What do non-US media sources say about Trump?

In this article, I examine how the foreign press portrays Donald Trump and his administration and policies. To this end, I read news from 15 countries across the Anglosphere: Canada, Jamaica, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Malta, Scotland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Kenya, Ghana, South Africa, and India.

tl;dr

This is a very long article. It features a lot of lengthy direct quotations in addition to my own reflections and analysis. It felt interminable as I was writing it and I can imagine that it might also feel the same way for someone reading it. There are some bits that you shouldn’t miss, like the no-holds-barred Scottish commentary and Wang Xiangwei’s comparison of Trump’s upheavals to the Cultural Revolution in China, but I forgive you if you’d rather just have the tl;dr. So, here are my main takeaways:

Everywhere, there was the sense of betrayal. If people had hoped to batten down the hatches and wait out the storm of Trump 47 as they did Trump 45, they have quickly learned the impossibility of doing so. Writers around the world characterized the United States as a “fairweather friend,” an “ally turned foe,” and “an untrustworthy friend.” Whether this realization will have long-term consequences is yet to be seen, but in some African countries Trump’s latest actions have recalled his “shithole countries” comment during his first term and there is a strong sense that Africa must now take charge of its own future.

All the countries were seeking new trade partners in the face of Trump’s tariff threats. Tariffs and trade wars were described as blessings in disguise that could turbocharge local industry and lead to new economic partnerships. Due to the transactional nature of Trump’s diplomacy, some countries were also seeking new defense alliances.

Trump’s actions will diminish US influence and prestige around the world, with China as the likely beneficiary. His quid pro quo approach to international relations means that the US is quickly losing soft power. China was mentioned constantly as an alternative to US trade and aid, especially in the Global South. China itself also senses an opportunity and is well-placed to seize it given its investment in the Belt-and-Road Initiative over the past decade.

Many papers covered American issues that I would not have thought would interest non-Americans: for example, Trump’s pick to lead the CDC, the removal of a presidential portrait in Colorado, and Trump’s rant about a “radical lunatic judge.” The presence of these articles is important because they show that people abroad can access a broad spectrum of American news through their local news platforms. The opposite is not true, however. While a Maltese or Singaporean might be able to converse with some familiarity about domestic American politics, Americans would generally not be able to return the favour.

There was less discussion of Trump’s personal characteristics than I had expected. On reflection, this makes sense. His susceptibility to flattery and his transactional nature are well-known at this point, and people are beginning to realize that he actually means what he says. Few writers commented about his intellect, comportment, or appearance. However, his policies, particularly tariffs and his treatment of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, were described in negative terms.

Also of note: I found occasional references to the Trump regime as opposed to the Trump administration. Although this word choice was hardly common, I think it is important because it signals that US is no longer reflexively viewed as a liberal democracy.

Ireland

The first article that I read from Ireland was actually a livestream of Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s visit with Trump on 12 March. Somehow, even basic descriptions of the event managed to cast shade on Trump:

The meeting has started. Donald Trump talks about US inflation and then focuses on JD Vance’s socks.

The US president is going through his playbook of dangerous immigrants, “men playing women’s sport ... everything is transgender; that is all you hear about” and the evils of the Democratic Party.

The Taoiseach finally gets to speak…

To my chagrin, I later discovered that this tone is not generally taken by Irish journalists when writing about Trump or the United States.

During St Patrick’s week, a relatively large number of articles in The Irish Times highlighted links between Ireland and the United States, among them “Why are so many recipients of the US Medal of Honor of Irish descent?” and “Fewer St Patrick’s Day fairytales in New York for today’s ‘undocumented’ Irish”. To me, these kinds of stories seemed to reinforce the idea that, because of its long and deep historical ties to the United States, Ireland has a stake in the country’s future as well as the moral authority to comment on American politics.

