Canada Adrift

How Trudeau Neglected National Security and Sovereignty

Trudeau’s failures are perhaps most glaring in the area of defense spending and procurement. Despite years of promises to meet NATO’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defense, Canada remains far below this benchmark, consistently ranking among the lowest contributors in the alliance. This is not merely a failure to honor international commitments; it is a failure to invest in the fundamental capabilities required to protect Canada itself. The government’s inability to replace aging equipment, from fighter jets to naval vessels, has left the Canadian Armed Forces struggling to fulfill even its most basic responsibilities. For a country with vast territorial waters, an increasingly contested Arctic, and a close partnership with the United States, this neglect is indefensible.

Equally troubling is the state of Canada’s broader strategic posture. Trudeau’s government has often appeared more concerned with projecting an image of Canada as a moral beacon than with addressing hard security realities. This has led to a pattern of overpromising and underdelivering. While Trudeau’s government released a defense policy in 2017 that committed to “Strong, Secure, Engaged,” the actual implementation of this strategy has been halting at best. The policy called for significant investments in personnel, equipment, and capabilities, yet the funding and political will to follow through have been sorely lacking. The result is a Canadian military that is overstretched, under-resourced, and increasingly irrelevant on the global stage.

It is important to acknowledge that Trudeau has not been an unmitigated disaster in every aspect of national security. His government has articulated some important principles regarding Canada’s role in a changing international order. Notably, there has been a recognition that Canada must adapt to the realities of great-power competition and the decline of American hegemony. This has been evident in Trudeau’s rhetorical emphasis on multilateralism and a “rules-based international order,” as well as in the acknowledgment of emerging threats in the Indo-Pacific and Arctic. These pronouncements suggest a certain clarity of vision about Canada’s place in the world, even if that vision has not translated into effective action.

Trudeau’s record also includes some positive steps in aligning Canada’s grand strategy with its geography. There has been a gradual shift in focus toward the North Pacific and Arctic, which aligns with Canada’s natural strategic priorities. However, these efforts have been more symbolic than substantive. Canada’s contributions to the Pacific theater remain marginal, and the absence of a robust Arctic strategy continues to undermine national security. This disconnect between strategy and execution has been a hallmark of Trudeau’s leadership on defense issues.

The most damning critique of Trudeau’s approach to national security lies in his failure to understand that defense and sovereignty are not optional luxuries but core responsibilities of the state. This misunderstanding is evident in the government’s repeated delays and mismanagement of defense procurement projects. From the botched effort to replace the CF-18 fighter jets to the prolonged and still-unresolved plans for new naval vessels, Trudeau’s government has shown a stunning lack of urgency. These delays not only weaken Canada’s military capabilities but also signal to allies and adversaries alike that Canada is not serious about its defense commitments.

Moreover, the Trudeau government’s reluctance to make hard choices on defense has undermined Canada’s credibility as a partner. This is particularly evident in the context of NATO, where Canada’s failure to meet spending commitments has become a source of frustration for allies. At a time when the alliance is facing renewed threats from Russia and an increasingly assertive China, Canada’s underperformance is more than an embarrassment; it is a liability. The same can be said for Canada’s defense relationship with the United States. As Washington grows increasingly focused on great-power competition, Canada risks being seen as a weak link in the North American defense partnership.

Trudeau’s defenders might argue that his government has faced significant constraints, from fiscal pressures to political opposition, which have made it difficult to prioritize defense. While there is some truth to this, it does not excuse the lack of vision and execution that have characterized his approach. Other leaders have faced similar challenges and risen to the occasion; Trudeau has not. His failure to address Canada’s defense and security needs is not a matter of circumstance but of choice.

In assessing Trudeau’s legacy, it is tempting to focus on his strengths as a communicator and his ability to project Canada as a progressive, outward-looking nation. Yet these qualities cannot obscure the reality that his record on national defense and security has been deeply flawed. For all his talk of Canada’s role as a global leader, Trudeau has neglected the fundamental building blocks of sovereignty and security. His tenure has left Canada less prepared, less capable, and less credible in a world that is growing more dangerous by the day.

Justin Trudeau’s time as prime minister will likely be remembered for many things, but his handling of national defense and security will not be among his proudest achievements. While he has occasionally articulated a compelling vision for Canada’s place in the world, his government has consistently failed to back that vision with the necessary resources and resolve. In this sense, Trudeau has not only failed to deliver on his promises but also failed the fundamental test of leadership: the ability to protect and advance the national interest.

Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with DefensePriorities, a think tank in Washington, DC.