Trump NEVER Saw This Coming – Canada Just BLOCKED U.S. Access to Alaska!

Trump thought Canada would roll over. He was  dead wrong. When he slapped tariffs on Canada, he probably expected some complaints—a  little pushback, maybe.

But instead, Canada hit back hard. And now? It’s threatening  something Trump never saw coming—U.

S. access to Alaska. That’s right.

One bold move by Canada  could make Alaska feel a whole lot less American. But how did it come to this? And just how  far could Canada go?

Let’s break it down. Alaska is a huge state – 663,268 square miles of  rugged wilderness, glaciers, and some of the most mind-boggling geography in the U. S.

You know what  else is mind-boggling? Alaska is one of only two U. S.

states that isn’t connected to the “Lower 48”  by land. We’re basically talking about a distant cousin of the U. S.

– sitting all the way up there,  separated by a whole lot of space. But guess who plays a huge role in making sure Alaska is still  somewhat part of the U. S.

? Yep, Canada. Alaska’s only land access to the rest of the U.

S. runs  through the Great White North. So, to get from Alaska to the Continental U.

S. , you have to go  through Canada – whether by road, rail, or sea. Air travel is the only exception, but even that’s  tricky.

While it’s possible to fly directly to Alaska from some U. S. cities, most flights still  need to cross Canadian airspace.

So, unless you’re willing to take a very roundabout route, Canada’s  presence is hard to escape. This especially applies to land transport. Alaska shares a massive  1,538-mile border with Canada, stretching from the icy Arctic Ocean all the way down to the Pacific. 

You’ve got the Yukon Territory and British Columbia on the east side of Alaska, and the whole  thing’s one massive stretch of terrain that makes most people wonder why anyone would even want  to live there. But hey, it’s home to about 740,000 people, so they probably made it work. But  seriously, let’s talk about that border.

It’s no friendly, neat little line like most international  borders. The thing’s practically invisible in places, like on the summit of Mount Saint Elias,  towering 18,008 feet above sea level. In other places, it’s more like a giant obstacle course. 

That’s why the International Boundary Commission had to trek through some of the most remote and  unforgiving landscapes on the planet just to mark this border. In some areas, the Commission cut  through forests and mountains with metal cones, and in others, the boundary goes straight through  the middle of mountains where no one in their right mind would want to build anything. Still,  the boundary is there alright – marked and crucial to everything.

The insanity of large portions  of the Canada-Alaska border only underscores the importance of roads connecting Alaska to Canada  and, thus, the U. S. Essentially, Canada’s got the power to hold the U.

S. state hostage in a way  that no one else can. And trust us – Canada is well aware of this.

So, what is Canada doing with  its role as Alaska’s gatekeeper? Well, it’s coming for trucks trying to make their way from the U. S. 

to Alaska first. Granted, it’s not the entirety of Canada that’s targeting Alaska in this way – it’s  mostly one province. It’s British Columbia – the towering might of Canada’s western realm.

The  province shares its northern border with Alaska, making it the key land link between the U. S. state  and the rest of Canada.

Without British Columbia, the state of Alaska would essentially be an  isolated entity, with virtually no access to land-based transportation. And if the Premier  of British Columbia, David Eby, gets his way, U. S.

truckers will get to experience this  isolation firsthand. Namely, Eby is preparing to impose tolls on commercial trucks traveling  through the province on their way to Alaska. Tolls are essentially fees charged for using certain  roads, bridges, or tunnels, and they typically fund infrastructure or manage traffic.

But in  this case, they have a slightly different job – to limit U. S. access to Alaska.

If implemented,  these fees would add significant costs to shipments heading north, making it more expensive  – and potentially less efficient – to transport goods from the Lower 48 to Alaska. They’re a  direct response to Trump’s tariffs, and Eby is making this clear. While the tolls might not come  into effect immediately, they certainly serve as a warning shot – British Columbia is ready to  make life harder for U.

S. truckers if the trade war continues to escalate. Canada won’t just sit  back and absorb the economic blow without pushing back.

And it’s not just about the money. This move  could create a serious logistical headache. Alaska depends on this land route for most of its goods,  and without it, the state would face crippling shortages.

The goods being hit the hardest?  Fresh produce and oil – according to Alaska State Senator Robert Myers. Myers himself is a trucker,  so he knows what he’s talking about.