Indeed, Irish politicians and academics were out in force during St Patrick’s week in the United States to promote tolerance and international cooperation. In a speech to the Charitable Irish Society in Boston, Professor Louise Richardson emphasized the importance of immigrants to the United States. Against the backdrop of mass deportations, it sounded like a gentle but pointed critique of the administration’s policies. Meanwhile, Simon Coveney, former minister for foreign affairs, spoke at Boston College where he warned his listeners that “the US is no longer seen as a reliable partner.”

Not all coverage of the US was political, however. Cork-based newspaper The Echo ran an interview with a Corkonian in Texas who talked about his everyday life in Houston with his wife and kids. The interview was very upbeat and almost entirely lacking in overt political commentary. Instead it painted the picture of a normal family doing normal things in a normal country. It felt both irresponsible—a bit like the meme of the dog in the burning house—but also a welcome distraction from the doom and gloom of most US coverage.

I also read some Northern Irish papers. Generally, they focused on local news. One partial exception was an opinion piece about Northern Irish and American relations. The unhappy post-Brexit limbo in which Northern Ireland finds itself was very evident here and it seemed to me that the author did not expect the UK to act on Northern Ireland’s behalf. The author argued that Northern Ireland needed to advocate for itself in the United States, but he had no great expectations of Trump caring about the effects of a trade war on Northern Ireland. Overall, it painted a sad picture of a small country with few friends.

Scotland

Donald Trump’s mother might have been Scottish, but Scotland has no lost love for him. Even before he became president for the first time, he had pissed off Scots with his Turnberry golf course. The title of POTUS did little to improve his reputation there.

The same attitude is still in evidence today. Scotland isn’t an independent country and I think this affects the degree to which politicians express their disagreement and dislike. They can afford to call out the emperor’s lack of clothes because they do not need to maintain cordial relations with Trump—that’s UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s job. Scottish papers were especially vocal about Trump’s treatment of Volodymyr Zelensky. The leader of the Scottish Green Party has said that “the Trump administration has betrayed the people of Ukraine” and Scottish First Minister John Swinney went so far as to say that “a second state visit cannot go ahead if Trump abandons Ukraine.” Vice President J.D. Vance also came in for scathing critique for “displaying ‘savage and evil impulses’ that Freud warned about.”

Speaking as a Canadian, The Scotsman was a particular joy to read. It featured not one, not two, but three articles about why the UK needs to stand up for Canada in the face of Trump’s annexation threats. (I couldn’t actually read them because they were paywalled, but the headlines and blurbs still made me happy.) I feel that Canada has been neglected in most European capitals, whose main preoccupations are Trump’s abandonment of Ukraine and the possibility of a wider conflict with Russia, so this support for Canadian sovereignty meant a lot.

Reading papers like The Scotsman, The Herald, and The National was a cathartic experience. I never knew that other people hated Trump with the same visceral emotion as I did—I felt like I’d found kindred spirits in Scotland. I mean, members of Edinburgh City Council called Trump a racist misogynist who presides over an emerging fascist state! That’s stronger language than most Democrats in the US.

Malta

English is an official language of Malta, and I consulted the English-language paper Times of Malta to see what kinds of American issues were making news on the island. Many articles focused on domestic US politics that didn’t have any relevance to Malta: “Supreme Court chief rebukes Trump over call for judge’s impeachment”; “US flies over 200 alleged gang members to El Salvador despite court block”; “At least 33 dead as tornadoes ravage central US.” Maltese, if they choose to read these articles in their local paper, will be well-informed about fairly local US issues.

The most illuminating article that I read was an editorial from 18 March. The Maltese journalists were not impressed with Trump’s treatment of Zelensky:

To say US-European diplomacy, in particular US-Ukrainian diplomacy, has faced challenges in recent days is an understatement; any illusion of respect from our American ‘allies’ lay trampled on the Diet Coke-soaked oval office floor.

