From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Roderick Law

President Donald Trump has hit the ground running, issuing a flurry of executive orders. Two of them are particularly welcome.

The first, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” mandates agencies across the government cease funding and end any activities that would “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” The other, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” requires agencies “to identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to the weaponization of law enforcement and the weaponization of the Intelligence Community.”

Each order is necessary, and their issuance so soon after the inauguration shows that Trump understands that censorship and “lawfare” were rampant under his predecessor.

Former President Joe Biden himself (or whoever gave him words to read) gave us a stark reminder of his comfort with censorship in his farewell address, when he warned of the “potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country.”

But Biden was referring to the rise of social media that do not enforce speech codes dictated by one side of the political divide. He went on to complain that we are getting “buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation,” while “[s]ocial media is giving up fact-checking.”

It’s true: Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg saw the election results and realized public toleration for censorship has reached its limit. He is dismantling Facebook’s “fact checking” apparatus and following X’s “community notes” model.

Worse, Zuckerburg is telling tales out of school, recalling how during the pandemic Biden officials would “scream” and “curse” at Facebook employees to remove posts that countered the government line. Tech-industrial complexes are dangerous things if you do not control them.

We can’t forget that government censorship, and its support for research into censorship technologies, is broad and deep. Consider the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee of the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The committee was composed of academics and tech company officials working very closely with government personnel. The Functional Government Initiative (FGI) discovered they also worked with left-wing activists. The committee was created ostensibly in response to misinformation campaigns from foreign actors, but it evolved toward domestic “threats.” It had a “Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-information” subcommittee. “Mal-information” is info that is true, but contrary to the preferred narratives of the censor. Trump’s order directly calls such efforts a “guise” to censor speech “in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.” Unfortunately, the committee was the tip of the iceberg. The Pentagon and the State Department had their own ties to censorship initiatives.

The same impulse that fostered censorship weaponized Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice(DOJ). Ask pro-life activists facing prison sentences for peaceful demonstrations outside abortion clinics.

Going back further, talk to parents who, FGI discovered, were called racist and transphobic by teachers unions and the Biden Education Department. Or the concerned parents who dared to speak up in school board meetings around the country. Their reward was being called a threat and singled out by the DOJ and FBI. We can be thankful to whoever it was that leaked the FBI memo recommending infiltrating Catholic Mass enthusiast cells.

Trump’s executive order on weaponization will hopefully right some of these wrongs and remind the DOJ and intelligence services that they work for the people. (The president also stripped security clearances from the 51 former intelligence officials who, without evidence, dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a “Russian information operation.”) If nothing else, it will make clear to all, no matter their party, that there are no grey areas and no workarounds when it comes to fundamental constitutional rights.

The federal government has strayed far from its purpose of securing the God-given rights of its citizens. Trump received a mandate from the voters to move it back to the true path, and these orders bring vital reforms. Ideally, Congress will follow suit and pass legislation doing the same, but permanently. As Americans, it is the least we should expect from our government.

Roderick Law is the communications director for the Functional Government Initiative.

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss

On the eve of a possible trade war with the United States, Canadian policymakers have a valuable bargaining chip they can play in any negotiations—namely, Canada’s “supply management” system.

During his first day in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said he may impose “25 per cent” tariffs on Canadian and Mexican exports into the United States on Feb. 1. In light of his resounding election win and Republican control of both houses of congress, Trump has a strong hand.

In response, Canadian policymakers—including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford—have threatened retaliation. But any retaliation (tariffs imposed on the U.S., for example) would likely increase the cost of living for Canadians.

Thankfully, there’s another way. To improve our trade position with the U.S.—and simultaneously benefit Canadian consumers—policymakers could dismantle our outdated system of supply management, which restricts supply, controls imports and allows producers of milk, eggs and poultry to maintain higher prices for their products than would otherwise exist in a competitive market. Government dictates who can produce, what can be produced, when and how much. While some aspects of the system are provincial (such as certain marketing boards), the federal government controls many key components of supply management including import restrictions and national quotas.

How would this help Canada minimize the Trump threat?

In the U.S., farmers backed Trump by a three-to-one margin in the 2024 election, and given Trump’s overall views on trade, the new administration will likely target Canadian supply management in the near future. (Ironically, Trump has cried foul about Canadian tariffs, which underpin our supply management system.) Given the transactional nature of Trump’s leadership, Canadian negotiators could put supply management on the negotiating table as a bargaining chip to counter demands that would actually damage the Canadian economy, such as Trump’s tariffs. This would allow Trump to deliver increased access to the Canadian market for the farmers that overwhelmingly supported him in the election.

And crucially, this would also be good for Canadian consumers. According to a 2015 study, our supply management system costs the average Canadian household an estimated extra $300 to $444 annually, and higher prices hurt lower-income Canadians more than any other group. If we scrapped supply management, we’d see falling prices at the grocery store and increased choice due to dairy imports from the U.S.

Unfortunately, Parliament has been moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, which recently passed in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate, would entrench supply management by restricting the ability of Canadian trade negotiators to use increased market access as a tool in international trade negotiations. In other words, the bill—if passed—will rob Canadian negotiators of a key bargaining chip in negotiations with Trump. With a potential federal election looming, any party looking to strengthen Canada’s trade position and benefit consumers here at home should reject Bill C-282.

Trade negotiations in the second Trump era will be difficult so our policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces must avoid self-inflicted wounds. By dismantling Canada’s system of supply management, they could win concessions from Team Trump, possibly avert a destructive tit-for-tat tariff exchange, and reduce the cost of living for Canadians.

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute