MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump said Canada is weighing a proposal to become the 51st U.S. state in order to join his “Golden Dome” missile defense program at no cost. The claim comes amid growing tension with the British monarchy and Trump’s increasingly bold rhetoric on North American unity.

Key Details:

• Trump: Canada can join the Golden Dome for free if it becomes a state — or pay $61 billion as a foreign nation.
• The comments followed King Charles III’s indirect rebuke during a speech in Ottawa.
• Trump previously imposed steep tariffs on Canadian imports and called Trudeau “governor” of the 51st state.

President Trump says he’ll waive Canada’s $61 billion price tag for the Golden Dome if they become the 51st state.

Says they are considering the offer.

Art of the deal🤣 pic.twitter.com/zQHVZnIRc4

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 27, 2025

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump stirred international attention Tuesday by claiming Canada is “considering” statehood in order to gain entry to his Golden Dome missile defense system — a proposal that would carry a $61 billion price tag if the nation remains independent.

In a post to Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State. They are considering the offer!”

The provocative statement came just hours after King Charles III, speaking before Canada’s Parliament, appeared to allude to Trump’s annexation ambitions with a subtle yet pointed critique. Without naming Trump directly, the monarch acknowledged that “many Canadians are feeling anxious and worried about the drastically changing world around them,” adding that the nation faces challenges “that, in our lifetimes, are unprecedented.”

Though largely symbolic, the King’s remarks echo growing unease among Canadian leaders over Trump’s increasingly assertive tone. He first floated the idea of Canadian statehood last year, derisively labeling then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” and placing stiff tariffs on Canadian exports that failed to meet U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) criteria.

While relations have warmed slightly under Trudeau’s successor, Mark Carney, Trump has continued to press the issue. Hosting Carney in the Oval Office earlier this month, Trump told reporters, “Never say never. I’ve had many, many things that were not doable and ended up being doable.”

The Golden Dome system — a high-tech anti-missile shield touted by Trump as America’s next-generation defense apparatus — has become a centerpiece of his second-term national security agenda. Critics have questioned the feasibility and cost, but Trump’s pitch has resonated with populist themes of strength and sovereignty.

Haida Heritage Centre, Haida Gwaii, Queen Charlotte Islands

From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

Halting funding for natural gas expansion cut off many Indigenous communities from affordable energy.

Energy poverty in Canada is both an urgent and underreported crisis that is affecting Indigenous, rural, and remote communities across the country.

This is a resource-rich country, but Canada has continually failed to remedy the glaring energy affordability and accessibility gap in these communities. In particular, Indigenous families and households have to face disproportionately high energy costs due to their geographic isolation, a lack of built infrastructure, and neglect during policymaking.

In a report for the Energy for a Secure Future, authored by Heather Exner-Pirot, titled “The Other Energy Security: Addressing Energy Poverty in Canada’s Indigenous Communities,” she lays out these many problems that must be fixed.

It is a dire situation, with remote Indigenous communities being forced to spend over three times more of their household income on energy than the Canadian average. Twenty-six percent of Indigenous households fall into the category of energy poverty, as defined by the Canadian Urban Sustainability Practitioners (CUSP).

Many families spend more than six percent of their disposable income on energy, and this has worsened in recent years as energy costs rise with inflation and other present economic hardships.

Natural gas is the most plentiful and affordable source of household energy in Canada, but it cannot be accessed by many Indigenous communities that lack pipeline infrastructure. Although natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than diesel, propane, heating oil, or wood, the expansion of gas infrastructure into remote regions has hit snags in recent years.

From the 1980s to the 2000s, Ottawa supported the expansion of infrastructure to rural areas in a bid to alleviate affordability issues. However, the shift to reducing emissions and growing renewable energy has resulted in a lack of support for natural gas infrastructure.

This has had the counterproductive effect of leaving Indigenous communities with higher costs and higher emitting fuels like heating oil and diesel due to a lack of alternatives. As a source of energy, diesel is handy and reliable, but is expensive, heavily polluting, and expensive to transport into remote areas.

Renewables like solar and wind help to meet climate goals, but they are not feasible in remote northern communities because of their unreliability and high upfront costs. Phasing out fossil fuels in rural and remote Canada is a bad decision for the people affected without a fair transition strategy.

Many of the Indigenous leaders featured in Exner-Pirot’s report expressed grave concerns about the impact of energy poverty in their communities. They cited the many difficult choices that they have to make, such as having to pick between adequate heating or food.

These leaders are frustrated with the decisions made by distant authorities that prioritize ambitious sustainability goals instead of immediate, practical solutions. Many explicitly called for the expansion of natural gas, declaring it to be feasible, cost-effective, and cleaner than their current options.

One of the more striking statements is their assertion that withholding federal funding from natural gas projects actively denies Indigenous communities relief from energy poverty.

There is good evidence that reveals the benefits of expanding natural gas.

Red Lake, Ontario saw its energy costs fall by 70 percent once it was connected to natural gas infrastructure. Alberta’s Bigstone Cree Nation formerly used propane for decades, but then saw their energy security and affordability greatly improve after the province expanded the natural gas network.

The O’Chiese First Nation, also in Alberta, has been a model for energy autonomy and energy development, having harnessed its natural gas production for the benefit of the whole community.

Exner-Pirot’s report ends with several clear recommendations:

• Equal treatment of all fuels under carbon pricing to eliminate undesirable incentives
• Expanded eligibility for funding programs to include transitional fuels like natural gas
• Financial support for Indigenous-led energy security projects
• Explicit provincial targets and timelines for natural gas infrastructure expansion, using Ontario’s Natural Gas Expansion Program as a model

There is no debate that Canadian energy policy in Indigenous and remote communities has to change immediately. As they currently stand, they are exacerbating energy poverty by cutting out transitional and practical solutions.

No one-size-fits-all approach works for the countless Indigenous communities that reside in Canada, and they each need a tailored approach that respects their geographic and economic realities, as well as their right to self-determination.