The editorial described American behaviour towards Europe with unflattering language: “fickle and changing,” “unsavoury,” “lack of respect,” “the sad truth,” with international security now the “whim” of an administration that believes diplomacy is “nothing more than a business transaction.” On the latter point, the paper argued that Trump’s understanding of American contributions towards European defense is profoundly wrong:

Europe’s post-World War II reliance on US defence has undoubtedly given America unprecedented access and influence across the continent. Even influential conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation thinks US troops “are in Europe first and foremost for American national security interests, as well as crucial American economic interests”.

The Times called for Europe to take immediate action to strengthen its defense capabilities, including the extension of the UK and France’s nuclear umbrella to their European allies. As they pointed out, “an untrustworthy friend is no friend at all.”

I await the chorus of Trumpers who will, as if on cue, cry out, “Malta has barely half a million people! A country of that size doesn’t matter!” That isn’t the point. Countries all around the world are learning the same lesson: America can’t be trusted. Malta might be small, but it is one of many, and this attitude shift will have consequences for the projection of American power worldwide.

Hong Kong and Singapore

Although the South China Morning Post’s editorial independence has been questioned in recent years, it’s still Hong Kong’s paper of record. Reading the SCMP is like reading the New York Times, except the main character is China rather than the United States. And as a main character, China is the smartest, richest, strongest, and most powerful one in the room. This is evidenced by headlines like “How China is solving the nightmare that killed Elon Musk’s Hyperloop,” “Star scientist Pan Linfeng picks cutting-edge China post over fading Oxbridge” and “China unveils a powerful deep-sea cable cutter that could reset the world order.”

In American media, China is a villain. In the SCMP, America’s not really a villain so much as it is an aging relative whose demise is imminent. The death watch is on, and we’re just waiting for the bells to toll so that the inheritance can be parceled out. Meanwhile, we keep ourselves busy by speculating about who’s going to get what: “Trump cut off aid to South Africa. Will it tilt the balance in China’s favour?” — “The rise of China and the retreat of the US: a new global empire takes shape” — “Can China’s belt and road lead the way as Trump turns world order upside down?” In short, China senses an opening and is positioning itself to take advantage as the United States ruptures longstanding alliances around the world. Indeed, this new dynamic was evident in the Norway’s deputy foreign minister interview with the SCMP in which he “highlighted China’s strategic importance for both Oslo and Europe amid transatlantic uncertainties.”

From Singapore’s The Straits Times I only listened to a single podcast. But it certainly gave me food for thought. Former editor-in-chief of the South China Morning Post Wang Xiangwei spoke to Straits Times senior columnist Ravi Velloor about Trump and China.

Wang’s analysis illustrates how individuals tend to see events in other countries through the lens of their own country’s history and sheds light on how China might prepare for the long-term effects of Trump’s presidency. In the podcast, Wang drew parallels between Trump’s upheavals in Washington and Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution:

In 1966, he [Mao Zedong] launched the Cultural Revolution for many reasons. I think the one reason…is that he was worried that China was becoming a lesser country with bureaucrats only thinking of their own interests and they had little regard for the interests and well-being of the ordinary people. So, as a result he mobilized the so-called Red Guards, mostly the high school students and university graduates, to attack government bureaucracies around the country with the slogan “Revolution is no crime — to rebel is justified.” And…as Mao exhorted the Red Guards to attack government bureaucracies around the country, he also started to promote outsiders to lead the government, just like Donald Trump did with his cabinet in his second term.… This kind of approach is sort of exactly like Mao Zedong did after launching the Cultural Revolution in 1966. You know, he not only encouraged the Red Guards and the grassroots loyalists to take over the power at the central and local government levels, he started to promote the workers and the farmers who had little government experiences to run the government.

One could argue that the similarities are only superficial, but consider this letter from the US Office of Management and Budget. Reading it through the lens of the Cultural Revolution gives its ideological aggression a new, even more troubling significance:

The use of federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and Green New Deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve.

Unfortunately, I think that the cultural gap will prevent most Americans from either accepting these parallels as a cautionary tale or seeing them as a roadmap to hell.

