Suppose Trump takes us to war. Who would be the enemy?

The US economy, whipsawed by inflationary tariff threats and soon to absorb many laid off federal workers, may be headed for a recession. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics now puts the odds of a recession soon at 35%, while J.P. Morgan Chase rates the likelihood as 40%. President Trump has admitted that a recession is possible.

Should the economy get worse, Trump will lose the support of many voters who supported him because they were frustrated with inflation under Biden. Presidents of countries in economic hardship typically take action. But direct payments to consumers like those distributed during the pandemic will further fuel inflation, and spending money like that would fly in the face of Elon Musk and Trump’s actions to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

Would a war solve the problem?

To be absolutely clear, I’m not recommending combat. There is no nation on earth whose actions towards the United States are anywhere near threatening enough to make combat conceivable, let alone inevitable. Since the U.S. exited Afghanistan in 2021, there’s been no sustained fighting involving Americans anywhere in the world, and I’d prefer if that continued for a very long time.

But war has a way of changing perspectives on the President. Ramping up for the Nazi threat in World War II ended the Great Depression and rallied people around FDR. The 9-11 attacks created a patriotic surge for George W. Bush. War changes the narrative and ramps up spending for a reason — it’s an effective excuse to stimulate the economy, especially since we are supposedly saving so much from DOGE government cuts.

But war needs an enemy.

I still think war is unlikely, simply because of the lack of credible enemies and justifications. To be even marginally conceivable, the enemy in a war against America must:

• Appear threatening.
• Be possible to defeat without enormous pain and loss of life or existential risk to the U.S.
• Not look like us. Racist though it may be, in the 21st Century, America prefers wars with non-white people who don’t speak English. War against people with whom the majority of Americans can identify would be virtually impossible to sell.

With those criteria in mind, here’s a ranking of potential enemies against which Trump might try to take America to war, ranked from extremely unlikely to somewhat unlikely.

Extremely unlikely enemies

• Canada. Would Trump go to war to make Canada (or part of Canada) the 51st state? Despite his repeated desire to annex Canada, it’s extremely unlikely that the U.S. would take military action to accomplish this goal. Casting Canadians, our longtime allies and peaceful neighbors, as evil enemies of the United States is laughable. The cessation of trade between the two nations would further plunge both countries into recession — for example, American auto manufacturing would virtually grind to a halt. Citizens of border states like Montana, Washington, and Maine, and Michigan would be under threat. Canada could even invoke the NATO treaty to force European allies into the fight to defend it. And I’m pretty sure that most of the American military would refused orders to invade Canada.
• Ukraine. Trump’s recently publicly humiliated Ukraine’s president Zelensky and temporarily withdrew military and intelligence support from Ukraine in its war with Russia. But it’s an enormous shift to go from “You’re no longer a solid ally” to “You are now our enemy.” Trump’s objective in Ukraine is to force both sides to end the war — likely on terms that Ukraine will find very tough to swallow — not to enter the fight on the side of Russia. Attacking Ukraine would also likely unite Europe in opposition to the U.S.
• Russia. Having repeatedly expressed admiration for Russia’s president Putin, and after denying that Russia was the aggressor in the Ukraine war, it would be pretty tough for Trump to do an about-face and suddenly declare Russia to be a threat. And of course, it’s folly to go to war directly against a nuclear-armed enemy. Biden wouldn’t send U.S. troops to fight Russia alongside Ukrainians. Trump, far more favorable to Russia, is vanishingly unlikely to do so.

Very unlikely enemies

• China. There’s no question that Trump sees China as a rival to US power and that he’d take any chance to further challenge it. But China, with a massive army and nuclear weapons, would be formidable foe. If China were to forcibly take over Taiwan, would the U.S. provide military assistance to the Taiwanese? That’s a difficult question. The U.S. imports over $400 billion in goods from China every year. It’s one thing to tariff these goods to slow down imports, and yet another to engage in a shooting war that would likely end trade altogether. The cessation of commerce would be disastrous for both countries, as would the war. As a result, it’s hard for me to see any circumstance in which the U.S. and China would end up in an armed conflict.
• Hamas. Trump has no sympathy for Hamas and little regard for the Palestinians, as reflected in his suggestion to turn Gaza into a U.S.-owned luxury seaside state. But joining Israel in its war to punish Hamas would accomplish nothing but putting American soldiers in harm’s way. The U.S role in this conflict is far more likely to be as an intermediary and negotiator, not an aggressor.

