After Beijing Remarks, Mark Carney’s “New World Order” Line Ignites a Political Firestorm — and a Flood of Online Claims

OTTAWA — A single sentence, delivered during a carefully choreographed visit to Beijing, has set off an international political storm. Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, speaking alongside Chinese officials, praised recent progress in bilateral cooperation and said it “sets us up well for the new world order.”

Within hours, the remark ricocheted across social media platforms in the United States and Canada, framed by influencers and partisan commentators as proof that Ottawa was aligning itself with Beijing against Washington, undermining the U.S. dollar, and accelerating a global realignment away from the West. Some posts went further, asserting that Canada had effectively “joined China’s camp,” that NATO was fracturing, and that President Donald Trump’s push to secure Greenland was a direct response to a coordinated effort to weaken American power.

The reality, according to diplomats, economists, and security analysts, is more complicated — and far less conspiratorial.

What Carney Actually Said — and Where

Mr. Carney’s remarks came during his first official visit to China since taking office, a trip intended to stabilize trade relations after years of tension. In prepared comments, he acknowledged that “the world has changed,” adding that incremental progress in cooperation could position Canada “well” in a changing global environment.

Canadian officials later said the phrase “new world order” was not meant as an ideological declaration, but as shorthand for a shifting global economy marked by slower growth, geopolitical rivalry, and fractured supply chains — language common in central banking and international finance circles, where Mr. Carney built much of his career as a former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.

Nonetheless, the wording proved combustible.

Beijing, Trade, and the EV Question

Fueling the backlash was Ottawa’s announcement that it would review tariffs affecting Chinese electric vehicles and agricultural exports, including canola — a move critics described as a “trade embrace” of Beijing.

Doug Ford, Ontario’s premier, warned that an influx of subsidized Chinese electric vehicles could hurt Canada’s auto sector and complicate relations with Washington. “This wasn’t thought through properly,” he said in an interview, arguing that vehicles produced under China’s industrial policies could face security and market-access barriers in the United States.

Federal officials counter that Canada is not opening its market unconditionally. Any adjustments, they said, would remain consistent with national security screening and North American trade commitments, including the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement.

The Dollar, BRICS, and Online Narratives

On social media, Mr. Carney’s Beijing visit was quickly linked to broader claims about a coordinated attempt to dethrone the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, often invoking the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

Economists note that while some countries have explored alternatives to dollar-denominated trade, the greenback remains dominant, accounting for the majority of global reserves and cross-border transactions. Canada, they emphasize, continues to conduct most of its trade in U.S. dollars and remains deeply integrated with the American economy.

“There’s a big leap from incremental trade diplomacy to an organized plot to collapse the dollar,” said one former Canadian central bank official. “That leap is happening online, not in policy.”

Greenland, Security, and Misread Signals

The online reaction also revived claims that Canada, China, and European allies were coordinating to block U.S. ambitions in Greenland — and that President Trump’s interest in the island was driven primarily by rare earth minerals critical to artificial intelligence and defense.

Denmark and Greenland have consistently rejected any suggestion of a transfer of sovereignty, while affirming close security cooperation with Washington through NATO and a longstanding 1951 defense agreement. Canadian officials have echoed that stance, backing Denmark’s territorial integrity while supporting a stronger NATO role in the Arctic.

“There is no evidence of Canada ‘turning against’ the United States on Greenland,” said a senior NATO diplomat. “There is disagreement over rhetoric, not over alliance fundamentals.”

Canada’s Domestic Fault Lines

The controversy has also exposed internal tensions within Canada. In Alberta, a long-standing separatist movement seized on the China visit to argue that Ottawa’s policies no longer reflect Western Canadian interests. Images of long lines for independence petition signings circulated widely, though political scientists caution that such movements have surged before without leading to secession.

Meanwhile, critics on the right have portrayed Mr. Carney as an unelected “globalist” imposed by elites — a charge his supporters dismiss as baseless, noting that he became prime minister through his party’s leadership process and parliamentary confidence.

Parsing the Bigger Picture

Mr. Carney is hardly alone among Western leaders in grappling with China. European governments continue to balance economic engagement with security concerns, even as Washington presses allies to reduce strategic dependencies on Beijing.

What distinguishes this episode is the speed with which a diplomatic phrase was absorbed into a broader online narrative about global collapse, secret alliances, and looming currency wars — narratives amplified by influencers citing past financial crises, Arctic geopolitics, and the rise of artificial intelligence as evidence of an existential struggle.

Policy experts argue that such framing obscures the real debate: how middle powers like Canada navigate an era of great-power rivalry without sacrificing economic interests or alliance commitments.

A Moment, Not a Manifesto

For now, Canada remains a core U.S. ally, a NATO member, and a participant in Western-led financial institutions. No policy shift announced in Beijing alters that reality. Mr. Carney’s government has reiterated support for NATO, for Ukraine, and for the rules-based international order — a phrase he has used repeatedly alongside, and sometimes interchangeably with, “new world order.”

Whether the episode becomes a lasting political liability may depend less on diplomacy than on domestic perception — and on how effectively leaders can separate careful policy from the viral claims that now define so much of the public conversation.

As one Canadian official put it privately: “This was a sentence meant for diplomats that escaped into the internet. And the internet did what it always does.”