There is a legitimate place for disagreement between Canada and the United States. Governments can argue over tariffs, defence spending, Arctic security, procurement and the sharing of military responsibilities. Allies do not have to flatter one another, and Canada’s military readiness is not beyond criticism.
But criticism is not what Canadians have witnessed from senior members of the current U.S. administration.
In a matter of days, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth circulated an image from a Canadian youth cadet program with a sneering caption; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent mocked Canada’s submarines as amusement-park props; and President Donald Trump ordered U.S. federal agencies to call Lake Ontario “Lake America.”
Taken together, these were not serious policy arguments. They were acts of political taunting directed at a close ally—and, in Hegseth’s case, at people shown in an image from a program serving children and teenagers.
The pattern displays a troubling lack of professionalism. It also cheapens a defence relationship built over generations, disregards Canadian sacrifice alongside American forces and treats an Indigenous-derived name—one that long predates both Canada and the United States—as though it were a disposable prop in a trade dispute.
What Pete Hegseth posted
On August 31, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a photograph originating from the Vernon Cadet Training Centre in British Columbia. The image showed two females in uniform during a medal presentation. Hegseth added a Canadian flag and the words “(this is real).”
The insinuation was plain: viewers were invited to ridicule the people pictured and to treat their appearance as evidence of weakness in Canada’s military.
There are two crucial facts that Hegseth’s post ignored.
First, Canada’s Cadet Program is a youth development program for people aged 12 to 18. It teaches leadership, teamwork, citizenship and physical fitness through Sea, Army and Air Cadet activities. The Government of Canada explicitly describes it as a program for young Canadians—not a photograph of an operational combat unit. Canadian cadets are not members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Second, available reporting describes the photograph as a young cadet receiving a medal from a member of the Cadet Instructors Cadre. It has not been reliably established that both people pictured were teenagers. That distinction should be preserved. What is beyond dispute is that the image came from a youth program and included at least one cadet.
That makes Hegseth’s conduct especially difficult to defend. One of the most powerful defence officials in the world used his enormous social-media platform to turn participants in an allied country’s youth program into objects of ridicule. The post did not address Canadian defence policy, readiness, spending or procurement. It attacked people in a photograph—apparently on the basis of their bodies and appearance.
Canada’s Defence Minister David McGuinty called the message “below the dignity of the office he holds,” while Prime Minister Mark Carney said it was “beneath their office.” Those are restrained descriptions.
The Pentagon nevertheless defended Hegseth. That response matters because it converted an individual’s offensive post into an institutional failure. A professional defence department could have acknowledged that youth cadets should not be used as targets in an international political quarrel. Instead, it chose to stand behind the mockery.
Why targeting cadets crosses a line
Cadet programs are designed to help young people build confidence, discipline and leadership. Participants wear uniforms, but that does not turn them into fair targets for a foreign cabinet secretary’s political messaging.
Young people already live under intense pressure concerning weight, appearance and social acceptance. When a senior official broadcasts their photograph to millions of people with an invitation to laugh, the power imbalance is enormous. The individuals did not enter a political debate with Hegseth. They were photographed at a recognition ceremony.
A professional official criticizes governments, policies and military capabilities. He does not single out identifiable young people—or people working with them—and encourage an online crowd to judge their bodies.
Hegseth’s position makes the episode worse. The U.S. Defense Secretary is expected to represent discipline, judgement and respect for allies. His office deals with war, deterrence, nuclear risk and the lives of service members. It should not communicate like an anonymous schoolyard bully.
Scott Bessent’s “submarines from the Edmonton Mall” insult
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added another insult while discussing the worsening Canada–U.S. trade conflict on CNBC.
“We’re not at war with Canada,” Bessent said, before asking what Canada would do: take “their two submarines from the Edmonton Mall and sic them on us?”
The line was meant as a joke about Canada’s limited undersea capability and about the submarines that once operated as an attraction at West Edmonton Mall. Canada’s submarine readiness has faced real and well-documented problems. Canadians themselves have every right to demand better equipment, faster procurement and greater readiness from Ottawa.