Somewhat unlikely enemies

• Mexico. Spanish-speaking Mexicans are a lot easier for Trump to demonize than (mostly) English-speaking Canadians. Mexico is not a NATO country. And even though the flood of migrants has slowed, Trump can use the excuse of fentanyl flowing across the southern border. But invading Mexico remains unlikely, because the American and Mexican economies remain intertwined. What is the immediate threat? And more importantly, what is the desired end state? The U.S. military is justifiably resistant to undertake military action without a clear objective.
• Greenland/Denmark. Trump has stated that the U.S. will take over Greenland “one way or another.” And as an enemy, the Greenlanders and the Danes are likely no match for the might of the entire U.S. military. Even so, Denmark is a NATO country and could call for other European allies to respond to an American attack. What threat does Greenland pose to America, when there’s already a U.S. military base there? There’s also the lack of a pretense for such a war. Such an invasion would pretty clearly be easy to identify as imperialist greed, not much of an excuse to put American lives at risk.
• Panama. Trump’s ambition to take over the Panama Canal is clear. I’m sure the U.S. military could succeed in that effort, and Panamanian-Americans are only the 15th largest group of Hispanics in the U.S. — not a group that Trump would care about upsetting. The violation of the previously signed Panama Canal Treaty probably wouldn’t stop Trump, even though it would ruin America’s trust in the world. The problem here is trade. Temporary interruptions to shipping through the canal would be disastrous. Permanent damage to the canal would hugely disrupt world trade. There’s no point in taking over the canal if by doing so you’d destroy it.
• Iran. Trump would love a chance to exert power over rival Iran. It wouldn’t take much of an excuse to start a war. But America’s appetite for yet another costly and dangerous Middle East war — especially on a weak pretense — makes such an attack unlikely.
• Cuba or Venezuela. As a nearby, communist, Spanish-speaking nation, Cuba likely appears to Trump as a natural enemy. Would the Russians come to Cuba’s aid? Even if the U.S. vanquished Cuba, it’s likely the populace would be in continual revolt. A similar calculation likely applies to Venezuela. The challenge with a war in these places is that neither nation appears to pose much of a threat. Why invade a country that’s not harming America?
• A future, unknown aggressor. The 9-11 attacks and the October 7 raid in Israel are both example of groups that suddenly became a far more visible threat. Such actions generate new enemies that weren’t previously a military priority. It’s entirely possible to imagine some other anti-American group attacking the U.S. in future years. Trump would doubtless mobilize the U.S. military immediately in the face of such an attack, with backing from Congress. It’s pretty hard to predict where such an attack might originate from.
• Immigrants. Of all the potential enemies Trump could identify, immigrants within the United States are the likeliest enemy. Would he use the military to find them, round them up, and deport them? Certainly. Would he boost the ICE budget by many billions as a way to increase spending and stimulate the economy? Yes. Would he constantly demonize immigrants as a threat in order to distract the population from economic hardship? Likely. Consider the recent arrest of Palestinian protestor Mahmoud Khalil, holder of a valid Green Card and charged with no crime. Trump’s immigration crackdown is clearly not going to be deterred by the legal status of the immigrants he targets.

Horrifying

I have to admit that while the analytical part of my mind was creating this list, the emotional part of it was deeply disturbed.

War for just reasons is still terrible. But war to distract the population from economic hardship is disgusting. If it destroys our relationships with other nations like Canada, Mexico, and NATO members, the result will damage the U.S. reputation for decades.

I urge all members of Congress: do not allow Trumpian military desires to turn into costly misadventures. Push back. Because regardless of who the enemy is, the victim will be America.