Executive Summary

• President Trump’s approach has rescued the Canadian Liberal party.
• Canada as the state would likely shift the balance of power in the House.
• Russia has made and broken 10 agreements and promises with Ukraine since 1994. Ukranians know a cease fire will likely only be a prelude for another Russian attack.
• China is expected to cover over 20% of the U.N.’s 2025 spending plan.
• Hardliners demand Iran accelerate production of a nuclear weapon.

Unintended Consequences and Third-Order Effects

Making good decisions can be difficult for many reasons.  One reason is the availability of reliable data on the situation, another is solid analysis of facts to make future predictions and down-the-road decisions on second and third order effects tracible and logical.  That is to say; can leaders draw a line from today’s decisions to potential impacts in the near and mid-term, based on analysis of facts and the ability to react to unforeseen consequences?  If leaders cannot draw that line, a series of decisions leading to the preferred outcome, then the analysis needs work.  In many cases assumptions color the facts in terms of importance and relevance and, at times, even dismiss facts that are pertinent.  This is the challenge being faced by not only the Trump Administration, but all executives in government.

For example, the discussion about Canada as a US State had predictable consequences and may not be the desired end state if leaders take that scenario to a logical conclusion.  In 2024 the Canadian Left was in retreat, Prime Minister Trudeau’s low popularity and lack of progress curbing inflation put Liberals about 20 points behind Conservatives.  The suggestion by President Trump that Canada become the 51^st state and Trump’s targeting of the former friend and partner with 25% tariffs, precipitated the entry of Mark Carney into the fray and resulted in his election with 85% of the party’s vote.  If Carney wins the general election (currently preferred by 61% of voters over Conservative Poilievre) it will mark a shift further away from Conservatives to Liberals.  The first predictable consequence to this suggestion was the rescue of the Canadian Liberal party.  The next predictable consequence of forcing Canada to become the 51^st state should also be a concern.

If Carney wins the general election, and US tariffs against Canada have the expected effects on an already under-performing Canadian economy, the move to the Left…or more precisely the move away from the US, will pick up momentum.  All this could still result, in the minds of some, in Canada being the next state to join the union.  However, this might not be the long-term effect President Trump desires.

There are 435 seats in the US House.  Seats are apportioned each ten years after the census. Canada, with 30 million people, would become the second most populous state and garner 36 seats in the Congress.[1] California would lose four, Texas three, Florida, New York and Illinois each two, and other states one seat.  About 18 seats would shift from Blue states and 18 from Red states. Seats from red states, if it follows the shift to the Liberal party in Canada, would mean that the House would likely shift from Republican to Democratic control.

About a third of Canadians believe both of their parties are too extreme.  Last September, half of Canadian voters (48%) said there were no federal political parties or leaders that represented their views.[2] Now, 63% of Canadians believe Trump’s threat to annex Canada should be taken seriously and that buying Canadian products (79%) and stopping travel (66%) to the US are ways to respond to the Trump tariffs.[3] The consequence is that Canadians’ historic positive opinion of a national friendship that goes deeper than economic and military alliances, has fallen apart. This erosion has happened very quickly, with positive views of the US falling almost 20 percentage points compared to last year. Today, the data suggests only one Canadian in three has a positive view of the US.[4]

As a result, Canada as the 51^st state could shift the balance of power decidedly in favor of the Democratic Party. Of the 36 seats going to Canada 23 to 25 would conceivably be democratic. The Republican Party would lose 7 or more, shifting the numbers from 218 to 211 for Republicans and a gain for the Democratic party to 224. This could mark a historic shift from the last 30 years of congressional control.  From 1932 until 1994, Democrats controlled the House for all but 4 of those years. Since 1994 the control has moved back and forth with very narrow margins for the party in control. It might take years, or decades, for republicans to once again secure control of the US House of Representatives. In the Senate, it is conceivable democrats would pick up both new seats from a Canadian state, making the margin of control closer (53 to 49) but still with Republicans holding the majority until the mid-terms in 2026.

This leads to more third order effects on the international scene.  Canadians and many Europeans do not understand why this tariff war has been manufactured against them.  In FY 2024, the US Border Patrol apprehended 23,721 people who illegally crossed the northern border. That’s 1.5% of all illegals. Recent years show very low numbers on the northern border: 2023 (10,021), and 2022 (2,238), according to the CBP website.  In fact, throughout Trump’s first term as president, Border Patrol made about 14,000 total apprehensions of people crossing the northern border.[5] Confusion also stems from the administration’s tariff rationale.  Raising tariffs to generate income is different than tariffs as a punitive measure for illegal border crossings.  If border apprehensions come down, will tariffs stay in place to raise revenue?  If so, what is the incentive for nations to negotiate or limit the flow of illegals? If Trump is willing to ignore treaty obligations (some of which he made in his first term), especially with former “friends”, other countries will be very cautious about making deals with the US. As the Wall Street Journal said recently, “…if a North American trade war persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in history.”[6]  An America that cannot be trusted could risk losing its position as the leader of the free world.

