Reading the Trump Administration's Tea Leaves on Pausing the Joint Defense Review Board

Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon Under Secretary for Defense Policy, recently posted on X, that the U.S. was pausing any further meeting of the bi-national military group between Canadian and American defense officials. He mentioned that the motive was that Canada had failed to achieve its stated defense objectives, including spending levels of five percent. Social media announcements seem to be this U.S. administration’s preferred way of communicating information instead of thru regular channels between governments. Colby had for example pressured Australia to commit to making a military contribution in the event of war over Taiwan, something so far spared Canada. Colby has been instrumental in weaning European NATO off its dependence on the U.S. military, and in providing weaponry and munitions to Ukraine. Canada’s slow to ineffective procurement practices have left it with an aging fleet of outdated tanks, aircraft and ships, and a submarine fleet of which only a single vessel can submerge. Canada has widely been seen in Washington as a defense free rider, being able to shift spending from national security to social entitlements.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney pointed out that the group has not met in fact since 2024, despite the mandate to meet every six months, so it was already effectively paused.  Why blast out the tweet then?  Was Mr. Colby trying to communicate a sudden concern with Canada?  Maybe he was putting pressure on the Carney government to decide on the F-35 purchase, which they pledged to do last year?  Was it to put pressure on the Carney government to rescind the pledge to no longer buy 75% of its arms from the U.S.?  Is the Donlad Trump administration trying to pressure Canada to not draw closer to European defense firms?  Of course, all of these are current U.S. concerns and definitely reflect the thinking of the Trump administration when it comes to Canada.  After all, President Trump’s recently released National Security Doctrine clearly states that the U.S. considers the Western Hemisphere to be its sphere of influence, and the nations within it as U.S. vassals. 

What is the most likely reason for the tweet, is not in fact a specific concern about the Canadian military, but instead a concern about our negotiating stance in CUSMA.  Why would a DoD official get involved in trade negotiations? The same reason why the president would send the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth to Kentucky to campaign against a sitting GOP representative Thomas Massie in his primary race (Massie was defeated by the President’s pick).  Donald Trump has reacted strongly to Mark Carney’s public rallying of middle powers against the White House’s dropping interest in multilateral institutions and free trade. Trump clearly takes pleasure in appeasement. Consider when Ursula von de Leyen ran to him to secure a trade “deal” for the EU, prostrating herself before him just to get EU wide 15% tariffs imposed, which he threatens to change almost daily on a whim, yet the EU is stuck with it now.  Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General has actually called him “daddy”, to try to convince Trump from abandoning NATO, and in doing so provoked social media condemnation from Europeans over his demeaning of himself and the alliance. This attempt at agreeability did not succeed: 5,000 troops permanently pulled out of Germany and a stop order on a long-planned deployment underway of a U.S. Armored Brigade Combat Team of 4,000 troops to Poland.

The U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer gave proof to suspect that this planning board “pause” has little to do with defense, and everything to do with the trade negotiations for CUSMA, a few weeks ago.   When he was testifying before the Congress, he mentioned that Canada was only one of two nations that had retaliated against the imposition of tariffs by the United States along with China. The United States is demanding preconditions to even begin negotiations, and Canada has not played ball so far.  This has provoked key advisors in the Trump White House. See for example the comments of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and meddling in the Alberta separation issue by Scott Bessent the Treasury Secretary as exhibit A of the extent that this administration will go to exert pressure on Canada.  Historically the U.S. has preferred to interact with an intact Canada, but this may no longer hold. The Mexicans under President Claudia Scheinbaum are facing their own pressures from the United States on trade and the border, and she has acted as she sees in her nation’s interests.

Canada, like China, adopted the “elbows up” moniker in 2025 when Trump first launched his trade war, and our continuing boycotts of American spirits and travel with buy Canadian sentiment have inflicted harm on some American businesses and been easily leveraged publicly by Donald Trump. China, an economy many times the size of Canada hit back even harder on America in 2025, and Trump backed down in the face of a certain recession and virtual embargo between the countries as reciprocal tariff levels went over 100%.  Trump, who seems to admire the deference received by autocrats like Xi and Putin, has managed cordial relations.  His irritation and political action is directed primarily at America’s allies and friends, especially Canada, whom he has consistently accused of being Nasty and “ripping off” America. The White House was particularly unfriendly to the political push back of Ontario Premier Doug Ford, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and now Prime Minister Mark Carney, precisely because Canadians have exceptionally and unexpectedly resisted current U.S. policy trade objectives.

 With the CUSMA negotiations underway and the lack of progress on the Canadian side in acquiescing to American demands to even begin the serious negotiations, because Canada refuses to respond to erratic demands, expect even more pressure to be exerted upon the government and people as the July 1^st deadline for CUSMA is approached.  This is all part of the stated goal to separate the trilateral trade agreement into two bilateral deals, one with Mexico and one with Canada. The original 1995 NAFTA was designed to satisfy Mexico and Canada regarding the historical “spokes of a wheel” treaty approach practiced by Washington. Donald Trump, through Jamieson Greer, is seeking the maximalist goal of tariffed imports into the U.S. but largely tariff free U.S. imports into both Canada and Mexico.  The end goal is to make Canada even more dependent on the U.S., not less, fitting into the 2025 National Security Strategy. 

Donald Trump has been known to use a broad range of political levers available to him to seek advantage over anyone on the other side of the negotiating table.  He did it for decades in New York Real Estate. Now that he has the entire U.S. government at his disposal, he is expected to put maximal pressure on Canada, even sacrificing security goals, to compel Ottawa to agree to its trade demands. CUSMA is a Senate approved treaty that requires Congressional approval to exit, but if a new treaty is signed, it does not. Since the Trump administration is not assured of a complacent House of Representatives or Senate after the November mid-term elections, despite his electoral redistricting, he is under time pressure obtain Canada’s acquiescence.  Expect more significant U.S. pressure exerted on Canada than pausing the Permanent Joint Board as the July 1^st CUSMA deadline approaches.   

Raymond Floreani (BA Econ) had a 30-year management career in the private sector and is currently studying graduate level law. 

Dr. Julian Spencer-Churchill is associate professor of international relations at Concordia University, and author of Militarization and War (2007) and of Strategic Nuclear Sharing (2014). He has published extensively on Pakistan security issues and arms control and completed research contracts at the Office of Treaty Verification at the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, and the then Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO). He has also conducted fieldwork in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Egypt, and Taiwan, and is a consultant. He is a former Operations Officer, 3 Field Engineer Regiment, from the latter end of the Cold War to shortly after 9/11. He is currently collaborating with the Combat Modelling group at the Trevor Dupuy Institute.