Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Canada’s energy exports to US hit with 10% Trump tariff over fentanyl crisis

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By

American’s northern neighbor will get the same 25% tariff except with a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources. That will continue “until Canada cooperates with the U.S. against drug traffickers and on border security,” the statement said.

President Donald Trump on Saturday moved to hold Mexico, Canada and China accountable with tariffs on the nation’s top three trading partners, raising concerns about the potential for higher prices.

“This was done through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act because of the major threat of illegal aliens and deadly drugs killing our Citizens, including fentanyl,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “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.”

Trump put in place a 25% tariff “to be paid for by Mexican producers until Mexico cooperates with the U.S. in the fight against drugs,” a White House statement said.

Tariffs are taxes paid by the companies that import goods.

Fentanyl is an opioid blamed for more than 75% of U.S. overdose deaths.

“Mexican cartels are the world’s leading traffickers of fentanyl, meth, and other drugs,” the statement said. “These cartels have an alliance with the government of Mexico and endanger the national security and public health of the United States.”

American’s northern neighbor will get the same 25% tariff except with a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources. That will continue “until Canada cooperates with the U.S. against drug traffickers and on border security,” the statement said.

Trump’s Canadian tariff is further aimed a stopping illegal border crossings.

“Illegal border crossings from Canada reached historic new highs every year for the last four fiscal years,” the White House said.

For China, the tariff will be an additional 10% until it cooperates with the U.S. on the fight against fentanyl.

“The Chinese Communist Party has subsidized Chinese chemical companies to export fentanyl,” the White House said. “China not only fails to stem the source of illicit drugs but actively helps this business.”

The tariff’s were posted on The White House’s X account Saturday afternoon.

Mexico, Canada and China are the top three U.S. trading partners responsible for about 40% of U.S. imports in 2024. Some economists say the move could push prices higher for U.S. consumers. It could also start a trade war. All three countries have promised to respond in kind.

Trump initially said the tariffs would be put in place on Jan. 20, but didn’t immediately follow through on that. Rather, he waited until Feb. 1.

Trump promised during his inaugural address that tariffs would make America “rich as hell.”

Trump also promised tariffs would help lower the tax burden on Americans.

“Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” the president said.

Trump’s tariffs could generate $450 billion in revenue a year, according to adviser and investor John Paulson. The amount such tariffs would ultimately bring in depends on multiple factors, including how other nations respond to U.S. tariffs. That makes it “highly uncertain,” according to credit-rating agency Moody’s.

Trump previously said he couldn’t guarantee that his tariff plans will not raise prices for U.S. consumers.

Tariffs could raise prices for U.S. consumers and slow economic growth. S&P Global, a credit-rating agency, reported that Trump’s proposed tariffs could boost inflation by 1.8% and lower U.S. economic output by 1%, according to a post-election report.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday Canada was prepared to respond.

“If the president does choose to implement any tariffs against Canada, we’re ready with a response – a purposeful, forceful but reasonable immediate response,” Trudeau said.

“We won’t relent until tariffs are removed,” the prime minister said.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Friday that Mexico “will always maintain dialogue with the U.S. and that Mexico has multiple plans for a response.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020, and Trump signed the deal.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?

Published on

  By David Clinton

Shaping Government Spending Choices to Reflect Taxpayer Preferences

Technically, the word “democracy” means “rule of the people”. But we all know that the ability to throw the bums out every few years is a poor substitute for “rule”. And as I’ve already demonstrated, the last set of bums you sent to Ottawa are 19 times more likely than not to simply vote along party lines. So who they are as individuals barely even matters.

This story isn’t new, and it hasn’t even got a decent villain. But it is about a universal weakness inherent in all modern, nation-scale democracies. After all, complex societies governed by hundreds of thousands of public servants who are responsible for spending trillions of dollars can’t realistically account for millions of individual voices. How could you even meaningfully process so many opinions?

Hang on. It’s 2025. These days, meaningfully processing lots of data is what we do. And the challenge of reliably collecting and administrating those opinions is trivial. I’m not suggesting we descend into some hellish form of governance by opinion poll. But I do wonder why we haven’t tried something that’s far more focused, measured, and verifiable: directed revenue spending.

Self-directed income tax payments? Crazy, no? Except that we’ve been doing it in Ontario for at least 60 years. We (sometimes) get to choose which of five school boards – English public, French public, English separate (Catholic), French separate (Catholic), or Protestant separate (Penetanguishene only) – will receive the education portion of our property tax.

Here’s how it could work. A set amount – perhaps 20 percent of the total federal tax you owe – would be considered discretionary. The T1 tax form could include the names of, say, ten spending programs next to numeric boxes. You would enter the percentage of the total discretionary portion of your income tax that you’d like directed to each program with the total of all ten boxes adding up to 100.

The specific programs made available might change from one year to the next. Some might appear only once every few years. That way, the departments responsible for executing the programs wouldn’t have to deal with unpredictable funding. But what’s more important, governments would have ongoing insights into what their constituents actually wanted them to be doing. If they disagreed, a government could up their game and do a better job explaining their preferences. Or it could just give up and follow the will of their taxpayers.

Since there would only be a limited number of pre-set options available, you wouldn’t have to worry about crackpot suggestions (“Nuke Amurika!”) or even reasoned and well-meaning protest campaigns (“Nuke Ottawa!”) taking over. And since everyone who files a tax form has to participate, you won’t have to worry about a small number of squeaky wheels dominating the public discourse.

Why would any governing party go along with such a plan? Well, they almost certainly won’t if that’s any comfort. Nevertheless, in theory at least, they could gain significant political legitimacy were their program preferences to receive overwhelming public support. And if politicians and civil servants truly believed they toil in the service of the people of Canada, they should be curious about what the people of Canada actually want.

What could go wrong?

Well the complexity involved with adding a new layer of constraints to spending planning can’t be lightly dismissed. And there’s always the risk that activists could learn to game the system by shaping mass movements through manipulative online messaging. The fact that wealthy taxpayers will have a disproportionate impact on spending also shouldn’t be ignored. Although, having said that, I’m not convinced that the voices of high-end taxpayers are less valuable than those of the paid lobbyists and PMO influencers who currently get all the attention.

Those are serious considerations. I’m decidedly less concerned about some other possible objections:

  • The risk that taxpayers might demonstrate a preference for short term fixes or glamour projects over important long term wonkish needs (like debt servicing) rings hollow. Couldn’t those words just as easily describe the way many government departments already behave?
  • Couldn’t taxpayer choices be influenced by dangerous misinformation campaigns? Allowing for the fact the words “misinformation campaign” make me nervous, that’s certainly possible. But I’m aware of no research demonstrating that, as a class, politicians and civil servants are somehow less susceptible to such influences.
  • Won’t such a program allow governments to deflect responsibility for their actions? Hah! I spit in your face in rueful disdain! When was the last time any government official actually took responsibility (or even lost a job) over stupid decisions?
  • Won’t restricting access to a large segment of funds make it harder to respond to time-sensitive emergencies? There are already plenty of political and policy-based constraints on emergency spending choices. There’s no reason this program couldn’t be structured intelligently enough to prevent appropriate responses to a genuine emergency.

This idea has no more chance of being applied as some of the crazy zero-tax ideas from my previous post. But things certainly aren’t perfect right now, and throwing some fresh ideas into the mix can’t hurt.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

USDA reveals plan to combat surging egg prices

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has unveiled the Trump administration’s plan to tackle surging egg prices, focusing on chicken repopulation and biosecurity measures while rejecting mandatory vaccines for poultry. The move aims to counter the economic impact of mass culling under the Biden administration’s failed policies.

Key Details:

  • The USDA’s $1 billion plan includes biosecurity enhancements, rapid chicken repopulation, deregulation, and increased egg imports.
  • Rollins ruled out mandating avian flu vaccines after research showed inefficacy in countries like Mexico.
  • The administration is prioritizing securing farms against virus transmission while working on long-term solutions to stabilize egg prices.

Diving Deeper:

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, detailed the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to reducing skyrocketing egg prices, which she attributed to policy failures under former President Joe Biden. Rollins made it clear that President Donald Trump’s administration is focusing on restoring the poultry industry through chicken repopulation, strengthening biosecurity at farms, and removing unnecessary regulations that have stifled industry growth.

Rollins criticized Biden-era policies, noting that while the previous administration recognized the risks of avian flu, it failed to act decisively. “This has been going on now for two years. So it isn’t just regulation and all of the cost input increases and overregulation from the Biden administration, but it’s also not completely addressing the avian bird flu a couple years ago when it first hit,” she said. Under Biden, approximately 160 million chickens were culled, exacerbating supply shortages and sending prices soaring.

To address the crisis, the USDA’s plan includes five key pillars. First, the administration is investing in farm biosecurity, ensuring facilities are properly sealed to prevent virus transmission from wild fowl. Second, the repopulation of poultry flocks is being expedited by removing regulatory roadblocks. Third, the administration is pushing for deregulation in areas such as processing plant operations and California’s Proposition 12, which Rollins called “devastating” to the industry. Fourth, to alleviate immediate supply issues, the U.S. is negotiating egg imports from Turkey and other nations.

The final component of the plan, initially a proposed vaccine initiative, has been scrapped. Rollins stated that studies showed vaccinated poultry in Mexico still contracted avian flu at an alarming rate, making the approach ineffective. “I pulled that off the table,” she declared, adding that the administration is prioritizing research into alternative therapeutic solutions.

In addition to economic recovery efforts, Rollins praised President Trump’s recent address to Congress, highlighting his focus on American farmers and families. She also condemned congressional Democrats for their lack of support for crime victims’ families honored during the speech. “It is stunning,” Rollins said of their refusal to stand during key moments.

Looking ahead, Rollins reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to American farmers, emphasizing that Trump’s trade strategy is centered on protecting agricultural interests. “He is hyper-focused and passionately involved himself… fighting for our farmers, our ranchers, and entire agriculture community,” she said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X