UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT REGARDING PROPOSED TRANSFER OF ALASKA TO CANADIAN JURISDICTION
UNCLASSIFIED // FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The Department of Defense has been briefed on the proposed adoption of the State of Alaska by the Canadian territory of Yukon, and the potential transfer of Alaska to Canadian jurisdiction.
The Department offers the following statement:
SECTION 1: STRATEGIC ASSETS IN ALASKA
For context, Alaska currently hosts the following U.S. defense installations and assets:
- Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER): Major Air Force and Army installation, Anchorage
- Eielson Air Force Base: Fighter aircraft, Interior Alaska
- Fort Wainwright: Army installation, Fairbanks
- Clear Space Force Station: Ballistic missile early warning
- Fort Greely: Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors
- Numerous radar installations: North Warning System, NORAD integration
- Coast Guard facilities: Multiple stations
- Strategic location: Arctic access, Pacific rim, proximity to Russia
Total military personnel in Alaska: Approximately 21,000
Total defense-related employment: Approximately 40,000
Annual defense spending in Alaska: Approximately $4 billion
SECTION 2: INITIAL ASSESSMENT
The Department's initial assessment is as follows:
This is extremely complicated.
Alaska is not merely a state. Alaska is a critical node in North American defense architecture. The assets in Alaska provide:
- Early warning against ballistic missile attack
- Intercept capability for missile defense
- Arctic domain awareness
- Power projection into the Pacific
- NORAD coverage for the northwestern approach
Transfer of Alaska to Canada would require renegotiation of virtually every defense agreement governing the northern approaches.
SECTION 3: CONSIDERATIONS
The Department notes the following considerations:
| Factor | Assessment |
|---|---|
| NORAD integration | Canada is already a NORAD partner. Integration is theoretically possible but would require extensive renegotiation. |
| Base agreements | Status of Forces Agreements would need to be established. US forces could potentially remain under agreement. |
| Missile defense | Fort Greely interceptors are critical. Transfer of these assets is extremely sensitive. |
| Arctic operations | Canada has different Arctic priorities. Alignment would require negotiation. |
| Cost sharing | Defense of Alaska is expensive. Canada would assume significant costs. |
SECTION 4: SCENARIOS
The Department has considered the following scenarios:
Scenario A: Full Transfer
All US forces withdraw; Canada assumes full defense responsibility.
Assessment: High risk. Significant capability gap during transition.
Scenario B: Continued US Presence
US maintains bases under agreement; shared defense responsibility.
Assessment: Feasible but complex. Sovereignty questions arise.
Scenario C: Phased Transition
Gradual transfer over 10-20 years; Canada builds capability while US maintains presence.
Assessment: Most practical. Allows adjustment.
Scenario D: We Just Don't Do This
Status quo maintained.
Assessment: Simplest. But apparently not what anyone wants.
SECTION 5: POSITION
The Department of Defense does not endorse or oppose the proposed transfer. This is a political decision that will be made by civilian leadership.
The Department does, however, emphasize that any transfer must include:
- Comprehensive defense transition planning (minimum 5-year lead time)
- Preservation of critical early warning and missile defense capabilities
- Clear agreements on US access and basing rights during transition
- Assurance that Arctic defense posture is not degraded
- Resolution of classified facility and information handling
The Department stands ready to participate in discussions should civilian leadership direct such engagement.
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
___________________________________
[Deputy Secretary of Defense]
United States Department of Defense
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution: Public Release Authorized
Internal Note: This is actually interesting. Canada's a NATO ally and NORAD partner. If they want Alaska, the defense implications are manageable. The political implications are above our pay grade. We just wanted to note that this isn't impossible from a defense standpoint. Complicated, yes. Impossible, no.