Australia and New Zealand

The Sydney Morning Herald was my one and only stop in Australia. I was lucky, though, because the United States was a hot topic.

I want to highlight an analysis by North America correspondent Michael Koziol: “The president, the judge and the flights that landed in the middle of the night.” Here he detailed the escalating fight between the Trump administration and the judiciary over the legality of deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The article laid out the background to the events and then explained why these developments matter, where they might lead, and where things now stand. An Australian who reads those 1600 words may very well have a better understanding of the situation than someone living in the United States.

Some of the effects of the Trump administration on Australia came as a surprise to me. For example, US government-funded research grants for joint US-Australian projects have been withdrawn or frozen. American beef farmers are lobbying Trump to impose tariffs on their Australian counterparts. An Australian therapist has noticed an increase in anxiety among her patients as Trump embodies a “poly-crisis with numerous forces cohering to place our collective and individual futures at risk – climate change, fascism, the tech-oligarchy, geopolitical strife, spiralling costs-of-living, the steady repeal of rights and civil liberties.” If as an American you ever wondered why people around the world care so much about US politics, the answer is simple: because it directly affects them in their home countries.

One familiar theme was What To Do About Tariffs. Economics writer Millie Muroi argued that a trade war with the United States would be an opportunity for Australia to look elsewhere for strategic partnerships:

Trump’s tariffs – and threat of more to come – are a chance for Australia to branch out from its biggest trading partner.

Investing in the capabilities of countries in South-East Asia and fostering connections with its people is more important now than ever before.

It also makes sense to build stronger ties with our neighbours from a strategic geopolitical perspective as China poses a growing security threat to the region.

This discussion reminds me very much of the ones going on in Canada and Europe. The United States and Trump need to proceed carefully or they may find that policies that they enacted to make America great again will in fact just make America alone.

My world tour then took me to New Zealand. Professor Alexander Gillespie explained on The Front Page podcast that New Zealand has “tried exceptionally hard not to cause offense to Mr. Trump or his regime. And this means that when things have been difficult or some of Mr. Trump’s suggestions have been problematic for New Zealand in terms of what we believe as a rule based order, we haven’t been critical, unlike other countries.” A recent example of this conciliatory effort is the recalling of the New Zealand High Commissioner (ambassador) in the UK after he made public comments that cast Trump in an unflattering light.

Gillespie made it sound like New Zealand will choose appeasement when difficult questions arise. This approach reminded me of that of other small countries. (Norway, where I live, seems to be employing a similar strategy.) However, as Gillespie also noted, “it might not be enough just being quiet and not upsetting Mr. Trump.” Criticism and pushback, he noted, “aren’t seen as policy decisions. They’re seen as personal decisions, and they can be held quite detrimentally against us.” This insight is not new, of course, but is key to navigating Trumpian Realpolitik.

Tonga

Last but certainly not least from Oceania, I read the Tonga Independent. The paper outlines three major ways in which the island nation will feel the impact of Trump’s disruptions: economics, geopolitics, and climate change. Tonga’s economy “runs on US dollars” and a weak dollar could mean fewer remittances, more debt, and higher cost-of-living. In addition, Tonga finds itself in a lose-lose geopolitical situation: “If we lean closer to China, we risk U.S. economic retaliation. If we distance from China, we lose critical infrastructure investment.” Finally, Trump’s enthusiasm for fossil fuels and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will have terrible effects on Tonga, where “rising seas and cyclones aren’t future threats—they are today’s reality.”

Tonga is also concerned about deportations under the Alien Enemies Act: “A leaked ICE document has revealed that…151 Tongans are among the 1.4 million undocumented migrants targeted for removal.” That may not sound like a lot, but Tonga has a population of less than 100 000 people and officials worry that many deportees may have criminal backgrounds. They warn that the country lacks the infrastructure to successfully reintegrate these people and that their arrival en masse could destabilize communities that already struggle with crime and drug problems.

