What would have to change first

On September 23, asked by The New York Times whether he had ever considered there was a chance of US military action against Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney said: "I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk." He added: "That's just risk management. That's not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to."¹²³

Event · 2026-09-23 · statement · CACarney 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'

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'

In a 1-hour on-the-record interview at NYT headquarters in Manhattan (Wed 2026-09-23, during his UNGA trip), asked, in the interviewer's words, whether he had "ever considered there was a chance of US military action against Canada" (Matina Stevis-Gridneff's X thread, 2026-09-23), Carney said after a long pause: "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]. He declined to say what the examination involved. The word 'invasion' was the NYT's, not Carney's (Stevis-Gridneff to CTV, 2026-09-24). No DND/PCO document or description of the process was released. Snopes (2026-09-25) and The Independent paraphrased the question as whether he took Trump's 51st-state threats seriously; the interviewer's own thread gives the question as quoted above.

Documented by

• CBC News / The Canadian Press, “Carney tells NYT he studied risk of U.S.-led military action in Canada”, 2026-09-23.
• CP24 / CTV News, “CP24/CTV live updates: Carney NYT comments; McGuinty, Solomon, MacKay, Stevis-Gridneff reactions”, 2026-09-24.
• The Independent (Yahoo News), “Canada made plans on what to do if Trump invaded, Mark Carney reveals”, 2026-09-24.

This page takes him at his word. It is a standing tracker of one extreme tail risk, US military action against Canada, run the way he described: as risk management, not as a prediction. How the story of his remark spread is told in the first piece in this series.

Why track something this unlikely

Because the cost of missing it would be very large, and the warning signs are public. Planners call this kind of event a tail risk: very rare, very costly. Watching for it is not the same as expecting it.

It also widens what we watch. A journal about resource trade would not normally follow NORAD's air-defence arrangements, US travel advisories for Canada, a bill in Congress about invading NATO allies, or exactly how US officials word their answers when asked about force. Tracking this risk puts all of them on our watch list, next to the pipelines and the tariffs. Most of the time they will show nothing. When they do move, we will see it early, and it may bear on more than this one risk.

The word "invasion" is not his. The Times reporter said so the next day: Carney "did not use the word 'invasion' to be clear, that was our word."⁴ We keep to his wording.

Our odds are estimates, not measurements: both below come from our models. How we set them.

Our odds

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

The first question is about force: 0.05%, between 0.05% and 2.1%, by the end of 2027, according to our model. It counts only an actual military action against Canadian territory, forces or infrastructure. The model looks at the warning signs that came before past US uses of force, from a military build-up to a cut in defence cooperation; with none of them present for Canada today, it relies on the record of US treaty allies, none of which the US has ever attacked, and its odds would rise quickly if those signs appeared.

The second is about words: 13%, between 3% and 27%, according to our model. It asks whether, by the end of 2027, a senior US official (the president, vice-president, White House press secretary, a cabinet secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) will publicly decline to rule out force against Canada. Calling force unlikely without excluding it does not count; refusing to answer when asked directly about Canada, or calling force an option, does. Only statements made after September 28, 2026, when the question was registered, count. The model counts how often, and how soon, a senior official kept force on the table against the other countries Washington has put under pressure since late 2024, then lowers that rate for Canada, which the US has not tied to violence and for which the president chose "economic force" when asked directly in January 2025.

The second is far likelier, and it would itself be a warning sign. Words are cheap and come first. This step has happened once already, over Greenland, not Canada: in January the White House said that "utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option."⁵ Two weeks later, the president said at Davos: "I don't want to use force. I won't use force."⁶

Event · 2026-01-06 · statement · USWhite House (Leavitt): for Greenland, 'utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief's disposal'

White House (Leavitt): for Greenland, 'utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief's disposal'

Emailed statement to CNBC after a joint statement by Denmark and European NATO leaders: "The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief's disposal." Stephen Miller (CNN, 2026-01-05) also refused to rule out force: "Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland." The closest precedent of a US official explicitly keeping force on the table against a NATO ally's territory.

Documented by

• CNBC, “Trump weighs using U.S. military to acquire Greenland: White House”, 2026-01-06.

