, shared airspace, Arctic approaches and deeply integrated defence infrastructure create practical realities that differ substantially from ordinary procurement choices. Ottawa can broaden its partnerships without automatically dismantling the structures it already operates with Washington.
Higher Canadian Defence Spending Could Change the Balance
Canada is also entering this period with a substantially larger defence budget. The federal government says the country reached NATO’s previous benchmark of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defence during the 2025–26 fiscal year. More than $63 billion was counted toward Canadian defence expenditures, including investments in personnel, military readiness, equipment, infrastructure and the defence industrial base. Ottawa has now committed to the newer NATO investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including 3.5% for core defence capabilities and 1.5% for broader security-related investments.
Those numbers have implications for Canada–U.S. military relations. For years, American governments of different political stripes pressed Canada and other NATO members to contribute more to collective defence. A better-funded Canadian Armed Forces potentially gives Ottawa more capacity to protect the Arctic, modernize NORAD infrastructure and contribute to allied operations while simultaneously building relationships beyond Washington. It could therefore produce an unusual combination: greater Canadian strategic autonomy alongside continued operational integration with the United States. The two outcomes are not necessarily contradictory when Canada’s security interests stretch from the Arctic and Atlantic to Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
Strong Military Ties Have Limits, but They Provide Stability
The durability of military cooperation should not be mistaken for a guarantee that defence relations are immune from politics. Governments ultimately determine budgets, procurement choices, treaty commitments and the missions their armed forces undertake. A prolonged political confrontation could therefore affect military policy over time, particularly if it altered procurement decisions or broader alliance strategies. Carignan’s comments are narrower: at the professional and operational level, Canadian and American forces continue communicating and carrying out their established responsibilities.
For now, that distinction is visible in both words and actions. Canadian and American commanders jointly hosted Indo-Pacific military leaders, Carignan visited NORAD headquarters, Canada continues spending billions to modernize continental defence, and American commanders continue publicly describing Canada as an essential partner. At the same time, Ottawa is expanding its European defence relationships while its economic dispute with Washington remains unresolved. The result is a bilateral relationship moving at two different speeds: increasingly contentious in important areas of politics and trade, yet still highly integrated wherever the daily defence of North America requires Canadian and American forces to work side by side.
