Carney gave an implausible U.S. invasion scenario oxygen and the New York Times ran with it

Prime Minister Mark Carney recently conducted an interview with the New York Times. The “Gray Lady,” as the liberal newspaper is sometimes called, decided to release the full transcript on Monday.

Those hoping for something new, intriguing or enlightening will likely be disappointed. This includes any further revelations related to the PM’s eye-raising remark about the U.S. possibly invading Canada.

We’ll get to that shortly.

“We just published the full transcript of our @nytimes hourlong interview with PM Carney, all 8,000+ words of it,” the Times’s Canada Bureau Chief Matina Stevis-Gridneff wrote on X. “This is to enable our readers to get a sense of the range and depth of the conversation.”

It’s been posted as a gift link, which means that anyone can read it for free at any time.

I read the entire transcript and can help save most of you the time and effort of going through it. There’s virtually nothing of significance or consequence in Carney’s interview.

The PM spoke with 10 Times reporters and editors during the interview. There were quite a few topics that were broached. Some examples include: trade with the U.S., Canada-China relations, energy exports and potash, immigration, Canada-India relations, trade with the European Union, Carney’s relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump and his political future.

Most of Carney’s responses would be categorized as boilerplate and fairly predictable in nature. His answers often lacked breadth and depth. There was very little in terms of substance, or meat on the bone, for the Canadian, American or international media to build into a complex story or series of stories.

Which isn’t to say media organizations won’t attempt to make something out of nothing. They’ll try their best to conjure up some plausible reasons to run with this interview. With more than 8,000 words at their disposal, there are certainly plenty of pull-out quotes and basic arguments to choose from. It can be done, but it won’t be terribly illuminating.

The one exchange that could potentially make the rounds outside of North America is related to the short section entitled “Threat of U.S. military force against Canada.”

Here’s what Natalie Kitroeff, a host of “The Daily” podcast, asked Carney: “At any point in the last 18 months, were you ever seriously concerned that President Trump, as these threats escalated, would seriously use military force against Canada?” The PM apparently paused and responded thusly, “You have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk. So, and as the tail fattens when a leader of a country threatens your sovereignty, you adjust accordingly. That’s just risk management. That’s not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to take certain things into consideration.”

White House correspondent David E. Sanger then asked a follow-up question, “Did you make certain preparations for that?” Carney’s response was short and contrite: “I’ll leave my answer where it was.”

That’s the whole sequence of events, ladies and gentlemen. Nothing more, nothing less.

Carney shouldn’t have made this baseless remark to begin with. Suggesting that Canada’s military position had to “adjust accordingly” because the PM’s interpretation of some of Trump’s remarks was that it “threatens” our sovereignty is just, well, bizarre.

The U.S. President has never expressed any legitimate interest in invading or annexing Canada, and has repeatedly rejected the insinuation in the past. The vast majority of Americans don’t support military intervention against Canada, either. An April 2025 Washington Post–ABC News–Ipsos poll noted that 86 per cent of Americans (and 71 per cent of Republicans) opposed taking control of our country. Meanwhile, a Jan. 2026 Research Co. survey revealed that 66 per cent of Americans wanted Canada to maintain its status as an independent nation, and only 17 per cent favoured annexation.

The PM should have responded to Kitroeff’s original question in a far different fashion. If he had used political spin (which he really doesn’t know how to utilize) and taken a more positive approach, it would have worked to his advantage.

He could have focused on building better relations with Trump and the U.S., or working on issues that matter to both countries, or even being hopeful that cooler heads will prevail at some point. That would have been much better than his nonsensical remarks about concerns related to possible American military force against his country.

At the same time, the Times is also heavily to blame for twisting Carney’s words into several knots. They shouldn’t have asked this loaded question in the first place. They also shouldn’t have insinuated the PM was seemingly worried about Trump’s motives and intentions with Canada. That’s not what Carney specifically said, especially when he shifted gears to his decision as being “risk management” rather than a “base case.”

Should we be surprised that the New York Times twisted Carney’s words? Of course not. Did they make the situation a fair bit worse by doing this? Absolutely.

Maybe Carney should start considering doing more interviews with the Canadian media. He may not always receive a hero’s welcome at every publication, but he likely won’t face the prospect of being asked off-the-wall questions about a U.S. military-led invasion or annexation of Canada. I’d hope not, anyway.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.