From Donroe to Davos: Canadian Innovation and Canada’s Sovereignty in 2026

By Laurent Carbonneau
CCI Director of Policy and Research

In December, the Trump Administration published its new National Security Strategy. It is, to put it mildly, a provocative document. 

Indeed, it was so provocative that when it was published, it was tempting to many to write it off as one of many Trumpian flourishes to be taken “seriously but not literally.”

The first few weeks of 2026, however, should be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that the Trump administration is not enthusiastically committed to dominating the Western hemisphere, from the oilfields of Venezuela to the, um, snowfields of Greenland. People (including the big man himself) are now calling this the Donroe Doctrine in a nod to the 19th century Monroe Doctrine, which declared the Americas off-limits to the colonial powers of the Old World. For all the military bluster and even the use of force, the terrain the Americans count on dominating is the economy.

As Canada’s governments look to the year ahead, they should take some key lessons from how the US thinks about innovation and views its big tech firms as critical to projecting and entrenching power. Canada can’t effectively resist the weaponization of our economic integration without alternatives and strong, innovative firms at home that build out Canada’s freedom to operate alongside their own.

Throwing its weight around in the American near abroad, including our north, is at the heart of America’s new strategy. China and the Asia-Pacific take a back seat, and the section on Europe is more focused on articulating baroque theories of civilizational decline than on the nuts-and-bolts of economic and security cooperation with the world’s biggest trading bloc. So what’s America’s new vision for how it wants to pursue dominance in its backyard? What are its objectives and what are its tools?

The United States government sees its innovation advantage, and the weight this brings to it in global affairs, as a “core, vital national interest” - one of just five. As they put it, “we want to ensure that U.S. technology and U.S. standards—particularly in AI, biotech, and quantum computing—drive the world forward.” 

In the administration’s vision, tech leadership is both a means and an end. “The world’s most advanced, most innovative, and most profitable technology sector … undergirds our economy, provides a qualitative edge to our military, and strengthens our global influence.” There is a keen understanding in Washington that innovation, security and industrial policy are inextricably linked. 

The Strategy further points to a policy of government-sponsored acquisition of economic assets in the Americas and of securing sole-source contracts for American companies in the countries over which the United States has the most leverage. 

This is a very dark version of the idea of freedom to operate: that part of the strategic moat for US companies operating abroad is that the United States government will step in with the latent threat of coercion to ensure favourable conditions and prevent the emergence of potential competitors.

With all of this in the foreground, it was encouraging to see Prime Minister Mark Carney deliver a strong statement at the annual World Economic Forum about how the democratic middle powers can work together to protect their sovereignty in the face of a new politics of coercion from the world’s economic and military superpowers. 

"More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination."

The speech is genuinely remarkable and I recommend you read it. 

To the Prime Minister’s point above, subordination through integration is exactly what the Americans are aiming for. It’s all laid out quite clearly here. For us at CCI, this is exactly the framework we’ve been arguing exists through both Democratic and Republican administrations in the US. This part of Trump’s agenda is not new, but it has never been more clearly laid out.

How can Canada respond to the American National Security Strategy and to the Prime Minister’s call to action to ourselves and to our allies? What does an economic pivot that recognizes the reality of the new global order the Prime Minister has described look like?

The in-the-works Defence Industrial Strategy is a great place to start explicitly treating our innovation and security policies as inextricably entwined, and aim to grow IP-intensive, dual-use technology firms that can help meet our own defence needs as well as those of our allies. 

An important subtext to the US NSS is that just below the state, the class of actor with the most agency in the world are firms - and that these are critical channels for states to project influence. As the strategy says, “every U.S. Government official… should understand that part of their job is to help American companies compete and succeed.” 

We don’t need to embrace this thinking with coercion in mind. But Canadian policy that focuses on scaling firms that can create real power for Canada on the world stage – companies that harness AI and quantum technologies, that equip and enable militaries that defend democracies, or help grow the food and mine the resources that keep the world’s lights on – is what can make a big difference and make Canada a more meaningful middle power.

--

Laurent Carbonneau is CCI's Vice President of Policy and Advocacy. He can be reached at lcarbonneau@canadianinnovators.org. Mooseworks is the Council of Canadian Innovators' innovation policy newsletter. To get posts like this delivered to your inbox, sign up for CCI's newsletter here .