Event · 2026-01-21 · statement · USTrump at Davos: 'I don't want to use force. I won't use force' on Greenland; to Carney: 'He wasn't so grateful'

Trump at Davos: 'I don't want to use force. I won't use force' on Greenland; to Carney: 'He wasn't so grateful'

"We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that... people thought I would use force, but I don't have to use force — I don't want to use force. I won't use force." Same speech: "Canada gets a lot of freebies from us... I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful." A 'framework' with Rutte followed the same day (see 2026-01-21-greenland-tariff-threat-dropped).

Documented by

• NPR, “Trump says 'I won't use force' to obtain Greenland, in Davos speech”, 2026-01-21.

What would have to change first

Force against a close ally would need preparation, and preparation leaves traces. That holds for an invasion. A limited action, such as a strike on a target inside Canada or an incident at sea or in the Arctic, could come with much less warning, so two of the signs below are there for that case. We watch thirteen in all. Here is where each stands today.

Area	What we watch	Where it stands today
Military posture	US forces near the northern border	Only a southern-border mission; Canada described as a partner
Military posture	Exercises near Canada	Recent Arctic exercises held with Canada
Military posture	Troops or Guard sent to the northern border	None found
Military posture	US talk of striking targets inside Canada (for example, drug labs)	First check with the next weekly review
Military posture	US enforcement or incidents in Canadian waters, the Arctic or airspace	First check with the next weekly review
Alliance	NORAD cooperation	Operating normally; the Pentagon paused its part in the Permanent Joint Board on Defence (May)
Alliance	Five Eyes intelligence sharing	Full membership
Alliance	Allied statements about defending Canada	Closer ties with Europe; no ally has addressed a US–Canada case
Diplomacy	Travel advisories, embassy staff, ambassador	Normal on both sides
Diplomacy	Official statements on force	Ruled out or dismissed for Canada
Law and politics	Authorizations or emergencies naming Canada	None; a bill to bar invading NATO allies sits in committee
Law and politics	Stories that would justify force	Insults and economic pressure; one unsupported accusation of election meddling (September 29); no justification for force
Canada	Canada's own preparations	Spending and Arctic build-up; nothing aimed south

Posture. The US commander for North America told Congress in March that "American and Canadian personnel work side by side." His only border mission is in the south. NORAD's pilots made 16 joint intercepts of Russian aircraft in 2025 (pages 7 and 10).⁷

Travel advisories. The US State Department rates Canada "Level 1: Exercise Normal Precautions," its lowest level, unchanged since June 2025 (checked October 1).⁸ Canada asks travellers to the US to "take normal security precautions."⁹

Law. Nothing in US law names Canada as a threat. The one bill in play points the other way. H.R. 7016 would bar federal funds for "the invasion of" any NATO member (section 2(a)). It has 104 co-sponsors and has not moved past committee referral since January 12.¹⁰

Event · 2026-01-12 · document · USH.R. 7016 'No Funds for NATO Invasion Act' introduced (Keating, Bacon, Hoyer, Boyle +23): bars funds and any officer from executing an invasion of a NATO member

H.R. 7016 'No Funds for NATO Invasion Act' introduced (Keating, Bacon, Hoyer, Boyle +23): bars funds and any officer from executing an invasion of a NATO member

Sec. 2(a): no federal funds 'for the invasion of (1) a country that is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; or (2) any territory to which Article 5... applies'; Sec. 2(b): 'No officer or employee of the United States may take any action to execute an invasion'. Covers Canada by its terms. Referred to HFAC and HASC; no further action as of bill-status update 2026-09-19 (104 cosponsorship records). Greenland-specific amendments (Gallego; Murkowski-Shaheen) also filed, not tracked here.

Documented by

• GovInfo (US GPO), “H.R. 7016 (119th): No Funds for NATO Invasion Act (introduced text and bill status)”, 2026-01-12.

Stories. On September 29, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told Canadian lobbyists to leave the US and warned that Canada would "pay even more dearly" if it interfered in elections in Maine or Michigan. He offered no evidence of interference: his complaint was about lobbying, and he named no military step. An accusation like this is what our "stories that would justify force" line watches for, so we log it. On its own it is a statement, and statements count only as a pattern. Prime Minister Carney laughed it off: "No response to either."¹¹

Event · 2026-09-29 · statement · USNavarro tells Canadian lobbyists to 'get the hell out' of the US and warns Canada would 'pay even more dearly' if it interfered in elections in Maine or Michigan

Navarro tells Canadian lobbyists to 'get the hell out' of the US and warns Canada would 'pay even more dearly' if it interfered in elections in Maine or Michigan

⚠ Caution: unproven allegation Accusation by a US official; no evidence of Canadian election interference was presented. A claim someone made that nobody has confirmed.

Speaking at a conference in Washington on 29 September 2026, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told Canadian lobbyists to leave the US and said: "if you interfere in our elections in Maine or Michigan you will pay even more dearly" and "Memo to Canada: you cannot do that. OK? That game is up." (CP24). No evidence of Canadian election interference was cited; the complaint concerned Canadian lobbying. An assertion only, not backed by any document or action.

Documented by

• CP24, “PM Carney laughs off Trump adviser telling Canadian lobbyists to 'get the hell out' of U.S. (live updates)”, 2026-09-29.
• Yahoo News Canada (The Canadian Press), “Trump trade adviser says Canada ... (Canadian Press)”, 2026-09-29.

Event · 2026-09-29 · statement · CACarney laughs off Navarro's and Trump's remarks: 'I take note of both comments... No response to either'

Carney laughs off Navarro's and Trump's remarks: 'I take note of both comments... No response to either'

Asked on 29 September 2026 about Peter Navarro's warning to Canadian lobbyists and Trump's recent remarks, Prime Minister Carney laughed and said: "I take note of both comments, how's that? … No response to either." (CP24). No formal Global Affairs Canada reply was found.

Documented by

• CP24, “PM Carney laughs off Trump adviser telling Canadian lobbyists to 'get the hell out' of U.S. (live updates)”, 2026-09-29.

One real downgrade, and it is not military. In May, Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's under secretary for policy, said it was "pausing" its part in the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, an advisory body dating from 1940. He said Canada "has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments."¹² We log it under Alliance. It is a sign of strain, not of preparation.

Event · 2026-05-18 · action · USPentagon 'pausing' the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, the Canada-US advisory body created in 1940

Pentagon 'pausing' the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, the Canada-US advisory body created in 1940

Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's under secretary for policy, announced in posts on X that the Pentagon is "pausing" its participation in the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, an advisory body on continental defence, saying "Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments"; one post linked to Carney's Davos speech. The board is advisory and meets several times a year; NORAD itself was not part of the announcement. Defence Minister McGuinty said Canada would keep working with "trusted partners" and remain ready for "constructive discussions".

Documented by

• CBC News, “Pentagon walks away from Canada-U.S. defence board”, 2026-05-18.

The indicator Canada's own planners named first is NORAD. In January, the Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Armed Forces had modelled a hypothetical US invasion. The report rested on two senior officials who were not named, so it cannot be checked independently. The paper described the model as a conceptual framework, not a plan for carrying out operations, and the officials said an invasion was unlikely.¹³ Among the first signs the military expected: a US decision to end their cooperation in NORAD, the joint air-defence command.¹³ The two militaries are this closely tied, so any break would first have to be public.

Event · 2026-01-20 · statement · CAGlobe: 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

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

⚠ Caution: anonymous sources Based on two senior government officials who were not named; no document has been published. Reported by an outlet citing unnamed sources.

Per two unnamed senior officials (Globe and Mail, as reported by AFP): the Canadian Armed Forces built a conceptual model of a US invasion, "not a military plan". It assumes US forces could overcome Canadian positions on land and at sea in as little as two days, and a Canadian response of insurgency-style tactics (ambushes, hit-and-run). The military expected clear signs beforehand, including a US decision to end bilateral cooperation in NORAD. The officials called an invasion unlikely. Spread internationally (AFP/France 24 and others). The best public evidence of what Carney's 'studied' may cover; not confirmed by the government.

