But rather than just ingest the story of what our trade relations look like and how they will be damaged, I think it's important to understand the context, the landscape of what has existed between the US and Canada for the past thirty years.

Implementation of NAFTA

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented on January 1, 1994, between the United States, Canada, and Mexico with the aim of eliminating trade barriers, creating a large free-trade zone while promoting investment and economic growth.

It significantly reduced or eliminated tariffs on a vast majority of goods traded between the three countries and, by the end of its implementation schedule, nearly all tariffs on industrial products were removed and many agricultural tariffs were either eliminated or phased out over time. There were exceptions for sensitive sectors like dairy in Canada (where high tariffs were maintained under a supply management system).This allowed for easier access to each other’s markets, which boosted agriculture, automotive manufacturing and energy.

NAFTA has often been credited with significantly increasing trade among the member countries. U.S.-Canada trade but also faced substantial criticism, including job displacement, income inequality, and environmental and labor standards.

Success and Impact:

In short, NAFTA was a mixed bag of achieving economic integration and trade volume perspective, but was considered a failure in terms of economic growth, labor rights, and environment protection.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA, came into effect on July 1, 2020, with the some of the following key points relevant to U.S.-Canada trade:

• Tariffs: As with NAFTA, USMCA largely maintained tariff-free trade for goods among the three countries, continuing the framework of duty-free access for most products.

• Automotive Industry: The North American content requirement for vehicles was raised from 62.5% under NAFTA to 75% under USMCA, and carried specific requirements for labor-intensive parts like engines. It also set standards as to minimum wages to be paid to auto workers.

• Agricultural Provisions: Canada agreed to increase dairy imports, addressing long-standing U.S. complaints about Canada's supply management system. However, high tariffs outside these quotas remain.

• Digital Trade: The USMCA added provisions to prevent duties on electronic transmissions, protect consumer privacy, and prohibit data localization requirements, reflecting the increasing importance of digital trade.

Success and Impact:

While the USMCA was intended to modernize trade rules to better reflect current economic realities, protect workers, and address criticisms of NAFTA by aiming to balance trade benefits with considerations for labor, environment, and intellectual property rights. However, at this time, there is not a real and determinatively accurate measure of its success; thus a mixed bag.

New Tariffs in 2025

Whilst campaigning for the Presidency, Donald Trump cited the use of tariffs as a reliable means to address what he perceived as unfair trade practices, as well as to address immigration and security issues. Specifically, the import of Fentanyl, and other illegal drugs, through what he viewed as a porous northern border.

In addition, he expressed dissatisfaction with various aspects of the USMCA, suggesting it did not go far enough in addressing U.S. trade deficits and protecting American industries. Citing our ongoing trade deficit with Canada having grown (rather than shrinking), the lack of adherence to labor and environmental standards (including routing Chines goods through Canada), remaining dairy and agricultural trade imbalances, as well as the fact that the very terms of the USMCA being up for review in 2026.

As President, Trump has justified the imposition of a 25% tariff on imports from Canada, along with a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources, by citing several critical issues. The primary stated root cause for these tariffs is the flow of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, and undocumented immigrants across the U.S.-Canada border. President Trump has characterized these tariffs as a response to an “emergency situation”, where the influx of illegal aliens and drugs has constituted a national security and public health crisis.

The anticipated results from these tariffs have several key expectations. Firstly, Canada must tighten its shared border with the United States, especially in joint efforts to combat drug trafficking across our shared border. Economically speaking, the tariffs are intended to apply pressure on attaining concessions from Canada with respect to market access for US goods in sectors where Canada still has protectionist trade policies.

Observations

That’s a lot of information to take in, but this writer believes it helps set the stage for why these tariffs are reasonable. I think all of the words above may make sense from a history and current state of affairs perspective, but nothing demonstrates the trade imbalance more than the table below

TRQs (Tariff-Rate Quotas) allow a certain amount of goods to be imported at a low or zero tariff, with higher tariffs only applied to quantities exceeding the quota.

• Although the structure under USMCA/NAFTA largely eliminates tariffs on most goods, but exceptions exist for protectionism or in response to trade disputes.

In reviewing this information, it’s abundantly clear that the US has put itself in a position of deference to two lesser economies. The GDP of the USA is $27.2 trillion, Canada is $2.14 trillion, and Mexico is $1.79 trillion. This means that COMBINED, the GDP of Canada and Mexico is $3.93 trillion, so 14% of the US GDP.

Which means, at least to the non-economist brain that I have, that the American citizens are subsidizing both markets, and American citizens are paying for this attempt to “level the playing field”, which I disagree with. We need to focus on our own priorities and problems in this country, and stop subsidizing the world. And when I say we’re subsidizing the world, or, in this case, Canada, a simple perusal of the table above will show you how much US businesses and, consequently, individuals are impacted by these efforts. This is nothing more than if Canada and Mexico have the right (and duty) to engage in protectionist tax schemes for their greatest industries, then so should the US be allowed to do so.