When asked about the tolls and their intended targets, he  said, “If you want to get something up here fast, you put it on a truck, not a barge. ” However, this  still doesn’t mean Canada is swarmed with trucks headed to Alaska all day long. In fact, the truck  traffic headed to Alaska isn’t nearly as intense as it is in the Lower 48.

According to the Alaska  Trucking Association, 57. 8% of manufacture tonnage is transported by trucks in Alaska, which is  13,170 tons per day. This lower number results from Alaska not functioning like most other states  when it comes to transportation.

The state is more dependent on air and water transport for moving  goods, due to its remote nature and the difficulty of accessing it by land. What’s more, the role of  trucks in Alaska is more specialized. According to the National Highway System, Alaska’s truck  freight transportation mainly focuses on moving goods from seaports and airports to industrial  sites and consumers, rather than hauling large volumes of goods over long distances like in  the Lower 48.

This is a much smaller role, and Alaska only has 2,229 miles of designated  roadways within the National Highway System, which is just 12. 6% of its total public network.  It’s a relatively limited network, and not as much freight traffic passes through it as you would  find in other states.

This means that Canada’s tolls would affect a crucial but relatively small  segment of traffic. That is, of course, if British Canada manages to implement these tolls in the  first place. To achieve this symbolic victory, British Columbia would have to navigate a tricky  legal and logistical minefield.

Let’s tackle the legal aspect first. The proposed toll system  faces a major legal challenge – an existing treaty between Canada and the U. S.

, specifically  concerning the Alaska Highway. The Alaska Highway is a 1,387-mile stretch of road that serves as the  primary land route between Alaska and the rest of the U. S.

Built during World War II as a military  route, it’s now the main overland connection for residents, industries, and tourists alike. The  highway stretches through some of the most remote, rugged landscapes in North America, with weather  and road conditions that make it feel more like a survival challenge than a scenic drive. But we’ll  explore this highway in more detail later.

For now, let’s go back to why its toll system would  be a legal headache. You see, under the treaty we just mentioned, Canada is explicitly prohibited  from imposing tolls on any portion of the highway system used for the transport of goods between the  U. S.

and Alaska. Article II of this treaty states: “Canada will not impose any highway toll, or  permit any such toll to be charged for the use of such highways by vehicles or persons. ” It doesn’t  get clearer than that.

Plus, this includes not just imposing fees directly but also any indirect  charges, effectively blocking tolls on the highway used for the transportation of goods. The treaty  aims to facilitate smooth and uninterrupted transport along this critical route, which, as  mentioned, serves as the sole land link between Alaska and the rest of the U. S.

The 1977 agreement  also ensures that the U. S. and Canada will jointly maintain the Alaska Highway, with the U.

S. funding  reconstruction and Canada overseeing its upkeep. Adding tolls would not only violate these terms  but would also risk complicating the collaborative infrastructure maintenance outlined in the  agreement.

The legal precedent set by this treaty means that Eby’s proposed tolls could violate  international agreements, forcing British Columbia to face a diplomatic and legal battle. But given  how determined British Colombia seems to fight back, it wouldn’t be shocking if its Premier found  some sneaky loophole to wiggle through. After all, Eby is a man on a mission – one that won’t be  deterred by anything, not a pesky treaty, and not logistical challenges.

As far as these logistical  – or should we say technical – challenges go, British Columbia’s plans to hit a few bumps in the  road. For starters, the province doesn’t currently have any toll stations along its highways leading  to Alaska. This fact probably has something to do with that treaty we keep mentioning.

But even  if legal barriers were somehow sidestepped, the technical side of things isn’t as simple  as it sounds. As Ranj Pillai, the Premier of Yukon – another province considering tolls –  points out, implementing tolls would require significant new infrastructure. Think toll booths,  staff to operate them, and likely a brand-new set of regulations to get everything up and running. 

“We’ve got to look at what our actions are and what legal tools we have to make those decisions,”  said Pillai, sounding a bit like someone who’s about to open a can of worms. It’s one thing to  talk tough; it’s another to actually build the system to back it up. Myers, however, doesn’t  seem to agree with Pillai.