Brief Updates by Country 

Ukraine:  Russia recently increased attacks against Ukraine. This follows the U.S. decision to halt intelligence sharing and weapons deliveries to Ukraine as a result of President Zelinsky’s poor performance in the Oval Office.  Although Ukraine now supports a US brokered cease fire, President Putin on March 13th did not fully embrace the U.S. proposal for a ceasefire, stating that there were “nuances” that required “painstaking research.” Clearly since Russian forces are advancing in the war a ceasefire is not high on Putin’s agenda.  Zelensky was correct though in not wanting to trust Russia.  Since 1994 Russia has made and broken 10 agreements and promises with Ukraine, resulting in the deaths of hundreds.  Ukranians know that a cease fire will likely only be a prelude for another Russian attack after he has time to rearm and replenish his troops and material.

China:  Despite its economic slowdown, China is expected to cover over 20% of the U.N.’s 2025 spending plan. This would be an 8-point increase from 2021. Last year the U.S. covered 22%. China is also the second-largest contributor to WHO. Chinese officials are taking senior roles at U.N. agencies as well, including as head of the Food and Agriculture Organization. In Ms. Elise Stefanik’s confirmation hearing to serve as US Ambassador to the UN, Sen. Pete Ricketts expressed concern that employment of Chinese nationals in the U.N. has grown 85% between 2009 and 2021.  These changes are happening while the U.S. becomes more isolated in the U.N. The US voted against a General Assembly resolution last month that called for an end to the war in Ukraine and has also vetoed several Security Council resolutions urging a ceasefire in Gaza, alienating Muslim-majority countries.

Iran: Iran appears to be reevaluating the doctrine of establishing a chain of well-equipped militias far from its own borders as a protective barrier for its own territory. Israel’s recent military successes demonstrated to Tehran that the vision of positioning a “Ring of Fire” around Israel has not succeeded.  The debate includes reformers led by President Pezeshqian who advocate reconciliation with the US and EU through a new nuclear deal. However, hardliners demand that Iran accelerate production of a nuclear weapon, especially after its air defense systems were knocked out by the Israeli air force.[7] This debate may have far reaching effects in the region.

Conclusions

Although the first weeks of the Trump administration were successful in controlling the narrative and pushing multiple agendas at the same time, it appears that long term effects and discontinuities in messaging need to be more of a focus going forward.  Walking away from decades of cooperation and common defense with allies as well as more recent trade agreements with close neighbors may have lasting, and detrimental consequences if not managed with clear objectives communicated to voters and allies alike.  Seventy-five years ago, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson used a speech to draw a line in East Asia laying out the American defensive perimeter to prevent the spread of communism. It ran through the main islands of Japan, Okinawa and the Philippines but excluded South Korea and Taiwan. It was called the “Acheson Line.”  Months later, North Korea launched a military offensive across the 38th parallel, with many historians pointing to the Acheson Line for emboldening the action.

New administrations often come to power with more than their fair share of hubris.  That hubris is then tempered with reality and the consequences of decisions made without the benefit of analysis or a long-term view.  It remains to be seen if this administration will see the value of our leadership position on the global stage while trying to correct problems with the economy.

[1] See:  https://apportionmentcalculator.com/#google_vignette

[2] See:  https://angusreid.org/canada-centrism-extremism-political-spectrum-left-wing-right-wing-poilievre-trudeau/

[3] See:  https://acsmetropolisca-wpuploads.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/10110850/US-Threat-and-Canadian-Response-1.pdf

[4] See:  https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-united-states-donald-trump-poll

[5] See:  https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2021-Aug/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Monthly%20Encounters%20%28FY%202000%20-%20FY%202020%29%20%28508%29.pdf

[6] See: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-tariffs-25-percent-mexico-canada-trade-economy-84476fb2

[7] See:  A Fateful Debate in Tehran by Ehud Yaari.  December 2024, The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune

About Michael Snodgrass

Michael Snodgrass retired from the U.S. Air Force as a Major General in 2011. He is currently the President of SG Strategic Solutions LLC.

He has extensive command and leadership experience in the U.S. Air Force and joint world, as well as a wide range of disciplines, including defense and aerospace, technology development, government acquisitions and requirements, foreign military sales and leadership coaching.

He consults with the government, defense industry and other businesses on a wide range of topics. In 2019 he became an adjunct contract professor supporting the U.S. Air Force on strategy and policy development.

From 2014 to 2016 he was Vice President, International Business Development at Raytheon Corp. Prior to that he was Director of U.S. Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration programs at Engility Corp.

General Snodgrass joined Burdeshaw and Associates in 2012 and is a Senior Consultant for numerous clients in the defense and aerospace sectors.

Prior to his retirement, he was U.S. Air Force Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs; responsible for formulating and executing USAF Policy, Strategy and Programs for Building Partnerships and integrating Air Force policy with international partner goals, totaling over $40 billion total program value.

From 2007 to 2010 he served as the first Chief of Staff, U.S. Africa Command. There, he was responsible for the construction of the country’s newest Unified Geographic Command.

He has commanded at the squadron, group and wing levels and has lived in/visited over 50 nations while in uniform. He has over 3500 flight hours in various aircraft including the F-16, F-15, F-4, C-130 and HH-60, as well as over 100 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm.

In addition, General Snodgrass teaches leadership and management courses. In his spare time, he provides leadership coaching and training to the U.S. Air Force ROTC unit at Florida State University.