Based on these numbers above, again, I am not an economist, but my “common sense” brain tells met that if there IS a trade war between our 3 nations, Canada and Mexico will lose. They need our economy and goods far, far more than we need theirs. Yes, there will some pain Americans experience in the initial stages of this war, but, in the end, neither alone nor combined, can Canada and Mexico withstand a protracted and just trade war.

I remain a staunch libertarian, who voted for the Libertarian candidate in all of most recent Presidential elections. I have had a LOT to say about Trump in his first term in office, finding a LOT to be dissatisfied with, and giving voice to it here. I believed then, as I believe now, that he was the superior candidate to Clinton by a HUGE stretch.

Leading up to and THROUGH the regime change, I was even more contemptuous of Trump, seeing him as a narcissistic megalomaniac who fought desperately to cling to power. Nothing about that has changed; but for what came next.

Over the past four years, I have watched the further degradation of this country, the incredibly inept, poor, disgusting progressive agenda play out. The erosion of long standing principles for the sake of feelings over facts. The deployment of lawfare by the current administration to keep Trump from ever running again. The persecution of Trump supporters and the extreme ends to which the government went after and over-punished those who committed MINOR crimes. The disintegration of our southern border, the indoctrination of children in our public school system, and the further erosion of our economy.

Mid term of Biden's administration, we started to see more and more details about the deep state and its role in undermining and suppressing the opposition. This ranged from lawfare, as I stated above, to further suppression of freedom of speech, and the further efforts to erode our fundamental and basic rights as enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Up until last year, I saw Trump as a completely nonviable, tarnished, and, criminal candidate that should never return to power. However, through the course of the past year, as I started to examine and challenge the prevailing mindset, I began to question the legitimacy of many of the claims that have been made, and, although I fight daily to not fall into conspiracy rabbit holes, I see patterns emerge across multiple surfaces and data points that indicate that there IS a level of conspiracy and suppression of our rights that has evolved. I witnessed the mainstream media caught in lie after lie after lie; I watched the Department of Justice persecute people for their political stands; I watched trivial misdemeanors conflated to felonies, all with the goal of keeping one side of the political electorate under the thumb of another.

With the Libertarian party continuing to nominate complete unqualified, idiotic candidates, I had a hard choice to make: do I go against my libertarian principles and choose the true lesser of two evils, or do I vote my conscience and support the political PARTY whom I support at a foundational level. But Chase Oliver was simply too much of a non-starter, that, given the current state of our nation, I felt compelled to fall back to a choice between one party or the other. Seeing what happened in my country over the past four years made it clear that I would not, could not, ever, support the Democratic party in the form of Joe Biden.

Then the Democratic Party leadership pulled off a silent coup, replacing Biden with an even more troublesome candidate: Kamala Harris. A screeching, blank canvas that stood for everything I oppose. This "forced" me to reexamine many things in who I should vote for. Then there were two attempts to assassinate Donald Trump and I felt compelled to ask "who and why would try to take out the opposition". The dearth of information about the first shooter (and for whom we still have no real information), the complete and utter failure of his protective details, and the manner in which the story was quickly dropped by the media leads me to conclude that there is much, much more that was afoot here.

Candidly, the string of events over the past four years led me to conclude that the "deep state" is so hell-bent on keeping Trump out of office that I had to question WHY. And those questions lead to conclusions that should make EVERY American deeply disturbed and uncomfortable. Combined with a platform that took shape as Trump gathered momentum, and promised to address MANY of the concerns that I had with respect to where we as a nation are headed, my choice solidified around Trump.

I remain highly skeptical of Trump's psychology, behavior, demeanor, buffoonery, but I fully support him in the hopes that he, and those he brings with him, will START the path of righting this nation. In his first term, he was surrounded by professional bureaucrats, many of whom believe that they know better than you about how you should live your life and how this nation should be run. Countless times, we have heard, "trust the experts", only to find out that those "experts" lied to us. Time and time and time again.

With all that in mind, as we swear in President Donald Trump, I enter this phase with actual hope that he, and his administration can start the work of fixing our course for the future that embraces liberty and individual freedom. I welcome the reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, MASSIVELY, and I desire a return to a time when the government was not involved in our day to day lives. This is not something that Trump can do on his own, nor can his administration do it all for us, we have to start looking at the facts, approach every piece of information with skepticism, and do the work that should rest on each of our shoulders in fact-checking for ourselves.

