Survey: Nearly Half of Canadian Businesses Plan to Move Production to the U.S — 60% Are Looking for Business Acquisitions In Response to Trump Tariffs

A seismic shift is underway in Canada’s business landscape as President Trump’s tariffs drive companies south of the border.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump enacted substantial tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. These measures are designed to address pressing national concerns, including illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and trade imbalances.

The administration has imposed a 25% tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico, with a 10% tariff specifically on Canadian energy exports. Imports from China are now subject to a 10% tariff.

According to a new KPMG survey, nearly half of Canadian businesses (48%) are actively planning to move production or investments to the United States to stay competitive, while 60% are exploring acquisitions in the U.S. market.

Recognizing the writing on the wall, an overwhelming 65% of Canadian businesses took proactive measures before President Trump even stepped into office.

Many began shipping goods to the U.S. ahead of potential tariffs, ensuring their products avoided any sudden cost increases.

“The new U.S. administration’s economic and trade policies are having huge ripple effects in Canada and around the world,” says Lucy Iacovelli, Canadian Managing Partner, Tax and Legal, KPMG in Canada. “There are important steps that Canadian businesses can take to prepare for trade disruption and higher costs and build resiliency.

Keep reading

Trump’s Tariff War

The leaders of Canada and Mexico are indignant because Trump slammed 25 percent tariffs onto their exports. In this dispute, most of the world will side with Canada and Mexico, and Trump will be viewed as mean, erratic and even racist. It is likely that Democrats will also blast Trump, but that will be a mistake — for Democrats.

For years, the nation has talked about massive numbers of fentanyl deaths, yet there has been little or no relief. Trump is taking the only action that is likely to alleviate the problem in a significant way.

On this issue, the resistance offered by Canada and Mexico has been disgraceful. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico put the blame entirely on the United States, and promised her own 25 percent retaliatory tariffs.

Sheinbaum arrogantly declared that Americans can solve the fentanyl problem by combating “the sale of narcotics on the streets of their main cities, which they don’t do.” In an ideal world, that might be a solution. However, our “main cities” are run by Democrat mayors and district attorneys, and they don’t care much about crime unless it can be pinned onto someone in MAGA world. To solve the illegal migrant and drug problem, we need more cooperation from Mexico, as Sheinbaum should know.

The response of Canada’s prime minister is just as inadequate. Justin Trudeau indicated that Canada will issue its own 25 percent tariffs, targeted towards certain U.S. products. He then tried to sweet-talk Americans by claiming that the border and drug problems are not very significant (“…already safe and secure”), and that Canada has implemented a major plan to remedy the minor problem. Let’s examine Trudeau’s big plan.

Keep reading

How Trump’s Dismantling Of USAID Marks A Seismic, Historic Shift In America’s Role In The World

The most consequential decision and executive order which came within the opening days of President Donald Trump’s administration has without doubt been his “reevaluating and realigning US foreign aid” — which sent shockwaves through Washington especially given federal funding has been cut to USAID in a shock blow to the agency. But it is also having a massive ripple effect throughout the world. Some foreign powers will welcome the news, while many allies as well as an assortment of US-backed ‘opposition groups’ will feel completely abandoned.

This has meant that pro-Western media outlets, NGOs, and ‘soft power’ organizations are in panic mode. This has basically overnight shutdown a multi-billion dollar regime change apparatus which pushed or often imposed American interests throughout the globe, especially in the very vulnerable Third World, as well as former Soviet satellite regions. The way this works on a practical, on the ground level is detailed in the well-known book Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man. As for Trump’s apparent efforts to dismantle the powerful USAID agency, we compiled some of the best current analysis from around the web outlining the huge significance of this move, which is nothing less than a historic reset (and we say a very welcome reset) of Washington’s relations with the rest of the world.

Keep reading

Sweden leads the offensive in the EU to curb financial support for the Cuban Regime.

The Swedish Government’s has taken the decision to review the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement with the Cuban regime and cut funding to Havana.

The Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement (PDCA) between the European Union (EU) and Cuba was signed in 2016 and aimed to normalize and strengthen diplomatic and economic relations between the two parties. Its main objectives were to promote dialogue on political issues, human rights, and economic development while enhancing cooperation in areas like trade, investment, sustainable development, and governance.

However, Sweden insists that it is not a good idea to have European funds diverted to support a regime that tramples on human rights.

Keep reading

Canada Has Detailed Retaliation Plan to Harm Republican States the Most in Response to Trump’s Tariffs

Why is Canada targeting Republican-led states?

President Trump officially imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China on Saturday after they had ignored his threats.

Trump slapped the tariffs on the three countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

  • 25% tariffs on all Mexico imports
  • 25% tariffs on nearly all Canadian imports — 10% on Canadian energy resources
  • 10% tariffs on all China imports

“Today, I have implemented a 25% Tariff on Imports from Mexico and Canada (10% on Canadian Energy), and a 10% additional Tariff on China. This was done through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) because of the major threat of illegal aliens and deadly drugs killing our Citizens, including fentanyl. We need to protect Americans, and it is my duty as President to ensure the safety of all. I made a promise on my Campaign to stop the flood of illegal aliens and drugs from pouring across our Borders, and Americans overwhelmingly voted in favor of it,” President Trump said on Truth Social on Saturday.

Keep reading

Musk Reveals Treasury Has Been Auto-Paying Everyone, ‘Even Known Terrorist Groups’

Well, well, well – DOGE moves into the Treasury, triggering their longest-serving, highest-ranked career official to quit in a huff, and they find that department has essentially been auto-paying everyone, according to Elon Musk.

“The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups,” said Musk in a Friday night tweet.

“They literally never denied a payment in their entire career.”

The Treasury Department’s highest-ranking career official quit after a clash with aides of Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems, according to the Washington Post, citing (of course), three anonymous sources.

Keep reading

End the Aid Charade

Areevaluation of foreign assistance programs and an America First policy directive to Secretary of State Marco Rubio were among the 46 executive orders President Trump put his Sharpie to on Inauguration Day.


Section 2 of the ”America First Policy Directive to Secretary Rubio” states,

As soon as practicable, the Secretary of State shall issue guidance bringing the Department of State’s policies, programs, personnel, and operations in line with an America First foreign policy, which puts America and its interests first.

Trump’s order on foreign assistance mandates a now widely reported on “90-day pause” on foreign development assistance, during which time  a determination will be made by the director of the Office of Management and Budget (which by that time will likely be the eminently sensible Russ Vought) together with the responsible department heads as to whether or not the administration will “continue, modify, or cease” these assistance programs. At a White House briefing on Tuesday, spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said the pause is “about being good stewards of tax dollars.”

Perhaps so.

Yet chaos has reigned in the days since the orders were signed thanks to the intercession of a Biden-appointed judge in US District Court in Washington, DC who put a hold on the order until February 3. Following that, the White House has compounded the confusion by issuing and then rescinding a memo from OMB relating to the freeze. Leavitt, however, insists that the EOs on federal funding will “remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” 

Got that?

Well, if the rollout has been less than stellar, the larger point the administration is making is unmistakable. These orders are also in line with a number of bills that have been introduced by congressional Republicans in recent years. This past October, Florida’s Republican Rep. Greg Steube introduced the Securing Taxpayer Assistance during Natural Disasters (STAND) Act, which would suspend US foreign assistance during the first 60 days of a Presidentially declared disaster. Prior to that, in August 2023, five congressmen associated with the House Freedom Caucus introduced H.R.5108 which sought to abolish the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The authors of the bill accused USAID of meddling in “local elections, promoting the interests of ‘women, youth, and other traditionally marginalized groups’ ahead of the interests of the other nations’ citizenry” and called for the agency’s abolition. 

Washington being what it is, the bill went nowhere.

Keep reading

Replace The Income Tax With Tariffs?

There was a time, before 1913, when you could keep every penny you earned. You did not have to file with the federal government, telling them what you earned and giving the feds their cut. Your finances were your business and no one else’s. You had the right to earn, own, and keep property, and it was sacrosanct, guaranteed by U.S. law and tradition.