In light of Trump’s declaration that he will make America great again, it is worth paying attention to the Independent’s claim that he is pursuing policies that will have the opposite effect:

By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and reducing climate action, the Trump administration signals to the Pacific that the United States is divorced from the region’s greatest anxiety. This will erode U.S. credibility and trust, pushing Pacific nations to look for partners that offer immediate and tangible climate solutions.

Without decisive climate action, the U.S. forgoes its ability to engage as a trusted partner and creates a vacuum for other powers, particularly China, to fill.

The U.S.’s failure to prioritize climate change will likely isolate it from multilateral discussions within the Pacific Islands Forum and hinder its ability to secure the bilateral relationships needed to protect its strategic interests.

Kenya

The dismantling of USAID has made headlines in the United States, where the focus has been on the legality of Trump/Musk’s actions. Meanwhile, across Africa, a major concern has been about how to move forward without those funds. While Trumpers frothed at the mouth over claims that USAID had paid for a “transgender opera in Colombia” and a “transgender comic book in Peru,” Kenya was more concerned with the material effects of funding cuts across a range of programs, including reproductive health services, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria treatment, and nutrition.

Some commentators cast the cuts as an opportunity for Kenya. Anglican Church of Kenya Archbishop Jacob Ole Savit observed that “Most African countries gained independent 50 years ago and are still dependent on aid from abroad…we need to rethink about this, and this shutdown is an eye opener, we [must] call for proper management of public resources.” Similarly, in an opinion piece for The Sunday Standard, Caleb Atemi wrote that “Trump just did Kenya and Africa a great favour. Despite the pain, agony and frustration to millions, Africa can finally break away from slavery and dependence.”

In addition to the funding freezes that are already being felt, analysts expect that Trump’s trade wars with Europe, Canada, and China will have knock-on effects in Kenya: “Remittances from the US averaged Sh26 billion ($200 million) every month. … A higher inflation in the US means higher prices of goods and services and squeezed earnings which will then affect diaspora remittances into the country.” There is also some uncertainty surrounding the upcoming expiration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which gives eligible African countries—including Kenya—duty-free access to US markets. As of last year, the Kenyan government was “actively negotiating new trade partnerships” with the United States, but nothing has been signed yet.

Ghana

Reducing dependency on the US was also a theme in the Ghanaian press. Ghana, like Kenya, has lost tens of millions of dollars of funding from USAID. Just as in Kenya, some see these cuts as an opportunity for the country to instigate meaningful reform in order to move away from aid dependency.

The necessity of establishing of economic partnerships that do not involve the US has also taken on an unprecedented urgency. Some authors urged the full implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area in order to “reduce reliance on external trade partners like the United States and China” while also recommending that African governments seeking out collaborations with “emerging economies in Asia, Latin America and Europe [that] could provide alternative sources of trade.”

One might expect China to play an ever-larger role in Ghana. Speaking at the Chinese Lantern Festival Gala in February, President John Dramani Mahama said, “Ghana is open for business again [after an economic crisis precipitated by the coronavirus] and I invite our comrade Chinese investor community to look at the opportunities Ghana has to offer.” He also thanked China for its support as Ghana’s economy recovers and highlighted China’s contributions to Ghana’s infrastructure and trade.

As political analyst Scott Edward Agyemang wrote:

…China stands to be the biggest beneficiary if Trump continues to isolate African nations through harsh policies. With the United States withdrawing its financial support and economic engagement, China could step in to fill the void and expand its influence across Africa through increased trade, investments and infrastructure development under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

This China enthusiasm is tempered by the awareness that African countries must proceed carefully in order not to recreate a colonial relationship.

South Africa

US relations with South Africa were already fraught due to Trump implying back in 2018 that the South African government was committing genocide of white Afrikaner farmers. Then, in 2025, he offered Afrikaners fast-track resettlement in the United States on the basis that they were refugees “escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination.”

