Thoughts on the just released 2026 National Defense Strategy

Noah Note

The 2026 National Defense Strategy is out, and with it we get a few references to Canada. While our mention is little, and when there is it is fairly mundane, there is a message. You either step up or get stepped over.

This policy was shadowdropped in the middle of the night, so I decided to quixkly rush to get just about anything out about it. This isn't a fully analysis, but more a quick rundown with some personal thoughts for those who want the quick go of whats happening.

To start, here are the direct mentions of Canada:

"We will engage in good faith with our neighbors, from Canada to our partners in Central and South America, but we will ensure that they respect and do their part to defend our shared interests. And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests.”

The policy continues:

“Canada also has a vital role to play in helping defend North America against other threats, including by strengthening defenses against a missile, and undersea threats. In addition, U.S. partners throughout the Western Hemisphere can do far more to help combat illegal migration as well as to degrade narco-terrorists and prevent U.S. adversaries from controlling or otherwise exercising undue influence over key terrain, especially Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal."

The strategy itself is fairly domestic in focus, with repeated mention of the Western Hemisphere and borders as the key areas for which the United States should focus. It takes a backseat approach to the Indo-Pacific, favoring a collaborative approach to Chinese containment that focuses on “peace through strength,” instead of what the NDS refers to as “confrontation.”

​In this regard, it is funny that despite criticisms today from President Trump regarding Canada’s trade deal with China, as well as criticism over an apparent lack of Canadian support for Golden Dome, the NDS further states that “President Trump seeks a stable peace, fair trade, and respectful relations with China.”

​The strategy further states that “Our goal in doing so is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them. Rather, our goal is simple: To prevent anyone, including China, from being able to dominate us or our allies.”

​On today’s Golden Dome comments, I wanna take note that Canada has been discussing participation fairly openly and trying to figure out in what ways we can align even without full participation. There is no indication the current government is against Golden Dome.

​The RCAF has its own IAMD study underway in Canadian Shield. It is already fairly well aligned to what the Americans are doing. People will focus on space-based interceptors and such, but Golden Dome is far more extensive than that. There’s much we align on without joining.

​Canada is also undertaking its own extensive modernization of both NORAD and space-related assets, both of which will significantly contribute to Continental Defence in a variety of different ways. That includes OTHR and F-35, yes, but is so much more extensive.

​From autonomous vehicles in the Arctic to ground- and space-based optical capabilities, AEW&C aircraft, new satellite constellations for both communication and surveillance, domestic launch investments, and even establishing a VLF communication capability.

​There is so much going on that can and will contribute to collective Continental Defence. Much more than I believe anyone truly knows about, even myself. We need to highlight and promote these investments if we want mentalities to change and people to recognize the effort.

​One can’t help but roll eyes at such criticisms that clearly stand against both our clear efforts to align with America on security topics and American policy on China advocating for economic reconciliation with China at the same time that they criticize us for aiming for a new economic partnership with China in light of pressing tariffs and economic pressure. Anyways, rant over.

​The policy further puts pressure on allies in Europe, the Middle East, and South Korea to take charge of their own defence. The policy itself is far colder on Europe than anyone, effectively delegating Russia as a European matter where they must take charge. For those curious, here:

“As the NSS makes clear, Europe taking primary responsibility for its own conventional defense is the answer to the security threats it faces. The Department will therefore incentivize and enable NATO allies to take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense with critical but more limited U.S. support. Central to this effort, DoW will work closely with our allies to ensure that they deliver on the defense spending pledge that they made at the Hague Summit.

South Korea is capable of taking primary responsibility for deterring North Korea with critical but more limited U.S. support. South Korea also has the will to do so, given that it faces a direct and clear threat from North Korea. This shift in the balance of responsibility is consistent with America’s interest in updating U.S. force posture on the Korean Peninsula. In this way, we can ensure a stronger.”

Overall the shift to the domestic enviornment pits added stress of Canada. Allies are expected to step up, and President Trumps comments tonight feel ever present with the strategy releasing just hours later. I expect as we draw closer to USMCA negotiations that the topic of collective security will be more prevalent.

Topics I expect we will hear:

• F-35

• Golden Dome

• American access to the Archipelago, likely in American patrols

• Further pressure to reach 5% ASAP

For Canada, the question becomes one of where will the Americans be satisfied? The F-35 and Golden Dome seem to be major sticking points, but with talks of wider Arctic agreements, there will be more questions, I presume, on where Canada plans to deliver in Arctic defence.

​These seem like the four likely topics of discussion, and again, I will argue we are delivering significantly; however, saying what we are doing will evidently not help. They don't care what we do; they care that we align with what they want, and that will be the most difficult thing of all here, at least to me.

​The NDS is one of many such documents through the year; however, with ongoing discussions and tension through the week, the strategy further reinforces a common trope of recent demands. Do as we tell, not as we do. The Americans are free to pursue economic negotiations with potential adversaries, but when Canada does as such, it becomes a security risk, a mistake we shall regret, a jeopardy to our relationship.

​The strategy also further pressures us to step up, yet what that fully looks like again, we don't know, and I doubt the Trump administration fully knows either. Is it Golden Dome? F-35? More? We really don't know if it stops there.

​We will likely see this security dynamic further discussed along with potential USMCA negotiations (if they go through as planned) as some sort of wider bundled agreement. I also expect the rhetoric of the lack of Canadian support for American initiatives will be used to further pressure us.

​Collective pressure, as we discussed before. That is the prevailing message we are seeing. Allies need to step up, and those in the Western Hemisphere further need to be aligned with what Washington deems they need to do.

​Again, just some quick thoughts. I have had little time to digest the strategy as it exists. I have only taken a quick glance and jumped to write some quick thoughts for you all. Perhaps I shall talk about it more when I have a chance to jump into it.