Business
Trump’s USAID shutdown is a win for America and a blow to the globalist agenda

From LifeSiteNews
USAID’s promotion of DEI, gender ideology, and population control around the world, along with its efforts to undermine democracies in Europe and Latin America, have greatly damaged America’s standing in the world.
The closure of a corrupt government agency is always cause for celebration.
Not that it happens very often. As President Ronald Reagan once remarked, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.”
In the case of the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development, its shuttering will save U.S. taxpayers some $54 billion a year.
But Trump’s closure of the rogue agency is about far more than reducing the size of government or balancing the budget. We are not even talking about simply ending waste, fraud, and abuse, although there were bucket loads of that going on.
READ: Trump’s dismantling of USAID is his biggest blow against the Deep State yet
Under its former director, Samantha Powers, the agency had been transformed into a slush fund for woke fever dreams. No project was too wacko to throw money at.
You want funding to convince Peruvian girls they were born into the wrong body, or to promote LGBT activism in Serbia? USAID had a check for you.
You need money to fund sex changes in Guatemala or to open a transgender surgery clinic in India? You had but to ask.
But as corrosive to the sensibilities of normal people – and to America’s image overseas – that this reckless promotion of DEI and gender ideology was, our overseas aid agency was engaged in far more nefarious schemes.
It turns about that many millions of dollars of aid to the Middle East made their way into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah. From funding the college education of al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to sending $2 billion to Gaza over the past two years, our tax dollars have been used to underwrite terrorism.
An estimated 90 percent of our aid to Gaza ended up in the hands of Hamas post-October 7, 2023. Without the constant infusion of U.S. funds, it is doubtful that the terrorist organization would have survived.
Equally egregious is USAID’s undermining of democracy. As Marjorie Taylor Green just noted at a congressional hearing, “What we have learned is that USAID has been used by Democrats to brainwash the world with globalist propaganda to force regime changes around the world.”
Roughly half a billion dollars went into one organization alone. It was called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and billed as a global network of investigative journalists. But it had as much to do with promoting globalist narratives and undermining populist politicians as it did with exposing corruption, perhaps more.
If you want to know why populist Jair Bolsonaro is no longer president of Brazil, why the conservatives lost in Poland, or why the democratically elected president of Romania – another populist – has now been arrested, look no further than USAID’s massively funded propaganda campaigns against these and other anti-globalist politicians.
As in Xi Jinping’s China, where the Chinese dictator has been purging his political enemies under the guise of an “anti-corruption campaign,” USAID’s anti-corruption campaign was ultimately not about corruption at all.
Like Xi, who was, as the Chinese say, “hanging up a goat’s head, but selling dog meat,” the agency was motivated by a hidden and deeply corrupt purpose – undermining democracy in order to promote globalism.
Victor Orbán of Hungary, whose government has survived years of similar onslaughts, is now vowing to crack down on all of the foreign-funded NGOs operating in his country. He will find that his opposition was chiefly funded by our tax dollars, judging from the many trips to that country that Samantha Powers took over the past few years.
As ruinous as all this is for America’s standing in the world, there is even worse news. Many of the tens of billions of dollars that the agency was flushing down the toilet didn’t go overseas at all, but was spent in and around the Washington, D.C., swamp.
And almost all of this – well over 95 percent – went to Democrat-controlled groups.
How much of the incessant lawfare against Trump that began as soon as he announced his candidacy for president in 2015 was funded indirectly by our tax dollars?
How much of Kamala’s $2 billion campaign coffer came from our own pockets, laundered by USAID through well-connected NGOs and leftist politicians?
Despite the mounting evidence of corruption, there are still those who claim that USAID does much good and should be reformed, not shuttered. “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” one recent headline read.
The problem is that USAID was never primarily about feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty or, for that matter, saving babies. In fact, from the very beginning it was designed to be an instrument of population control.
Its stated goal was “population stabilization.” To this end, it busied itself reducing the number of babies born, all in the name of fighting “overpopulation,” “eliminating poverty,” and, more recently, “saving the planet.”
This is spelled out clearly in Richard Nixon’s National Security Study Memorandum 200, which made it clear that foreign aid was to be used to bribe or bludgeon countries into reducing their birth rates.
Even today, USAID was – until a few weeks ago – promoting abortion in Malawi, doing abortion referrals in Uganda, and pressuring Sierra Leone to legalize abortion as a condition of receiving foreign aid.
Supporters of USAID argue that its programs create goodwill, but it’s hard to see how telling African women and men they would be better off sterilizing themselves and aborting their children accomplishes this end.
And how would Americans feel if China, say, were funding a program to vasectomize American men? Think about that for a second.
USAID’s promotion of DEI, gender ideology, and population control around the world, along with its efforts to undermine democracies in Europe and Latin America, have greatly damaged America’s standing in the world.
But the crime that calls for the complete destruction of the agency is that it was striking at the very roots of the republic itself.
Using the taxes paid by a free people to undermine their freedom is, by anyone’s definition, treason.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of The Devil and Communist China.
Business
It Took Trump To Get Canada Serious About Free Trade With Itself

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Trump’s protectionism has jolted Canada into finally beginning to tear down interprovincial trade barriers
The threat of Donald Trump’s tariffs and the potential collapse of North American free trade have prompted Canada to look inward. With international trade under pressure, the country is—at last—taking meaningful steps to improve trade within its borders.
Canada’s Constitution gives provinces control over many key economic levers. While Ottawa manages international trade, the provinces regulate licensing, certification and procurement rules. These fragmented regulations have long acted as internal trade barriers, forcing companies and professionals to navigate duplicate approval processes when operating across provincial lines.
These restrictions increase costs, delay projects and limit job opportunities for businesses and workers. For consumers, they mean higher prices and fewer choices. Economists estimate that these barriers hold back up to $200 billion of Canada’s economy annually, roughly eight per cent of the country’s GDP.
Ironically, it wasn’t until after Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement that it began to address domestic trade restrictions. In 1994, the first ministers signed the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), committing to equal treatment of bidders on provincial and municipal contracts. Subsequent regional agreements, such as Alberta and British Columbia’s Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement in 2007, and the New West Partnership that followed, expanded cooperation to include broader credential recognition and enforceable dispute resolution.
In 2017, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) replaced the AIT to streamline trade among provinces and territories. While more ambitious in scope, the CFTA’s effectiveness has been limited by a patchwork of exemptions and slow implementation.
Now, however, Trump’s protectionism has reignited momentum to fix the problem. In recent months, provincial and territorial labour market ministers met with their federal counterpart to strengthen the CFTA. Their goal: to remove longstanding barriers and unlock the full potential of Canada’s internal market.
According to a March 5 CFTA press release, five governments have agreed to eliminate 40 exemptions they previously claimed for themselves. A June 1 deadline has been set to produce an action plan for nationwide mutual recognition of professional credentials. Ministers are also working on the mutual recognition of consumer goods, excluding food, so that if a product is approved for sale in one province, it can be sold anywhere in Canada without added red tape.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has signalled that his province won’t wait for consensus. Ontario is dropping all its CFTA exemptions, allowing medical professionals to begin practising while awaiting registration with provincial regulators.
Ontario has partnered with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to implement mutual recognition of goods, services and registered workers. These provinces have also enabled direct-to-consumer alcohol sales, letting individuals purchase alcohol directly from producers for personal consumption.
A joint CFTA statement says other provinces intend to follow suit, except Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.
These developments are long overdue. Confederation happened more than 150 years ago, and prohibition ended more than a century ago, yet Canadians still face barriers when trying to buy a bottle of wine from another province or find work across a provincial line.
Perhaps now, Canada will finally become the economic union it was always meant to be. Few would thank Donald Trump, but without his tariffs, this renewed urgency to break down internal trade barriers might never have emerged.
Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
2025 Federal Election
Carney’s budget is worse than Trudeau’s

Liberal Leader Mark Carney is planning to borrow more money than former prime minister Justin Trudeau.
That’s an odd plan for a former banker because the federal government is already spending more on debt interest payments than it spends on health-care transfers to the provinces.
Let’s take a deeper look at Carney’s plan.
Carney says that his government would “spend less, invest more.”
At first glance, that might sound better than the previous decade of massive deficits and increasing debt, but does that sound like a real change?
Because if you open a thesaurus, you’ll find that “spend” and “invest” are synonyms, they mean the same thing.
And Carney’s platform shows it. Carney plans to increase government spending by $130 billion. He plans to increase the federal debt by $225 billion over the next four years. That’s about $100 billion more than Trudeau was planning borrow over the same period, according to the most recent Fall Economic Statement.
Carney is planning to waste $5.6 billion more on debt interest charges than Trudeau. Interest charges already cost taxpayers more than $1 billion per week.
The platform claims that Carney will run a budget surplus in 2028, but that’s nonsense. Because once you include the $48 billion of spending in Carney’s “capital” budget, the tiny surplus disappears, and taxpayers are stuck with more debt.
And that’s despite planning to take even more money from Canadians in years ahead. Carney’s platform shows that his carbon tariff, another carbon tax on Canadians, will cost taxpayers $500 million.
The bottom line is that government spending, no matter what pile it is put into, is just government spending. And when the government spends too much, that means it must borrow more money, and taxpayers have to pay the interest payments on that irresponsible borrowing.
Canadians don’t even believe that Carney can follow through on his watered-down plan. A majority of Canadians are skeptical that Carney will balance the operational budget in three years, according to Leger polling.
All Carney’s plan means for Canadians is more borrowing and higher debt. And taxpayers can’t afford anymore debt.
When the Liberals were first elected the debt was $616 billion. It’s projected to reach almost $1.3 trillion by the end of the year, that means the debt has more than doubled in the last decade.
Every single Canadian’s individual share of the federal debt averages about $30,000.
Interest charges on the debt are costing taxpayers $53.7 billion this year. That’s more than the government takes in GST from Canadians. That means every time you go to the grocery store, fill up your car with gas, or buy almost anything else, all that federal sales tax you pay isn’t being used for anything but paying for the government’s poor financial decisions.
Creative accounting is not the solution to get the government’s fiscal house in order. It’s spending cuts. And Carney even says this.
“The federal government has been spending too much,” said Carney. He then went on to acknowledge the huge spending growth of the government over the last decade and the ballooning of the federal bureaucracy. A serious plan to balance the budget and pay down debt includes cutting spending and slashing bureaucracy.
But the Conservatives aren’t off the hook here either. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said that he will balance the budget “as soon as possible,” but hasn’t told taxpayers when that is.
More debt today means higher taxes tomorrow. That’s because every dollar borrowed by the federal government must be paid back plus interest. Any party that says it wants to make life more affordable also needs a plan to start paying back the debt.
Taxpayers need a government that will commit to balancing the budget for real and start paying back debt, not one that is continuing to pile on debt and waste billions on interest charges.
-
2025 Federal Election14 hours ago
The Federal Brief That Should Sink Carney
-
2025 Federal Election16 hours ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election19 hours ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
2025 Federal Election18 hours ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
John Stossel15 hours ago
Climate Change Myths Part 2: Wildfires, Drought, Rising Sea Level, and Coral Reefs
-
COVID-1917 hours ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre Campaigning To Build A Canadian Economic Fortress
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
The Cost of Underselling Canadian Oil and Gas to the USA