The United States recently expelled South African ambassador Ebrahim Rasool after he described Trump as the head of a “supremacist” government. In the wake of his expulsion, the South African Ministry of International Relations expressed concern “that the comments could suggest that the US wants to interfere in SA’s sovereign, national policy.” The response of State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce strongly suggested that the US was indeed taking steps to force South Africa’s hand domestically: “The unjust land expropriation law, as well as its growing relationship with countries like Russia and Iran, that is what prompted the serious review of our South Africa policy. The point is to encourage a change.”

South Africa’s president Cyril Ramaphosa, meanwhile, made it clear that South Africa would not retaliate for Rasool’s dismissal. One cannot fail to think that this decision may have been made in the face of tariff threats. In addition, South Africa fears that Trump may not renew AGOA. However, they have also not forgotten Trump’s catchphrase “shithole countries.” Taken together, some argue that all these things “should bring us closer to our partners in Brics, especially China and India. … What Trump’s actions – even if he rolls back on some of them, as he is already doing in some cases – have done is emphasise that the US is a fairweather friend at best and foe at worst.”

Trump’s effects on South Africa are not only economic. Researchers have noticed an uptick in Afrikaner secessionist groups visiting the US since Trump’s election victory “in the hopes that the US would be willing to support their causes and interfere in the affairs of an independent and sovereign state.” Trump’s willingness to listen may give these movements a legitimacy that they did not previously have, and thus may have a destabilizing effect on South African unity.

India

US Second Lady Usha Vance is an American citizen of Indian origin whose family has roots in Andhra Pradesh. Trump has called her “remarkable” and “beautiful” and also said that “the only one smarter [than J.D. Vance] is his wife.” POTUS47’s appreciation of Usha Vance, however, does not seem to extend to her family’s country of origin. He has accused India of “tak[ing] advantage” of the US while imposing some of the highest tariffs worldwide and has said that he will impose tariffs on Indian imports to the US.

Specifically, Trump has been pressuring India to purchase military hardware from the US in order to compensate for the US trade deficit. In March 2025, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick summed up the US’ stance thus: “India has historically bought significant amounts of its military equipment from Russia, and we think that is something that needs to end.” There would be few benefits to such a transition, according to journalist and Yale lecturer Sushant Singh:

Trump has made it clear that US defence sales will not be accompanied by technology sharing or co-production agreements that are crucial for India’s military modernisation and indigenous manufacturing capabilities. Since these transactions are viewed as commercial in Trump’s worldview, India’s increased defence purchases from the US will not reflect a deepening of the strategic partnership between the two countries.

A cornerstone of Indian foreign policy is the containment of China. It needs American help to do so, and economist Manoranjan Sharma believes therefore that “there is no objective way India can afford to offend the US” on trade matters. (Here it would be well to remember Alexander Gillespie’s analysis that, for Trump, the political is personal.) Yet in Sushant Singh’s view, even if India commits to large military purchases, it seems likely that this relationship will remain one of economics alone. At the same time, it risks “drawing India into US-led security frameworks in the region, potentially crippling New Delhi’s strategic autonomy.” And given that so many other nations are turning to China in the wake of the US’ retreat from the global stage, would it be wise for India to harness its military and economic fortunes to a declining power?

More than geopolitics, the legal status of Indian nationals in the US is now a topic of great interest to the Indian media. Recent immigration crackdowns—including against green card holders—have led to a spate of articles with titles like “Why are some Indian H-1B visa and Green Card holders being deported?”, “Trump administration warns Green Card and H-1B holders against leaving the US. What it means for Indian professionals” and the reminder that “Indian students in US must comply with local laws.” Perhaps I did not look hard enough, but I did not find any discussions in the media about the implications of these policies on future emigration.

