Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s presidency has already completely upended Canada’s elections

Published

on

Trump’s presidency has already completely upended Canada’s elections

Most Americans are familiar with Canada, a country to America’s north that loves hockey, maple syrup and mispronouncing the word “about.”

But by and large, they don’t pay much attention to our Northern neighbor and certainly not its politics. But, in the era of Trump 2.0, what’s up is down, left is right, and as Darrell Bricker, the Global CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs and a prominent Canadian political analyst, joked to me, “Americans are actually paying attention to Canadian politics … which is weird.”

Then again, at no point in recent memory have U.S. actions played such a decisive role in roiling Canadian politics. Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, the president has transformed the upcoming Canadian elections into a referendum on which Canadian leader is most effective at standing up to America’s bully-in-chief — and, more decisively, on the future of the U.S.-Canadian relationship.

A few months ago, the outlines of Canada’s next election, which must be held by next October but could come as soon as April, were pretty straightforward: The incumbent Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, would get walloped.

The credit or blame (depending on one’s politics) for the narrowing polls doesn’t lie entirely with Trump.

The opposition Conservative Party, which hasn’t won a national election in nearly 15 years, led in the polls by as much as 25 points. Considering that most recent Canadian elections have been relatively close, this was a shockingly large margin. But in the last few weeks, polls show a dramatic shiftwith several surveys showing the two parties neck-and-neck. According to Bricker, he’s never seen as dramatic a shift in political fortunes in Canadian political history.

The credit or blame (depending on one’s politics) for the narrowing polls doesn’t lie entirely with Trump. The Conservatives’ early advantage had little to do with the United States and nearly everything to do with public antipathy toward Trudeau.

The son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the current prime minister entered office in 2015 on a wave of public acclaim. But the younger Trudeau has been on a downward spiral for much of his nearly 10-year tenure as prime minister. According to Bricker, Canadians see Trudeau as “insincere and “ineffective,” with a tendency for drama and arrogance. To make matters worse, says Bricker, the “things Justin Trudeau seems to care about are not the things that the public really care about.”

In January, Trudeau announced that he would be stepping down as prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party. That decision immediately boosted Liberals in the polls, particularly as some anti-Trudeau voters, who had gravitated to smaller parties like the more liberal New Democrat Party, returned to the Liberal fold. But even with Trudeau heading to the exits, the Conservatives and their leader, Pierre Poilievre, still had a clear lead.

Then came the second whammy — what Andrew Coyne, a columnist at The Globe and Mail, calls “the whole Trump thing.” What began with the imposition and then near-immediate cancellation of tariffs in January, and escalated with the president deriding Canada as the “51st state” reached a crescendo this week with yet another trade war. The result, says Brinker, is that Canadians are “afraid, perplexed … and pretty p—– off.”

“There is no space anywhere in the country,” says Coyne, “for anyone who is not ‘Elbows Up’” to the Americans. (“Elbows up,” as you may have guessed, is a hockey term that means keeping your elbows out to protect yourself … or fight back.)

Both agree an election that a few months ago looked like a referendum on the Liberals’ decade in power has been flipped on its head. Now Canadians are looking for a prime minister who can both stand up to Trump and deal with his impulsiveness. The problem for the Conservatives — and one reason for their dramatic polling decline — is that Canadians don’t seem to be sold on Poilievre as that leader.

Canada’s fight with Trump is about more than just the personality of the country’s next leader.

Though a conservative, Poilievre doesn’t easily fit into the MAGA mold. Like Trump he demonizes the media, plays the populist card and occasionally dabbles in conspiratorial rhetoric. But there’s a limit to his rhetoric. He’s “borrowed the nutty stuff from Trump and MAGA,” says Coyne, “but not the nastiness.”

Reflecting Canadian public sentiment, Poilievre has pushed back on any potential guilt by association by attacking Trump even more forcefully than the Liberals. Indeed, Trump did the Tory leader a favor last week when he complained about Poilievre’s comments about him and said he was “not a MAGA guy.”

Poilievre’s problem, however, is not necessarily an association with MAGA and Trump. It’s that he has a reputation as being more of a political bruiser than a statesman. He’s “been an effective critic,” says Coyne, “but it’s not clear he’s graduated from that.” He “comes across as a bit callow,” and with Trump’s onslaught, that is “more a liability than an asset at this point.”