Although he isn’t in favor of tolls for his state, he doesn’t consider  tolling rocket science in this case. After all, trucks already have to stop at weigh stations for  safety checks, so adding toll booths wouldn’t be a massive leap. But Myers isn’t the only one  who isn’t fond of these tolls.

Jamie Benson, the Executive Director of the Alaska Trucking  Association, has also voiced strong concerns. She said the proposal “will significantly increase  transportation costs, disrupt supply chains, and raise prices for essential goods that Alaskans  rely on. ” Benson urged provincial policymakers to remember the great relationship between Alaska and  British Columbia, hoping the federal governments could find a way to avoid tariffs.

Seems like the  pressure’s building on all sides. But you know who doesn’t care about this pressure? The people of  Canada.

Take the folks in Yukon as an example. They’re not just sitting back and hoping this  all blows over. No, they’re getting creative with their retaliation.

Pillai has heard from residents  who are practically pitching an action plan, including ideas like banning Alaska athletes  from the upcoming Arctic Winter Games. And if you think that’s bold, some Yukoners are  even suggesting they put a ban on none other than Donald Trump Jr. himself.

Yes, you heard  that right – the man known for big-game hunts in the territory – might find himself on the  “Do Not Enter” list. And he will surely have to earn his way back! These unconventional ideas  paint a pretty clear picture – Canada won’t back down.

Even though Trump has eased off some of  his initial tariff threats, Eby has been firm: “We will not tolerate these ongoing threats and  uncertainty. We’re standing up for Canadians. ” The toll proposal – though mostly symbolic  for now – speaks volumes.

The number of trucks affected might be small, but the message behind  it is loud and clear – Canada’s frustrated and ready to stand its ground. This piling frustration  makes us wonder – how far could Canada go? Could it cut Alaska off completely?

Let’s hypothesize  a little. If Canada wanted to cut off Alaska from the rest of the U. S.

, it would need to disrupt key  transportation and supply routes. Here’s how that could be done in theory. First up – blocking  land access.

With the tolls we discussed, Canada is already making moves in this department.  But a true blockade would mean something much more drastic – closing down the Alaska Highway. Cutting  off the only major overland connection between Alaska and the lower 48 states.

As mentioned,  this highway is a lifeline for everything from fuel to food to industry in Alaska. So, you  can imagine the chaos if Canada decided to pull the plug on it. After all, Alaska is already  struggling with accessibility.

Some parts of the biggest U. S. state – like the town of Hyder  – depend entirely on Canadian infrastructure.

You can’t drive into Hyder unless you go through  Stewart, British Columbia, or hop on a floatplane. Block that road, and you’ve isolated entire  communities. Throw in the fact that parts of Alaska are only reachable by road through Canada –  Haines and Skagway come to mind – and you can see how shutting down the highway would disrupt the  entire region.

But, let’s be real – could Canada actually pull this off? Technically, yes. Almost  80% of the Alaska Highway lies on Canadian soil, which gives the country significant leverage. 

But a blockade would mean shutting down a road that’s responsible for nearly all the goods and  services that move into and out of Alaska by land, which wouldn’t be without consequences.  The economic fallout would be immense, and it’s not just Alaska that would suffer.  Businesses across Canada could see disruptions, too.

But remember – Canada is tired of the ongoing  tariff threats. The idea of closing off Alaska’s primary road access might seem extreme, but  as tensions rise, who knows? The way things are headed, the Alaska Highway might just become  the world’s most dramatic game of chicken.

Now, if Canada really wanted to crank up the  pressure, blocking marine access could be a game-changer. Alaska’s Inside Passage stretches  500 miles along the Pacific Ocean and boasts wildlife-filled fjords, tidewater glaciers, and  lush island scenery. It’s a coastal beauty, yes, but more importantly, it’s a crucial route for  Alaska, and more than 90% of Alaska-bound cargo is shipped by ocean.

If Canada wanted to make  things difficult, shutting this route down would send shockwaves through Alaskan logistics. After  all, this is the route freighters, fishing boats, and passenger ferries take through Canadian waters  to avoid the harsher conditions of the open ocean. So, blocking the Inside Passage means forcing  vessels to take the open ocean route – a longer, rougher, and far less efficient path.

Not exactly  the cruise ship captain’s dream. Speaking of cruises, Alaska’s thriving cruise industry depends  on these Canadian waters. In 2023 alone, a record 1.

