No Means No. Unless You're a Nation?

When the gain is logical and impersonal, harassing masses of people is some how less shameful than harassing one.

Here’s a scene from my past that many women will recognize. At a party, an attractive man approached and struck up a conversation. He seemed charming so when he abruptly suggested we leave together, I laughed it off as a harmless proposition. He persisted in a joking tone that suggested he wasn’t really serious. I declined again, probably inventing a boyfriend or some other commitment as a firmer way of saying no. When this had no impact, I started to move away. That’s when his charisma turned cold. He smiled flatly and told me I would give in eventually—one way or another.

This memory resurfaced not from old photos or friends, but from reading the NY Times report of President Trump’s remarks expressing his intention to annex Canada. The narrative followed the same pattern: a friendly suggestion, a touch of humor, continued pressure, and a refusal to accept “no” as a response. Trump was using the same playbook on Canada that lounge lizards use to force themselves on women.

Photo by Steven Carr on Unsplash

Predatory or Practical?

We’ve made impressive progress in defining the boundaries of our personal relationships, but that protection applies only to individuals. We still largely allow and accept that dominant business or political entities can impose their will on weaker ones, especially if their proposed union implies better protection and benefits for the losing side.

In these realms, power imbalances are widely accepted as natural and inevitable. Those who have supremacy are presumed to have greater rights. It’s a double standard, but apparently our moral framework on this topic shifts depending on the context.

Hostile business takeovers happen with little moral outrage. We celebrate the shrewdness of corporate raiders like Carl Icahn or Ron Perelman, admiring their ability to exploit vulnerabilities for profit, even though their gains often cost stability and jobs. When the gain is logical and impersonal, harassing masses of people is some how less shameful than harassing one.

If you’ve been following President Trump’s annexation interchange, you’ll recognize that he’s currently in the “somewhat charming, likely kidding” phase of the charade. He’s using humor and friendliness to mask more serious intentions and to make aggressive behavior seem unlikely or harmless.​

This faux funny approach is an accepted way to test an idea under the guise of jest. I once watched incredulously as a high-testosterone VC challenged Bill Gates to buy the NASDAQ after it had nearly collapsed in the Dotcom bust. The VC was the less powerful of the two so the idea went nowhere, but his joking demeanor allowed him to save face while still making the unlikely pitch. If an offer is not viable, this setup allows both parties to laugh and part ways. No one feels rejected.

That tactic could give Trump an “out” if he was open to it. But the hint that this exchange will likely accelerate beyond a joke surfaced in Trump’s justification on Truth Social:

“The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear. Canadians taxes will be very substantially reduced, they will be more secure, militarily and otherwise, than ever before, there would no longer be a Northern Border problem.”

In other words, “Relax, you’ll enjoy this.”

Consent and Coercion on the World Stage

Canada has not been coy in its responses. Previous Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed “there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.” His successor and others in the country’s government have been equally adamant in their dismissal of the offer. But look at this deal through a business lens and Canada is a plum take-over target with few defenses.

National boundaries are not absolute. They result from wars, treaties, colonization, and population movements that can be renegotiated. International relations involve complex historical contexts, competing claims, and intricate networks that resist simple regulation and can be reshuffled by major players.

The suggestion that a nation could simply reject this type of proposition is itself overly simplistic. Government officials refusing statehood may represent only a portion of the population’s sentiment. Canadian citizens who are dissatisfied with the country’s government for any reason may think joining the US is a fine idea. This complexity of consent has no real parallel in personal situations where an individual’s will is more unified.

Finally, even if this type of incursion had clear parameters and laws defining what’s permissible, there is no reliable global authority with sufficient influence to consistently enforce boundaries when violated. The UN and international courts have limited practical authority when powerful nations choose to ignore them. Ask Ukraine about that.