Documented by

• France 24 / AFP, “Canada military models response to US invasion: report”, 2026-01-20.
• The Independent (Yahoo News), “Canada prepping response to hypothetical US military invasion for first time in a century, report says”, 2026-01-21.
• The Globe and Mail, “Military models Canadian response to hypothetical American invasion”, 2026-01-20. paywalled

How today compares with Russia and Ukraine

Before February 2022, the warning signs were visible for months.

• More than 100,000 Russian troops massed near Ukraine's borders.¹⁴
• A large exercise in Belarus "provides cover for positioning Russian forces," a CSIS analysis warned in January (page 5).¹⁵
• Blood supplies moved toward the front.¹⁴
• On January 23, a month before the attack, Washington ordered its diplomats' families out of Kyiv.¹⁶
• Moscow denied everything. In November 2021 it said Russia "has never hatched, is not hatching and will never hatch any plans to attack anyone."¹⁷

Almost none of that is present today. There is no build-up, no forward medical stocks and no evacuation. The rhetoric is about trade and the "51st state," not about why Canada should be attacked. Russia's case also shows why a denial on its own is weak evidence: what mattered was the build-up behind it. Here there is none.

Our dated predictions

We registered four predictions tied to these indicators. Each will be scored in public, including if we are wrong.

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, …

Scored after December 31, 2026.

Pre-registered prediction P18 · open · registered 2026-09-28"Normal diplomatic posture"

"Normal diplomatic posture"

Window: 2026-09-28 to 2027-06-30. What counts: Prediction: the US State Department travel advisory for Canada stays at Level 1 and there is NO ordered or authorized departure of US diplomatic staff from Canada through 2027-06-30. Our probability: about 92% (range 85% to 97%), from our model: how often the State Department raised a US treaty ally from Level 1, or ordered staff out, since 2018, plus the …

Scored after June 30, 2027.

Pre-registered prediction P19 · open · registered 2026-09-28"Gripen triggers NORAD threat"

"Gripen triggers NORAD threat"

Window: 2026-09-28 to 2027-06-30. What counts: Conditional prediction: IF the Government of Canada formally selects the Saab Gripen for any of the remaining fighter aircraft before 2027-06-30, THEN within 30 days of that selection a US official at ambassador level or above publicly says NORAD will change (altered, reduced, reviewed or ended) because of it. Our probability: about 45% (range 19% to 81%), from our …

This one is conditional. It is scored only if Canada chooses the Gripen before June 30, 2027, one month after that choice. If there is no such choice, it expires unscored.

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) …

Scored when the current Congress ends on January 3, 2027.

What has been said

Every US official we found addressing force against Canada has played it down.

• Feb. 9, 2025. Mike Waltz, then national security adviser: "I don't think there's any plans to invade Canada, if that's what you're talking about."¹⁸
• May 4, 2025. President Trump: "it's highly unlikely. I don't see it with Canada."¹⁹
• January 2026. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, asked about Canadians who see the US as a threat: "That's crazy. We're not a threat."²⁰
• Sept. 2, 2026. Adm. Samuel Paparo, head of US Indo-Pacific Command: "I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous." He added: "I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief, but that is a needlessly emotional question."²¹²²
• Sept. 25, 2026. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a state official: "zero chance."²³

Event · 2025-02-09 · statement · USNSA Mike Waltz (Meet the Press): 'I don't think there's any plans to invade Canada'

NSA Mike Waltz (Meet the Press): 'I don't think there's any plans to invade Canada'

Responding to reports that Trudeau believed Trump intended to annex Canada. Waltz framed the policy as 'a reassertion of American leadership in the Western Hemisphere, from the Arctic all the way down to the Panama Canal.'

Documented by

• NBC News, “Trump's national security adviser: 'I don't think there's any plans to invade Canada'”, 2025-02-09.
• NBC News, “Meet the Press – February 9, 2025 (full transcript)”, 2025-02-09.