65 million cruise passengers used this route  to visit Southeast Alaska. If Canada cuts it off, not only does Alaska face a tourism crisis,  but the ripple effect on the cruise industry would be catastrophic. We’re talking canceled  trips, lost revenue, and angry passengers left stranded in Canadian ports.

Then there’s the  Prince Rupert Ferry Terminal, which serves as a critical transit hub for Alaskans heading  south. If Canada decides to close it, they’re essentially slamming the door on Alaska’s travel  connections to the lower 48. That’s not to mention the fact that this terminal is the world’s first  marine preclearance location, meaning U.

S. Customs handles inspections in Canada. But would Canada  take such drastic steps?

Again, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. Blocking marine access  would shake Alaska – and the U. S.

– to its core, and the consequences would be felt far beyond  the waters. Canada’s playing the long game, and with the Inside Passage and Prince Rupert  Terminal in its hands, it has the cards to make a major impact. But when we shift to air travel, the  stakes drop a little.

Sure, Alaska’s air traffic is crucial, but Canada’s influence in the skies  is more about subtle inconvenience than full-on chaos. Here’s the deal. U.

S. commercial and  military flights between Alaska and the Lower 48 often pass through Canadian airspace. Now, if  Canada decided to deny these overflight rights, it would force planes to take a longer, costlier  route – either over the Pacific or the Arctic.

It’s a hassle for sure, but it's not the kind  of knock-out punch other blockade methods would deliver. At most, we’re talking higher fuel costs,  more logistical complexity, and maybe a few more angry passengers, but the effect is relatively  minor in the grand scheme of things. Alaska’s air infrastructure could still function – just with a  few detours thrown in.

That said, air traffic does rely heavily on coordination with Canadian air  traffic control. The smooth operation between U. S.

and Canadian aviation authorities keeps flights  flowing efficiently. If Canada threw a wrench in that system, you’d see delays, sure, but nothing  catastrophic. The real disruption would come in the form of emergency diversions.

Aircraft flying  to or from Alaska might need to land in Canada in case of an in-flight emergency, and that’s  where cooperation matters. But even then, it’s all temporary setbacks. What isn’t a temporary  setback, however, is Canada’s grip on Alaska’s trade and commerce – this is where the real havoc  could be wreaked.

Much of Alaska’s food, fuel, and consumer goods come through Canada. So, imagine  Canada slapping heavy tariffs, closing border crossings, or banning specific trade routes.  It’s not just an inconvenience – it’s an economic disaster.

Alaska would face shortages of  everything from fuel to construction materials, and those costs would skyrocket in no time. Canada  holds a pretty solid position here, thanks to its control over rail and freight services. There’s  no direct railway linking Alaska to the Lower 48, so goods are constantly shipped through Canadian  rails.

The port of Vancouver is a crucial hub, handling a massive portion of shipments to and  from Alaska. From food to fuel, everything moves through Canadian ports and railways before  reaching its destination. Take that away, and Alaska’s logistics system would simply  collapse.

But this isn’t a one-way street. Every year, over $1 billion in trade flows  between Alaska and Canada – Alaska exports about $596 million to Canada while importing $753  million worth of goods. This means that Canada’s economy would suffer, too.

Although the country is  already making moves to reduce its dependence on the U. S. across the board, this kind of economic  disruption would still sting.

And that’s putting it lightly. But this wouldn’t be the true cost  of an Alaska blockade. The true cost is about the people, the families, and the small towns that  rely on seamless cross-border exchange for their very survival.

According to recent statistics,  trade with Canada supports over 20,000 jobs in Alaska alone. And that’s on top of the 4,350  employees in Canadian-owned businesses across Alaska. These aren’t just numbers on a page –  they’re families relying on that paycheck to put food on the table and to pay their bills. 

Take away the trade, and their livelihoods are at risk. As one local leader put it, “I don’t see  how the common person gets anything out of it. I think only the citizens bear the brunt of this  cost.

” With this in mind, do you think Canada would ever go through with a full blockade of  Alaska? How much pressure would it need to face before taking such drastic measures? And what  do you think the U.

S. response would be – both to the proposed tolls and a more drastic blockade?  Share your thoughts in the comments section below.