According to Semra Sevi, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, Poilievre had initially planned to base his campaign around opposing Trudeau and an unpopular carbon tax that Liberals have promised to jettison. “But now that both are no longer central issues, he has struggled to adjust his message.” Poilievre’s continued attacks against the Liberals “no longer resonates as effectively with voters,” Sevi said.

Compounding the challenge for Poilievre is Trudeau’s most likely replacement as head of the Liberal Party, Mark Carney. Carney is an unusual figure in Canadian politics because he’s never before sought or held elected office. However, he has served as governor of the Bank of Canada and helped the country navigate the 2008 financial crisis, and he was also governor of the Bank of England during Brexit. With Canadians looking for a grown-up who can deal with Trump, the urbane and seemingly unflappable Carney seems to more than foot the bill. Coyne notes that when Carney is mentioned as the head of the Liberals, the party actually polls better than when he goes unmentioned.

But Canada’s fight with Trump is about more than just the personality of the country’s next leader. As it becomes increasingly clear that Trump isn’t joking about wanting to turn Canada into the 51st state, Canadians are asking: Has their country hitched its wagon too closely to the United States?

There have been hiccups in the U.S.-Canada bilateral relationship before, but rarely on this scale and never in recent memory.

Before Jan. 20, 2025, that question was unheard of. But Canadians, says Bricker, are starting to wonder: “Why are we so dependent on the United States? Why is our military in disrepair? Why have we not diversified our partners?” Last month, for example, Poilievre held a “Canada First” rally in Ottawa and laid out a plan for lessening reliance on the United States. According to Sevi, “Canadians, regardless of political affiliation, seem more unified than ever in their stance on the U.S.-Canada relationship.”

Even if Trump should exit the White House in four years with minimal additional damage done (which seems highly unlikely), what guarantee does Canada have that a post-Trump American president won’t act the same way? As Coyne put it, “If Americans are going to elect these lunatics,” then Canada needs to be prepared.

There have been hiccups in the U.S.-Canada bilateral relationship before, but rarely on this scale and never in recent memory. Canadians are united in their anger at the Trump administration and uncertain about the path forward with a neighbor that appears mercurial, unbalanced and untrustworthy. Though undoubtedly not his intention, Trump’s anti-Canadian tantrums have raised tough questions in Canada. Unfortunately for Americans, the main one is how much should Canada distance itself from the United States.

Michael A. Cohen

Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm

Published

on

Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm
  • New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’

    10:42

  • ‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister

    08:37

  • Now Playing

  • UP NEXT

    ‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears

    05:47

  • The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’

    04:59

  • Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war

    03:53

  • Ukraine didn’t agree to ceasefire, they bent the knee to extortion, says House member

    07:26

  • Dumbest war the U.S. has ever fought: House member slams Trump’s tariffs

    03:09

  • ‘Mock him’: Why Democrats are failing when it comes to protesting Trump

    09:39

  • Musk calls Sen. Mark Kelly a ‘traitor’ over his social media posts in support of Ukraine

    04:00

  • Richard Engel: Today, Ukrainians ‘quite satisfied’ with temporary ceasefire

    04:16

  • ‘Serious and dangerous’ for the economy: Trump’s messaging scares some of his own advisers

    08:57

  • Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports take effect, Europe retaliates

    09:11

  • Joe Scarborough’s powerful 9/11 tribute song ‘Reason to Believe’ (2011)

    03:45

  • Joe’s decade-long warnings on EU immigration and the rise of Europe’s far-right

    03:28

  • What really happens before Morning Joe goes live? ‘Blue Dawn’ tells all (2019 Promo)

    04:15

  • The Morning Joe crew gets moving to ‘Dance to the Music’ (2015 Promo)

    03:00

  • We have underestimated Putin as an ideological leader: Amb. McFaul

    08:58

  • Molly Jong-Fast: Trump’s empty promises are catching up to him

    03:09

  • Joe: Elon Musk said we have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare

    10:56

  • New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’

    10:42

  • ‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister

    08:37

  • Now Playing

    Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm

    03:49

  • UP NEXT

    ‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears

    05:47

  • The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’

    04:59

  • Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war

    03:53

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Published

on

Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly said of President Donald Trump“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”

Trudeau’s accusation was extraordinary and unprecedented. Here was the leader of Canada, one of America’s closest and longest-standing allies, accusing the U.S. president of engaging in economic warfare. More and more, however, it seems Trudeau wasn’t making this argument up. The evidence is piling up that Trump has declared economic war on Canada for the express purpose of making our Northern neighbor the 51st state.

Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.

