3) Finally, if you are going to run the risk of retaliation, do it when the Trump admin is weak and distracted by crisis and scandal. End/

I suggest 3 guideposts for managing retaliation.

1) Danger of retaliation is not constant. It's high when it touches on core interests, low when it forces unpopular positions.
2) Some policies are worth the risk of retaliation (e.g. diversifying trade with China). 8/

The Trump admin's capacity for retaliation is weakening.

Any act of retaliation (such as tariffs) requires political capital. Trump's stock is rapidly depleting. His polling is abysmal and mired in scandal. The Iran war is deeply unpopular.

Losing the midterms could be an inflection point. 7/

There are serious costs to reflexively letting retaliation drive Canadian foreign policy.

Carney initially supported Trump's war with Iran, likely because of fears over retaliation.

This turned out to be mistake triggering an embarrassing course change 6/

On other things their capacity is v. low.

Several states took legal action against Grok after the non-consensual sexual images of women and children. The admin threatened retaliation, but didn't follow through. Why?

Doing so would amounted to a de facto defense of child pornography. 5/

Trump admin is commonly seen as all-powerful colossus capable of retaliating at will.

This is a mistake. The admin's capacity for retaliation is unevenly distributed.

On some things, their capacity for retaliation is v. high. E.g. confronting China still enjoy broad support and legitimacy. 4/

Retaliation in Canadian-U.S. policy used to be incredibly rare. What changed?

1) Rise of the Imperial Presidency and absence of checks on Exec.
2) Weakening of transnational coalitions (businesses averse to standing up to Trump)
3) Decline of shared diplo culture (diplomats gone in purges) 3/

First, retaliation is a form of coercive diplomacy where a state responds to an action by by imposing painful costs. Retaliation can change behaviour, but so too can the threat of retaliation.

Right now, the threat of American retaliation is increasingly shaping Canadian policy debates 2/

The threat of Trump retaliation: how Canada should respond U.S. leverage is real but uneven. Three guideposts help policymakers assess risk, timing and strategic trade-offs.

I have a short piece on how Canada should think about retaliation in the age of Trump.

TLDR: the threat of retaliation is increasingly driving Canadian policy decisions, but we think about retaliation in overly simplistic ways. I offer some correctives. 1/

policyoptions.irpp.org/2026/04/cana...

'Contested Body Counts, a Missing Airman, and the (Necro)Politics of America's War in Iran' - a new blog from me now published by @ecprtheloop.bsky.social !

theloop.ecpr.eu/contested-bo...

Congratulations! Looks great,

war_iran_final-blow_v1.pdf

war_iran_final-final-blow-v2.pdf

war_iran_final-blow-no edits.pdf

war_iran_final-blow-no edits (1).pdf

war_iran_final-blow-no edits (1) APPROVED.pdf

IRANWARPLANSFINALFINALFINAL.pdf

IRANWARPLANSFINALFINALFINAL (1).pdf

Thank you @hist-isanet.bsky.social! 🙏

@harokarkour.bsky.social and my paper on racial justice and the national interest in classical #realism won the Merze Tate Prize for the Best Article in Historical IR

@sussexfss.bsky.social

Find the article here (OA) 👇

academic.oup.com/isr/article/...

Congratulations!

The King received a delegation of seven elected representatives of First Nations signatories to Treaty Number Six, the 1876 treaty between the Crown and First Nations in modern-day Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada

Notable audience by the King, amid talk of Alberta separation.

Treaty Six and other First Nations are in court fighting the constitutionality of any separation referendum in Alberta. They are arguing that their treaties are with the Crown, not the provincial government

In part yes, but compliance does not require norm internalization. In many cases people comply not because they are 'true believers' in a norm, but out of fear of being stigmatized as deviant.

There is a really neat literature on stigma and norms in IR

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

The Mark Carney moment of hope for a reformed somewhat rules-based order is already over. The "West" has lost all credibility. You cannot condemn illegal aggression against Greenland and Ukraine on principle, then support illegal aggression against Gaza, Venezuela, and Iran.

Fwiw, Lippmann definitely saw parts of the public as stupid (see attached), but he chalked this up to nationalist stereotypes and immature emotions.

In one sense, you can see the entire classical realist project as an attempt to create restraint on people who were literally unable to conceive of their own limitations. For Niebuhr, involved turning to religion. Morgenthau, the balance of power. For Lippmann, natural law.

I think this is the classical realist view of tragedy, right?

When you have radically over-confident (i.e. stupid) people who are unable to recognize their limitations--or historical and political contingency for that matter--it leads to hubris and catastrophic outcomes.

I guess my question is "where is it?"

You think AI can write a publishable political theory article in 2 hours? Great. Show me. Send me the pdf of the published article.

Based on this logic, we should have 100,000s of new high quality AI articles being published?

Where are they?

Hot take: The Carney government put out a statement supporting the United States without knowing what it was doing. Now that the US/Israel have assassinated a state leader, and Hegseth has declared "no stupid rules of engagement", supporting the U.S. looks a lot more difficult.

This is excellent

Yes, you are! Feels like ages ago...

Congratulations! Straight to the read pile.

The emotional politics of sovereignty: On dignity, state personhood, and kidnappings

My co-authored article with @nckc.bsky.social is published in @ejisbisa.bsky.social with #openaccess!
We theorize captivity/kidnapping as a sovereignty violation, and states respond with emotional performativity to protect their dignity, constructing personhood.

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Never has so much US combat power been assembled with so little explanation to the public, allies, or Congress regarding why or how it will be used. Never.

Canada is living through the most dangerous international crisis in living memory, but any attempt to study history, politics, or international affairs is dismissed as 'basket weaving' by the Premier of Canada's most populace province.

Look how much Canadians hate the United States now It’s not just about the trade war. Nearly half of America’s neighbors to the north now think the U.S. is a bigger threat to world peace than Russia.

There is definitely an opening here for Democrats to claim that 'Trump Lost Canada', especially after Canada's EV deal with China. This seems like very low-hanging fruit.

www.politico.com/news/2026/02...