But Bessent is the U.S. Treasury Secretary—not a comedian and not a defence analyst. Mocking an ally’s armed forces while economic relations are deteriorating contributes nothing to a solution. It turns a serious dispute into a contest in humiliation.
The joke was also strategically shortsighted. Canada and the United States do not merely cooperate occasionally. They operate NORAD, the world’s unique binational military command, responsible for aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in defence of North America. Canadian and American personnel work within a shared command structure to help protect both countries.
If Canada’s capabilities are inadequate, that is a legitimate security concern for both governments. A responsible U.S. official would discuss the readiness gap, the modernization of NORAD and Canada’s plans to acquire new submarines. Public ridicule may produce applause from political supporters, but it does not produce ships, readiness or a stronger continent.
Canada’s military record cannot be reduced to a punchline
Canada’s armed forces are smaller than those of the United States, and Canada has too often delayed procurement and allowed capabilities to decline. Saying so is not anti-Canadian; it is factual and necessary.
It is equally factual that Canadians have fought and died beside Americans.
After the September 11 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history in support of the United States. Approximately 40,000 Canadians served in the Afghanistan mission between 2001 and 2014. A total of 158 Canadian Armed Forces members and one Canadian diplomat died during the intervention.
Those lives are the proper context whenever an American official is tempted to treat Canada’s military as a prop for a cheap joke.
Canada and the United States have also jointly defended North American airspace through NORAD since 1958. The partnership is not an act of charity by one country toward the other. It is a shared security arrangement founded on geography, trust and mutual interest.
Criticizing Canadian defence policy is fair. Erasing Canadian service and sacrifice is not.
Trump’s unilateral attempt to rename Lake Ontario
On August 27, President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Department of the Interior and federal agencies to use “Lake America” in place of Lake Ontario. The order affects U.S. federal usage and the American geographic naming system. It does not rename the lake in Canada, bind New York State, compel private companies or establish a new internationally accepted name.
Some digital mapping services subsequently displayed “Lake America” to users in the United States while continuing to show Lake Ontario in Canada and elsewhere. That creates a politically manufactured split name for a shared body of water.
The lake is not exclusively American. The international boundary runs through it, with Ontario on its north, west and southwest shores and New York State to the south and east. No president in either country can turn a shared Great Lake into the symbolic property of one nation by signing a document.
The order is therefore less an exercise in geography than an exercise in political dominance: it attempts to impose an American nationalist label on a shared natural feature during a dispute with Canada.
“Ontario” carries an Indigenous history older than both countries
The disrespect is deeper than a quarrel between Ottawa and Washington.
The name Ontario is derived from an Indigenous language, commonly traced to the Wendat—or Huron—word Ontarí’io. Translations vary and are often rendered as “beautiful lake,” “great lake” or “sparkling water.” Whatever English translation one prefers, the essential fact is the same: the name is rooted in the languages and knowledge of Indigenous peoples who lived in and travelled through the Great Lakes region long before the United States declared independence in 1776 or Canada formed Confederation in 1867.
Indigenous nations had names, trade routes, political relationships and deep connections to these waters before an international border divided the lake. Replacing an Indigenous-derived name with “Lake America” does not honour that older history. It overlays it with a modern nationalist claim.
It would also be too simple to suggest that the word “Ontario” belongs exclusively to modern Canada. The point is precisely the opposite: the name predates both modern states. Its history challenges the notion that either national government owns the lake’s identity.
If the U.S. administration genuinely wished to honour the region’s history, it could have consulted Indigenous nations, historians, New York State, Canada and the international bodies concerned with shared waters. A unilateral announcement made amid a trade fight is not consultation. It is political theatre.
A pattern of deliberate humiliation
Each episode could be dismissed as a joke or symbolic gesture if viewed alone. Together they show a governing style:
- A defence secretary uses people from an allied youth program as social-media content.
- The Pentagon defends the post rather than recognizing the obvious boundary crossed.
- A treasury secretary ridicules an ally’s armed forces while discussing an economic conflict.