Event · 2025-05-04 · statement · USTrump (Meet the Press): force against Canada 'highly unlikely... I just don't see it'; does not rule it out for Greenland

Trump (Meet the Press): force against Canada 'highly unlikely... I just don't see it'; does not rule it out for Greenland

Welker: "Would you rule out military force to take Canada?" Trump: "Well, I think we're not going to ever get to that point. It could happen. Something could happen with Greenland... But I think – it's highly unlikely. I don't see it with Canada. I just don't see it, I have to be honest with you." On Greenland: "I don't rule it out... It could happen. I doubt it will, but it certainly could happen with respect to Greenland." Interview at Mar-a-Lago. Note: CTV (2026-09-24) misattributes this to CBS.

Documented by

• NBC News, “Read the full transcript: President Donald Trump interviewed by 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker”, 2025-05-04.

Event · 2026-01-26 · statement · USHoekstra 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.'

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.'

CBC interview (David Common) at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, aired ~2026-01-26. Hoekstra said the US would buy more F-35s and fly them more often into Canadian airspace if Canada did not buy all 88, and NORAD arrangements would have to be rethought if Canada chose the Gripen. Asked about Canadians seeing the US as a threat amid 51st-state and Greenland talk: "That's crazy. We're not a threat." Both a dismissal of the threat and a lever on NORAD.

Documented by

• CBC News, “NORAD pact would change if Canada pulls back from F-35 order, warns U.S. ambassador”, 2026-01-26.

Event · 2026-09-02 · statement · USAdm. 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'

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'

Joint press conference closing the 28th Indo-Pacific Chiefs of Defence Conference in Victoria, B.C., co-hosted by Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan and Adm. Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. Pacific Command (National Defence release), Wed 2026-09-02. Asked under what circumstances he would obey an order to launch military action against Canada, Paparo said: "I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous. I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief but that is a needlessly emotional question," and added: "Would you ask me please, also, what my attack plans are for the Martians?" (Canadian Press; The Maple; CPAC recording at about 7:23-8:16). Carignan stood beside him and did not answer that question. The remarks on military-to-military relations versus politics were Paparo's, in reply to an earlier follow-up addressed to him: such relations are carried out "without emotion" and militaries are "designed to remain apolitical" (CPAC at about 3:43; Canadian Press; Ottawa Citizen). Paparo also called Canada a close and "indispensable" ally (Canadian Press) and said Canada's equipment choices are its own sovereign decision: the US asks for interoperability, not US purchases (CPAC at about 0:33). This came three weeks before Carney's NYT remark.

Documented by

• CPAC, “Military leaders speak with reporters at Indo-Pacific Defense Conference - September 2, 2026”, 2026-09-02.
• National Defence (Government of Canada), “Canada concludes 28th Indo-Pacific Chiefs of Defense Conference in Victoria”, 2026-09-02.
• The Maple, “U.S. Admiral Refuses To Say If He'd Obey Order To Invade Canada”, 2026-09-02.

Event · 2026-09-25 · statement · USAlaska Gov. Dunleavy at Banff forum: 'zero chance' of a US military incursion; 'Pennsylvania has a better chance of being invaded by West Virginia'

Alaska Gov. Dunleavy at Banff forum: 'zero chance' of a US military incursion; 'Pennsylvania has a better chance of being invaded by West Virginia'

Onstage discussion at the Global Business Forum, Banff AB, days after Carney's NYT remark. Dunleavy (R), a state governor, not a federal official. On the same forum Jody Thomas, former national security and intelligence adviser to Trudeau, called a US invasion 'an improbable, slightly impossible' notion.

Documented by

• CTV News / The Canadian Press, “'Zero chance' U.S. attacks Canada, Alaska governor tells conference”, 2026-09-25.

The White House spoke on September 24. That day, The Globe and Mail reported, under its headline, that the White House said Trump had done more than anyone to protect Canada.²⁴ The article is for subscribers, and we have not found a free account of the full statement.

As of September 29, 2026, this is the only federal US reply we have found.

How we'll update it

We check every indicator each week. When one moves, we revise this page, log the change with its date and reason, and say whether our odds change.

A single signal means little. The combination to watch is:

• a break in the military ties, such as NORAD or intelligence sharing;
• together with a refusal to rule out force;
• and any change in forces, the border or diplomatic staff.

If nothing moves, we will say so.