There were no audits, investigations, account freezes, withholdings, or any other forms of payment. There was your productivity and you and that’s all.

How was the government funded? It earned revenue through tariffs. These are paid directly by importers and indirectly by producers and consumers if the costs can be passed through. As strategies for gaining revenue, this approach is relatively noninvasive. It left the population alone.

Back in those days, however, the federal government barely existed as compared with today. More precisely, in real terms, the federal government in 1885 spent in inflation-adjusted dollars about 0.05 percent of what it spends today. Even then, people believed that it was too big and wanted it cut back to size.

Donald Trump has recently been schooling people in the history of revenue strategies and he is teaching something that people have not known. He has explained how this period of American history saw the greatest amount of economic growth we’ve ever seen. He is correct about that and he is also correct that this was the period of the tariff.

The cause and effect, however, is murky. The main themes of this period were freedom and sound money. The dollar was governed by the gold standard and there was no central bank. The federal government itself had no presence in the life of the American family or typical American business. Those facts more than tariffs account for the difference between then and now.

As an aside, I cannot remember another U.S. president having as clear an opinion on 19th-century economic history. Most comments by presidents have been limited to pieties about the Founding Fathers or Lincoln but skip over details concerning revenue sources or controversies concerning national banks and the like. Trump is clearly different, highly confident in these details of history that are lost even on most economists.

Trump has explained that the income tax came along in 1913 as a replacement for the tariff. That is correct in design but the historical reality was slightly different. Tariffs were not abolished entirely. The income tax just became a second and additional source of revenue. Then the Great War came, financed in large part by the central bank (the Federal Reserve) that was created the same year.

The income tax and the Fed became the financial source of Leviathan power. Both came about in 1913, along with the direct election of Senators that blew up the bicameral structure of Congress and put the big cities in charge of America’s equivalent of the House of Lords.

Keep reading

William McKinley: Prostitute of Protectionism

In his inaugural address President Trump called President William McKinley (1897-1901) “great” and proudly announced that he had changed the name of Mount Denali in Alaska back to Mount McKinley. The reason the president picked McKinley of all past presidents to heap praise upon is that McKinley was a lifelong political tool of big business, primarily Northern state manufacturers who championed protectionist tariff taxes so rabidly that he was called “the apostle of protectionism” and “the Napoleon of protectionism.”

President Trump’s election is said to be a “populist” victory against the deep state establishment, but there is nothing more anti-populist than protectionist tariff taxes. Protectionist tariff taxes are nothing more than a price-fixing conspiracy orchestrated by the state that enriches a relatively small group of politically connected corporations (and their unions) by plundering their consumers with higher prices. After all, if it is possible to use tariffs to force foreigners to pay a county’s taxes, every government on earth would be doing it. Yet President Trump apparently believes that he has discovered some kind of holy grail of economics that proves you can get something for nothing after all.Brion McClanahan

Keep reading

Trump’s FCC Chair Launching Investigation of NPR and PBS, Taxpayer Funding Under Increased Scrutiny

Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Trump, is launching an investigation of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

Both organizations are already facing the loss of taxpayer funding, but this investigation will increase pressure on lawmakers to pull that funding.

Conservative Americans have been calling for the defunding of NPR and PBS for years. There are countless examples of these organizations acting as surrogates for the Democrat party. They do not even try to appear politically balanced, even though they are funded in part by taxpayers.

FOX News reports:

Trump FCC chair targets NPR, PBS for investigation ahead of Congressional threats to defund

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched an investigation into media outlets PBS and National Public Radio (NPR) over member stations potentially airing “prohibited commercial advertisements,” according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.

“I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials,” FCC chair Brendan Carr wrote, according to the Times. “In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

The FCC allows businesses to support noncommercial radio and television stations — such as NPR, PBS or college radio stations — via on-air announcements known as underwriting sponsorships. The sponsorships, though similar to advertisements, face different FCC rules than typical TV or radio ads.

Keep reading