Countries can and do merge through genuine democratic processes, as with German reunification in 1990. When mutually agreed, the resulting union can strengthen rather than undermine national and international stability. But some nations (notably Russia and to some extent China) continue to assert “traditional” power dominance dynamics. Trump’s current approach embodies this outdated yet historically common view of sovereignty where stronger nations can impose their will without full consent.

The Costs of Coercion

Of course if this annexation is forced in any way, America will be that creepy guy at the party who won’t take no for an answer, and Canada will suffer serious consequences.

When a nation submits, even partially, to the whims of a stronger entity, the repercussions are not just strategic; they’re existential. Perhaps our northern neighbor could benefit, but it could also become another Puerto Rico, unsure of its standing and unable to grow beyond its dependency. Even carefully negotiated transitions like Hong Kong’s return to China eventually saw promised autonomy systematically stripped away.

The US would likely be viewed like Russia after its invasion of Crimea in 2014. We could claim to be providing Canada significant benefits, but the international community would see it as betrayal and aggression. How would that transform the world’s view of Americans? We would have proved ourselves capable of ambushing an ally and coercing their submission. I can’t imagine many countries joining us as partners, cheering us as athletes, or even desiring us as tourists.

Equally troubling is how a forced merger would encourage further transgressions, creating a domino effect that could undermine international stability. History repeatedly shows that tolerating minor encroachments invites escalating aggression. Ignoring the annexation of Crimea didn’t satisfy Russian ambitions—it amplified them. The mere flirtation with annexing Canada could encourage more brazen grabs elsewhere, weakening international norms, destabilizing regional alliances, and emboldening other authoritarian leaders to test boundaries.

For these reasons and more, I hope Canada will continue resisting Trump’s persistent invitation, but it’s naive to imagine this “merger” can’t happen or won’t seriously damage our reputation. The Trump administration, aided and abetted by Elon Musk’s fortunes, could target disgruntled Canadians looking for a change just as they won over Swing States with precise injections of money and opinions. Even if the attempt fails, there’s still a cost to the relationship. It will be at least a generation before Canada once again thinks of the US as a reliable ally.

Finding Hope in Boundaries

I initially thought I could present a clean argument that predatory behavior is reprehensible and never excusable. The parallels between personal consent and national sovereignty are striking. Both involve power dynamics, respect for boundaries, and the fundamental right to self-determination. But perhaps the similarities end there. Perhaps we’re OK having two standards for predatory behavior—one that shames it and one that glorifies it.

If that’s the case, we may end up with several more states. But if enough of us believe the aggression against Canada is as off-putting as personal harassment, then Trump’s actions might push the country toward greater clarity on this topic.

The world has made progress in defining the sanctity of borders. Globalization, international law, and concepts like the UN endorsed “responsibility to protect” have created a greater appreciation of political autonomy. Nations maintain their independence within a framework of mutual obligations and shared norms—an emerging model of consent that could be affirmed and strengthened.

If the message from Americans to our leadership is that the sovereignty of a nation is as inviolable as the consent of an individual, then there might be a positive outcome from this aggressive posturing. Just as personal consent evolved from whispered warnings to universal demands for respect, we could reinforce this principle not just for Canada’s sake, but for every nation facing similar threats. We could assert that “no” does mean no in any circumstance, whether spoken quietly at a party or declared loudly at an international summit.

Your Turn

This is a tough topic. I imagine some very reasonable people will say that hostile takeovers and corporate raids are well within normal business practices. Extending this custom to geopolitics is not that much of a stretch, so here’s some questions to help you see where you stand.

1. Should those who are more powerful benefit from that dominance? In what ways?

2. If power imbalances are wrong or merit no benefits, what motivations should drive growth and innovation?

3. How can you tell if someone’s intent is to dominate you?

If you feel this post should be shared, please hit the ❤️ “Like” button below. That tells the algorithms to promote it to others.

If you’re new here, one of those algorithms probably guided you. In that case, I recommend you confirm who I am, where my expertise lies, and what biases I may bring to my posts. If you want to read more, my foundational post, The Hidden Influence of Branding in American Politics is a good starting point.