Unlike every other country whose news I have read while researching this article, India cannot/will not consider a pivot to China. Instead, as the US threatens tariffs, India is seeking to establish and strengthen relationships elsewhere. The Hindustan Times reported that “New Delhi is currently negotiating free trade agreements with the UK, the EU, Oman, Peru and Sri Lanka, meanwhile it is engaged with other countries to further boost commercial relationships.” For me, the dark horse here will be the ease (or lack thereof) of doing business in India. Will new trade deals precipitate a slashing of red tape, both for India-based businesses and foreigners who want to invest and/or work in India? These issues have held India back for years—can Trump be the one who finally fixes them?

Jamaica

The Jamaica Gleaner—the oldest continuously published paper in the western hemisphere—takes a dim view of POTUS47. In an editorial from 16 March, the paper called Trump “a cross between a 19th century Great Power leader and 21st century mercantilist, who believes that tariffs and the wealth of the American market can be wielded as cudgels or to ramrod manufacturing production back to the United States, and open other countries to its exports.” A few days later, columnist Norris R. McDonald minced no words, writing that “God-King Trump’s reckless tariff policies have destroyed the American economy, unleashed anxieties on Wall Street and among consumers, and are creating chaos worldwide.” Meanwhile, the Jamaica Observer seemed more inclined to wait and see, writing at the end of February that “while there is great disquiet currently over how to figure out what is the endgame of the path being pursued by the Trump Administration, we are not yet concluding that all is doom and gloom.”

Both in Jamaica and beyond, the English-speaking Caribbean is concerned about possible “U.S. visa restrictions on government officials from countries that engage in agreements with Cuba to employ its trained medical professionals.” According to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, these Cuban doctors and nurses are victims of forced labour and human trafficking.

It’s hard for me as an outsider to figure out whether American concerns are legitimate or if Cuba is just an easy target and/or the subject of Marco Rubio’s personal ire. It’s possible, of course, that he could be right, but I find it hard to trust his judgment after he parroted Trump’s “51st state” bullshit. Officials in some countries have pushed back against his claims, and at least three, including Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, have said that they’re willing to give up their US visas to ensure that their citizens can continue to receive lifesaving treatment from Cuban medical professionals. As an editorial in the Jamaica Observer remarked about the need to balance the health of a nation’s people against the power of the United States: “Truly, this is walking the tightrope.”

Canada

“Canada’s closest ally becomes a foe,” read a headline on the CBC news ticker on 20 March.

Screenshot from CBC’s new ticker on 20 March 2025 at 9.25 CET.

To put it mildly, Trump is not popular in Canada. Between talk of annexation and trade wars, Canadians have had enough. In addition to the retaliatory tariffs announced by federal and provincial governments, ordinary people are joining in: they’re cancelling their holidays to the US, boycotting US products in shops, and even moving back to Canada after spending decades down south.

In addition to being a Canadian citizen, I’m also American (thanks, jus soli and jus sanguinis!) and I’m not entirely sure that Americans understand the degree to which Trump hit Canadians in a really soft spot when he started publicly musing about Canada being the 51st state. I’m in my mid-40s, and I’ve heard that kind of talk since I was a kid living in the American Midwest. It is an old, tired, and unfunny joke. For decades prior to Trump’s ascendance, Americans have mocked Canada for using the metric system; for their money, which is clearly nefarious; for not being a real country; for being so culturally beige that they are by default the 51st state… I have heard it all, and I am sure other Canadians have too. But it’s one thing to hear it from your 12-year-old classmate and another to hear it from the President of the United States.

On social media, I’ve seen Americans express the hope that Canada and the US will normalize relations after Trump leaves office. I think that much will depend on the next government; polls show the Conservatives and Liberals neck and neck, with an election on 28 April. If the Liberals prevail, then I think a full reconciliation is less likely because there will be concerted efforts to pivot the economy and defence systems towards Europe. That means integration with EU standards rather than American ones. Once that shift has taken place—trans-Atlantic political, economic, and defense alliances even more firmly solidified—it will be hard to go back. Polite relations, though, will always be possible given good faith from both sides.