As Donald Trump takes office today, I challenge EVERY American citizen to seek the facts, pursue enlightenment and awareness, and challenge the "common narrative". Recognize that we are allowing our country to be destroyed from within, placing feelings over facts, and placing social issues as the pre-eminent measuring stick of our status in the world. Donald Trump is OUR President, not mine, and we should all reflect on how and why that came to pass and put our energy not into efforts to discredit, demean, and denigrate him, but support his efforts to right this country, irrespective of how you feel about him as a person. I reserve the right, as each citizen does, to disagree with him or his administration, to call out policies, rules, and laws that I don't support when they violate our founding principles, and I respect and fight for anyone's right to do so. But that MUST start with being INFORMED, not just OPINIONATED. Whilst everyone is fully entitled to have an opinion, the only opinions that matter come from those who have taken the time to form an INFORMED OPINION. Please, think before you post, examine and research, don't react without doing so, and present your views as clearly, articulately, and non-biased as you possibly can. You will gather far more support for your views absent rhetoric, misdirection, lies and deceit.

And let's truly "Make America Great Again".

Ok, so let's lay out some FACTS:

1. FEMA's budget (inside the larger federal government budget) was a total of $30.2 billion dollars. FEMA set aside 19.1 billion of that for disaster relief

   

2. This included both funds for both catastrophic ($16.2B) and non-catastrophic (Preparedness Porgrams $2.9B)

3. Assistance programs were allocated almost $9B, which included funding for the Shelter and Service Program (SSP) which was "transferred" from DHS budget to FEMAs (left pocket, right pocket, same pair of pants).

4. Lastly, $2.1B was for internal operations (staff, etc).

5. By October, with Helene and Milton hitting so hard, and close together, FEMA spent $9B of that $20.61B and flagged that they were going to potentially run out of money.

6. Bear in mind that the federal government’s fiscal year begins in October, so all of the funding should have been decided then, and then each administrative agency works with what they’re given.

7. However, because of how politicized and polarized the budgeting process is, the federal government (Congress) has kept kicking the can down the road, rather than pass an annual budget, we’ve been operating under Continuing Resolutions (CR) (stopgap spending) since September of 2019. You heard that right: we’ve not passed a full year funding budget in FIVE years.

8. In those stop-gap, continuing resolutions, Congress takes it up holistically; it’s not a line by line approval. In other words, our elected representatives vote on the FULL continuing resolution after arguing/negotiating on details. This means that while SOME may not agree with the funding levels of certain line items, it’s MISLEADING to paint all of those who vote against a CR as voting against a singular line item.

The bottom line here is that we live in an age where INFORMATION is at your fingertips, but FACTS require just a little more digging. The partisanship that we face as American citizens is a division that is of politicians manufacture, but we embrace it and eat it up, “trusting” they’re telling the truth. They are not. They need the division and rhetoric to stay in power, and we give them that power over us. Before you share something on any of the socials, stop. Ask yourself does it make sense? Then go CONFIRM the facts. With a little bit of digging, and the use of AI tools (which DO have bias being plugged into them, so be careful), you can overcome the partisan rhetoric and not look like a fucking dumbass because you shared a meme that was completely inaccurate and misleading.

HR 894 cites recent examples of crimes against Jews as a rise in antisemitism, so, in this case, my friend was falling victim to the social media rage baiting. None of 894 should be objectionable or questionable; it merely lays out specific, recent events of violence aimed at Jewish individuals simply for being Jewish.

However, I think the real “outrage” that my friend felt was likely directed at HR 6090, which is a more thorough Bill and attempts to align the definition of antisemitism for enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws for the purposes of EDUCATION with those laid out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. This particular bill basically offers up two elements:

1. That it aims to align the definition of anti-semitism to that of the IHRA for these purposes. Said definition reads, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Ok, fine. Nothing questionable or unreasonable in that, right? I mean, the definition makes sense and you could simply change out the words “antisemitism” and “Jews” for any other ethnicity and/or faith and it would still be as impactful and applicable.

However, it’s the real world examples that cause some consternation:

2. That in so doing, this bill also aims to INCLUDE their "contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere..."

Those examples include the following:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Of the above, I think the only one statement that may be considered inflammatory is that of "Using the symbols of classic antisemitism..." based on the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. If people seriously blame an entire religion or ethnicity for this betrayal, that's some seriously fucked up thinking.

One would think that institutions of learning would not need this guidance, guardrail, legislation, but what we’ve seen over the past 20 years in academia give pause to ask the question. The indoctrination that has become an integral part of post-secondary education has given rise to the levels of hate, contempt, distrust and disrespect that continue to erode American society, rather than enhance it, and are the impetus behind Bills like this.

In summary, I get the intention, but the construction of the bill is faulty. Through aligning government policy to a specific interest group without filter or clarification, leads opens it up to such criticism. However, I believe that its impact is minimal to the common American by its focus on education and was not intended to be used to suppress our Freedom of Speech. In fact, HR 6090 specifically states, "Constitutional Protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." By and large, it's a meaningless bill that IF it passes the Senate, will go through reconciliation in its final form that will likely strike some of that language.

Quite simply: Good intention. Poor Bill. Great rage bait.

Citations:

H. Res 894 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894/text?s=2&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22894%22%7D

H. Res 6090 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text?s=1&r=2&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%226090%22%7D

IHRA definition of antisemitism - https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Subscribe now