Trump first referred to Canada as the 51st state in a December 2024 meeting with Trudeau. At the time, the Canadian Prime Minister assumed Trump was joking. But then, in January, he said it again publicly, this time threatening the use of “economic force” to pursue annexation. In addition, he began referring to Trudeau as “Governor” rather than “Prime Minister.”

By this point, one could easily chalk this up to Trumpian bluster. He couldn’t possibly be serious about annexing Canada? Could he?

But, two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, a private call between him and Trudeau, which was supposed to be about tariffs, took an odd turn. According to The New York Times, Trump told “Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” He also mentioned revisiting long-standing treaties between the U.S. and Canada regarding the sharing of lakes and rivers.

Even the Canadians were taken aback by Trump’s statement — and it slowly began to dawn on them that perhaps the president was serious (or as serious as one can be about an insane notion like the U.S. annexing Canada).

Publicly, Trump wouldn’t let the matter die. In an interview broadcast before the Super Bowlon February 9, Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier his plans to annex Canada were a “real thing.” And to magnify Canada’s economic vulnerability, Trump told reporters that Canada was “not viable as a country” without U.S. trade.

The problem for Canada is that Trump isn’t wrong on this front. Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.

In the current context of the emerging trade war between the U.S. and Canada, it seems more than reasonable to believe that this is precisely Trump’s intention.

Consider for a moment how this trade war has unfolded. When Trump first declared his intention to slap tariffs on Canada, he used the smuggling of fentanyl across the Canadian border as a justification (never mind that 19 kilograms of fentanyl came across the Canadian border last year, compared to 9,600 kilograms that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border). After Trudeau reminded Trump of Canada’s plan for slowing the smuggling of fentanyl, which was introduced late last year, he backed down.

But then last week, Trump returned to the trade spat with Canada, but this time blamed Canada because of its protectionist trade policies on dairy, lumber and banking. After Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, announced a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, Minnesota and New York, in response, Trump upped the ante announcing a new 25% tariff on Canada’s exports of steel and aluminum (which is in addition to already planned tariffs on steel and aluminum).

How can Canadians end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?

In announcing the new tariffs, Trump didn’t mention fentanyl as a justification, but instead wrote on TruthSocial that “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” In a follow-up post, he wondered why the U.S. “allow(s) another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area?”

Trump’s zigzagging has left markets and the business community flummoxed. For Canadians, the confusion is even worse. How can they end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?

But perhaps the obvious answer is staring us in the face, and we’re all too dumbfounded to acknowledge it. Trump has been remarkably consistent in stating that Canada should become America’s 51st state — he has said this repeatedly for months now. Moreover, he has openly espoused using U.S. economic power to achieve that goal — and is doing precisely that.

Just so we’re clear, this is not a Trump-only phenomenon. Yesterday, when asked if the U.S. still considers Canada a “close ally,” White House press secretary Katherine Leavitt said that Canada would “benefit greatly” from joining the United States and pointed to its high cost of living as a reason for surrendering sovereignty.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sounded a similar theme, noting that “Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”

In recent days, the Trump administration has further imposed its will on Canada by requiring Canadians who visit the country for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government.

The first 51 days of Trump’s presidency have been, for lack of a better word, an odyssey. Crazy has been dropped on top of more crazy. But  in the year 2025, an American president, with no pushback from his Cabinet or Congress, has declared economic war on our closest neighbor to annex its land (which is larger than America’s) and wants to make its 40 million citizens part of the United States. This is the craziest notion of all.

Michael A. Cohen

Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

Published

on

The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to hand a blank check over to a White House that is already stealing from our families and communities to fund the largest possible tax cut for billionaires and the biggest corporations.

The continuing resolution passed by the House gives Elon Musk and President Donald Trump even more flexibility to steal from the middle class, from seniors, from veterans, from working people, from small businesses and from farmers, all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

The administration’s slash-and-burn approach has already left a trail of destruction in our communities. From our national parks to Social Security officesVA medical centers to food banks, Americans are seeing the direct results of the administration’s illegitimate, ill-informed and illegal campaign to tear apart our institutions.

This CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government.

Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out Congress’s authority to determine spending. It reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” To carry out this authority, the House and Senate Appropriations committees engage in tough negotiations that result in bipartisan legislation to fund the government and all of the agencies, programs and services that are provided to the American people.

As recently as early March, we were on the cusp of such an agreement. The “four corners” of the Appropriations committees — Tom Cole and me in the House and Susan Collins and Patty Murray in the Senate — were inches away from securing a deal on the funding topline, which would have allowed us to begin the roughly monthlong process of writing full-year bills.

