The order you heard it in

On September 23, Prime Minister Mark Carney told The New York Times that he had looked at the "extreme tail risk" of US military action against Canada. Within a day the story was everywhere, and American officials seemed to be lining up to call the idea absurd, one of them standing right beside Canada's top general.

That is how many people received it: Carney speaks, the world reacts, Washington laughs it off. The dated record runs the other way. Almost every American dismissal came before Carney spoke, some of them months before. Many only met them afterwards, when his interview pulled them back into the news, so they filed them afterwards too.

What Carney actually said

Asked about the possibility of US military action against Canada, Carney said:

"I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk."

"That's just risk management. That's not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to [prepare]."¹²

That is the whole remark. Two things are worth noticing about how it travelled.

The word "invasion" was not his. The Times reporter who conducted the interview said so the next day: Carney "did not use the word 'invasion'... that was our word."³ The word "studied", used in the first Canadian headlines, was not his either.¹

His own government played it down within a day. Defence Minister David McGuinty: "All militaries in the world spend time analyzing risk scenarios."³

Everything that came before

By the time Carney spoke, the question had already been asked, answered and reported many times. The last column shows whether each item came back into the news after his remark.

When	Who	What was said	Back in the news after Sept. 23?
Jan. 7, 2025	Donald Trump, at Mar-a-Lago	Rules out military force, but would use "economic force" to make Canada a state4	Yes, as a line of background
Feb. 9, 2025	Mike Waltz, national security adviser	"I don't think there's any plans to invade Canada"5	No
May 4, 2025	Trump, on Meet the Press	Force against Canada "highly unlikely"; Greenland not ruled out6	Once, in a live blog
Sept. 29, 2025	Pete Hoekstra, US ambassador	Said that securing the US without Canada would be harder and costlier, according to The Hub7	No
Jan. 20, 2026	The Globe and Mail, citing senior officials	The Canadian military has modelled a US invasion, a model rather than a plan89	Yes, widely
Jan. 26, 2026	Hoekstra, to CBC	"That's crazy. We're not a threat."10	No
Sept. 2, 2026	Adm. Samuel Paparo, beside Canada's top general	An order to attack Canada is "absolutely and utterly preposterous"1112	Yes, widely

Two of these carry the story.

The modelling was public eight months before Carney spoke. In January, the Globe reported that the Canadian Armed Forces had modelled a hypothetical US invasion. The military expected clear signs before any invasion, including a US decision to end their joint air defence, NORAD.⁸⁹ That was the same month the US captured Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, and the White House said that for Greenland, "utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option."¹³

The most famous dismissal came three weeks early. On September 2 in Victoria, Paparo, head of US Indo-Pacific Command, was asked whether he would obey an order to attack Canada. With Gen. Jennie Carignan standing beside him, he called the scenario "preposterous" and asked whether he should also be asked "what my attack plans are for the Martians."¹¹ After Carney's remark, that scene was widely read as Washington's answer to him. It was an answer to a reporter, three weeks before Carney said anything.

And after Carney spoke? On September 24, The Globe and Mail reported, under its headline, that the White House said Trump had done more than anyone to protect Canada. The article is for subscribers, and we have not found a free account of the statement.¹⁴ The loudest American voice on the scenario itself was a state governor, Alaska's Mike Dunleavy, who put the chance at "zero".¹⁵

How it came back, in a different order

• On September 24, the Canadian Press story on McGuinty's reply brought back Paparo's "preposterous", and it ran across the country.¹⁶ That night, a CBC analysis opened with Paparo and the Martians, then set Carney's remark against it.¹⁷
• On September 25, an international outlet led with the January modelling itself, under a headline about a "Taliban-style guerrilla fight".¹⁸

The quieter items never came back. Waltz's "no plans to invade" and Hoekstra's "That's crazy" did not appear in any coverage we found after September 23.⁵¹⁰

What changes when you put it back in order

The dismissals were not answers to Carney. The replies that did follow him came from Canada's own defence minister, a state governor, and a White House statement that spoke of trade and protection, not force.

Carney was not starting the conversation. The modelling had been public for eight months, the White House had kept force on the table for Greenland, and US officials had been asked about invading Canada again and again. His remark reads more like an acknowledgement of a question already in circulation than a new alarm.

None of this says the risk is large or small. It says the story many people carry around, a prime minister raising a wild idea and being laughed at, is partly an artefact of the order the pieces arrived in.

How we track it from here

We treat this as a tail risk: something very unlikely that is still worth watching, the way Carney described it. It is not a forecast. It sits apart from our main forecast and adds up with nothing else.

Tail risks

Low-probability risks tracked with warning indicators, not forecasts. These are separate yes/no questions, so they don't add up to 100%: each is the chance that the description happens by its date, with the range of reasonable estimates.

Code	Explanation	Odds	Range	As of
M1	US military action against Canada	0.1%	0.1%–2%	2026-10-07
M2	US refuses to rule out force against Canada	13%	3%–27%	2026-10-07

Instead of guessing at intentions, we watch for concrete warning signs. The first one Canadian officials named is also the easiest to see: any US notice that the two countries no longer share their airspace.

Pre-registered prediction P17 · open · registered 2026-09-28"Shared skies hold"

"Shared skies hold"

Window: 2026-09-28 to 2026-12-31. What counts: Prediction: NO formal US notice ending NORAD or the Canada-US 'shared skies' air-defence arrangement by 2026-12-31. Our probability: about 99% (range 96.2% to 99.7%), from our model: among the countries the Trump administration has put under sustained pressure since late 2024 that had a security arrangement with the US, it formally cut one once (Ukraine, …

Pre-registered prediction P20 · open · registered 2026-09-28"NATO-invasion bill stays parked"

"NATO-invasion bill stays parked"

Window: 2026-09-28 to 2027-01-03. What counts: Prediction: H.R. 7016 (No Funds for NATO Invasion Act) receives NO committee markup and no floor vote before the end of the 119th Congress (2027-01-03). Our probability: about 96% (range 92% to 98%), from our model: bills like it (minority sponsor, Foreign Affairs or Armed Services, some majority support, untouched by late September of the second year) …

We will score these in public when their dates come, including if we are wrong.

How we did this

Every item above is a dated record in our database, tied to the original source. For each one we also record when it first reached the public and, when it came back into the news later, which story brought it back. The table's last column is built from those records, listed below. Our timeline lets you switch between the order things happened and the order people heard them.

The records behind this piece

Each one shows its sources, and when it reached the public.

• At Mar-a-Lago, Trump rules out military force but says he would use "economic force" to make Canada a state. (2025-01-07)
• NSA Mike Waltz (Meet the Press): 'I don't think there's any plans to invade Canada' (2025-02-09)
• Trump (Meet the Press): force against Canada 'highly unlikely... I just don't see it'; does not rule it out for Greenland (2025-05-04)
• Hoekstra, on The Hub's Alberta Edge podcast: if Canada says no on security, the US will go in a different direction; without Canada, that would be harder and costlier (2025-09-29)
• US military strikes Caracas and captures Maduro (Operation Absolute Resolve) (2026-01-03)
• White House (Leavitt): for Greenland, 'utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief's disposal' (2026-01-06)
• Globe: the CAF has modelled a hypothetical US invasion (first time in a century); insurgency-style response; an end to NORAD cooperation would be among the warning signs (2026-01-20) ⚠ Caution: anonymous sources
• Hoekstra at Luke AFB: 'NORAD would have to be altered' if Canada drops the F-35; asked about the US as a threat: 'That's crazy. We're not a threat.' (2026-01-26)
• Adm. Paparo (INDOPACOM), beside Gen. Carignan in Victoria: an order to attack Canada is 'absolutely and utterly preposterous'; 'I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief' (2026-09-02)
• Carney to the NYT: he looked at the 'extreme tail risk' of US military action; 'not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to' (2026-09-23)
• Alaska Gov. Dunleavy at Banff forum: 'zero chance' of a US military incursion; 'Pennsylvania has a better chance of being invaded by West Virginia' (2026-09-25)