- A president applies a nationalist name to a shared lake whose established name has Indigenous roots.
This is not diplomatic toughness. Tough diplomacy has a defined objective. It uses pressure to obtain a measurable policy result while preserving channels needed for security, trade and crisis management.
Mocking cadets does not improve burden-sharing. Joking about mall submarines does not accelerate Canadian procurement. Renaming Lake Ontario does not resolve tariffs. These acts mainly communicate contempt.
That distinction is important. Policy criticism says, “Canada must invest more rapidly in defence.” Humiliation says, “Canada and Canadians deserve to be laughed at.” The first can form the basis of negotiation. The second destroys trust.
The total lack of professionalism
Professionalism in public office is not politeness for its own sake. It is the discipline to understand that words from senior officials carry consequences.
A defence secretary should know the difference between cadets and serving personnel. A treasury secretary should understand that economic negotiations with a major trading partner are not improved by military ridicule. A president should recognize that a shared international lake—and an Indigenous-derived name—is not his personal branding opportunity.
Officials representing the United States are entitled to pursue American interests. They are not entitled to expect Canadians to accept disrespect as diplomacy.
The current administration’s conduct risks normalizing the idea that strength is demonstrated by humiliating smaller allies. In reality, a secure great power does not need to mock teenagers, belittle the dead and rename its neighbour’s geography to prove its importance.
Canada should answer with facts, confidence and resolve
Canada should not imitate this behaviour. It should respond with accuracy and firmness.
That means defending the young people unfairly pulled into the dispute; correcting false impressions about the Cadet Program; acknowledging honestly where the Canadian Armed Forces require investment; accelerating defence procurement; and reminding Americans of the lives, institutions and interests the two countries have shared.
It also means continuing to call Lake Ontario by its historic name—not because Donald Trump cannot force Canadians to say otherwise, but because the name connects the lake to a human history far older than either flag now flying over its shores.
Canada and the United States will remain neighbours. Their geography, economies and security are inseparable. That enduring relationship deserves sober leadership on both sides of the border.
Canadians can disagree with Washington without hating Americans. They can demand stronger Canadian defence while condemning the ridicule of those who serve or participate in youth programs. And they can defend the name Lake Ontario while recognizing that its Indigenous roots precede the authority of both governments.
Respect is not weakness. Professionalism is not surrender. Among allies, both are strategic assets—and the present U.S. administration is spending them recklessly.
Sources and further reading
- Government of Canada — Cadets — identifies the Cadet Program as a program for youth aged 12 to 18.
- Government of Canada — About the Cadet Program — explains the program’s youth-development, inclusion and leadership objectives.
- National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman — Investigation concerning cadets — confirms that cadets are not Canadian Armed Forces members or National Defence employees.
- Global News — Hegseth’s post about the Canadian cadet program — reports the post and the responses from Canadian officials.
- CityNews — Pentagon defends Hegseth’s Canadian cadet post — documents the image, caption and Pentagon response.
- The Guardian — Backlash over Hegseth’s post — additional reporting on the image and criticism from Canadian and U.S. political figures.
- New York Post — Bessent’s submarine remarks — reports Bessent’s words from his CNBC appearance. The quoted remarks are used as evidence; this article’s editorial framing is not adopted wholesale.
- NORAD — About NORAD — describes the Canada–U.S. binational command and its aerospace and maritime warning missions.
- NORAD — NORAD Agreement — records the creation of the binational command in 1957–58.
- Government of Canada — Canada’s Afghanistan mission — records approximately 40,000 Canadian participants and the deaths of 158 CAF members and one Canadian diplomat.
- NATO — NATO and Afghanistan — explains that allied deployments followed the September 11 attacks on the United States.
- White House — Executive order renaming Lake Ontario for U.S. federal purposes — primary text of the August 27, 2026 order.
- Associated Press — Trump signs Lake Ontario naming order — explains the order’s U.S. scope and Canada’s rejection of it.
- Associated Press — Apple’s U.S.-only map change — reports how the name appears to U.S., Canadian and international map users.
Leave a Reply