This process is critically important: It ensures that final funding bills are the results of broad compromise among the people’s elected representatives. Nobody ever gets everything they want, but instead, the interests of Americans from coast to coast are considered and accounted for.

But House Speaker Mike Johnson, at the behest of Musk and President Trump, pulled the rug out from under us and set the House on a track to hand Congress’ authorities over government funding to Musk and Trump. Several of my House colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who by their own admission never vote in favor of government funding bills, enthusiastically voted for this CR, completely ending the appropriations process.

As Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districts, the American people are wise to their abandonment of duty.

Why? Because this CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government and destroy the services that help Americans get by, and because they believe the president will continue to unilaterally freeze and deny funding for programs and services that do not serve his interests.

House Republicans would rather let an unchecked billionaire and President Trump seize taxpayer funds intended for families and businesses.

But as Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districtsthe American people are wise to their abandonment of duty and of responsibility. Their constituents are so furious that the party’s political consultants are telling lawmakers to stop holding town halls altogether and just hide.

President Trump was elected because the American people wanted help with the cost of living. But the cost of living is nowhere to be found among the president’s concerns since he took office. Rather, he has set off on an agenda of vengeance and destruction, threatening the stability of our economy and the legitimacy of our government. He declared a trade war on our neighbors and closest alliesraising costs on American households, businesses and farmers and weakening our international relationships.

And the Trump administration continues to steal from the American people to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Elon Musk, an unelected, unaccountable billionaire with immense conflicts of interest, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency have been allowed to illegally freeze payments, tear down our institutions, fire career civil servants who are loyal to the Constitution rather than to President Trump and rip apart hard-fought labor agreements that protect working-class Americans. They even have Social Security in their sights.

My phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents telling me how Musk’s and President Trump’s cuts have affected them, and I know the same is happening in my Republican colleagues’ offices.

Kris, a student at Common Ground High School in my district and an intern at Haven’s Harvest, a volunteer organization that reduces food waste, contacted me after 71 student workers across New Haven were laid off because of the funding freeze. Kris’ internship was part of the Green Jobs Corps, funded by a grant since canceled by the Environmental Protection Agency.

I’ve also heard from CitySeed, which connects dozens of farmers across Connecticut with residents who need access to fresh, local food, through farmers markets, culinary programs and entrepreneurship opportunities. The organization has had funding that helps cover its administrative costs frozen, as well.

And Monica, a senior citizen in my district with a low income who relies on Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP benefits, told me she is not just worried about paying her bills or filling the freezer — she is worried that she will not be able to survive if the Trump administration’s cuts go through.

Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder.

I was at Bradley Airport in Connecticut this week when two Transportation Security Administration officers found out they had been let go. One of them told me they began working for the TSA immediately after its creation in the wake of Sept. 11. I must have missed when the American people asked for fewer TSA agents and longer wait times at checkpoints.

This is wrong, cruel and completely unnecessary. The funding freeze must end, and these draconian cuts must be stopped. But instead of standing up for their constituents and for Congress’s constitutional powers, the CR that passed the House lets Musk and President Trump freeze, cancel and repurpose taxpayer dollars as they see fit.

If this CR becomes law, Musk and President Trump will be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. That will result in office closures, longer wait times and unacceptable backlogs for Americans who are trying to access their earned benefits.

Under this bill, Army Corps of Engineers construction projects to manage our waterways and mitigate flood risks will be cut by $1.4 billion, or 44%. And President Trump, not Congress, would determine all project funding levels and who gets the funding.

Instead of helping our communities address sky-high housing costs, the CR cuts rent subsidies by more than $700 million, leaving landlords to foot the bill or evict more than 32,000 households. And there is not enough funding for disaster relief, abandoning American families who have had their lives turned upside down by extreme weather.

I voted against this CR, and several of my Republican colleagues voted in favor of a CR for the first time, for the same reason: We do not expect the president to actually follow the law.

Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending, as is laid out in Article I of the Constitution?

So long as House Republicans are unwilling to defend the powers of the offices they were elected to hold, all of our constituents will continue to pay the price.

Regrettably, the House has already offered to forfeit its authority to the White House. I implore our colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the American people and our Constitution, reject this CR and put a freeze on this blank check.

Rep. Rose

Rep. Rosa DeLauro serves as ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. She represents Connecticut’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending