From now on... EVERYONE will refer to indigenous North Americans as... NATIVES!
AND...
People from India... will be called INDIANS!
Thank you for your attention to this matter! 😋
.jpg)
What happened
U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby announced the Pentagon is "pausing" participation in the PJBD to "reassess how this forum benefits shared North American defense," citing Canada's failure to make what he called "credible progress on its defense commitments." The immediate trigger, however, was political: the suspension was explicitly tied to remarks Carney made at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he framed the moment as one in which Canada needed to diversify its economic partnerships and assert its independence. NewsNationPolitical
Implications for Canada's push toward independence
This move ironically accelerates rather than reverses Canada's trajectory away from the U.S., for several reasons:
The broader picture
The real strategic risk here cuts both ways. Washington increasingly regards Canada as the alliance's weak link on Chinese interference, particularly along its northern Arctic border — a concern serious enough that a Pentagon working group warned the White House it represented one of the most significant strategic risks facing the United States in the region. So Trump is simultaneously pushing Canada away and worrying about what fills the vacuum — which is not a coherent strategy. The Bureau
For Canada, the net effect is that domestic political support for distancing from the U.S. will likely harden further. Carney now has both moral and strategic cover to pursue European defence partnerships, diversify procurement, and build his "middle powers" coalition — with Trump himself providing the argument.
Allan said: Claude, any indication of how the trade talks between Canada and the United States will shake out?
The hard deadline: By July 1, 2026, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada must agree to extend the USMCA for 16 years, approve a revised agreement, or trigger a 10-year annual-review countdown that would end with the agreement expiring in 2036. Rethink Trade
The Canada problem: The U.S. has effectively iced out Canada in the talks, continuing discussions with Mexico while leaving less than two months to reach a decision.
It's unclear whether this is a negotiating tactic or a sign of a more serious rift.
The rhetoric from Washington has been pointed — Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Rick Switzer said at a CFR event that "the grown-ups are in the room talking" regarding Mexico, then added, "I would argue there's not a grown-up in Canada in charge." NOTUSCouncil on Foreign Relations
The U.S. position: Ambassador Greer has told Congress he is not prepared to recommend renewal of the USMCA to the president without changes, and the U.S. dairy dispute with Canada remains a flashpoint — Greer told lawmakers the issue must be resolved either during USMCA negotiations or through enforcement action. BrookingsWays and Means
Canada's strategic pivot: Prominent Canadian voices — including former PM Stephen Harper and Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem — have signaled that the era of secure, predictable U.S. market access is likely over, and that Canada needs to reduce its dependence on the U.S. and diversify trade. Responsible Statecraft
The language shift: A Policy Options analysis of USTR hearing transcripts found that traditional free trade language... "globalism," "comparative advantage" has essentially disappeared from the negotiations, replaced by a... "Fortress North America" framing that Washington is now turning against Canada's own trade diversification strategy. Policy Options
Bottom line: most analysts see three possible outcomes — a deal with significant concessions from Canada, a trigger of the annual review sunset (messy but survivable), or a full collapse (unlikely but no longer unthinkable). The July 1 deadline is real, and Canada is currently the odd one out at the table.
Allan said: Let's say Canada scraps the f-35 deal for SAAB Gripen E's... and gets real cozy with Europe... while building pipelines to east and west tide-water... so that we send less oil to the states... and then put export tariffs on oil, electricity. lumber, precious metals!
Claude responded: That's a fun scenario to war-game. Let me think through it seriously!
The leverage pieces, assessed:
Oil & energy exports... This is the sharpest weapon.
The U.S. imports roughly 4 million barrels/day from Canada, much of it heavy crude that Midwest refineries are specifically configured for.
You can't just swap in Saudi light crude without expensive refinery retrofits.
Export tariffs here would genuinely hurt... but the pipeline-to-tidewater piece takes years. Until those are built, Canada is still somewhat captive to the U.S. pipeline network.
Electricity... Real leverage in the short term, especially for New England and the Pacific Northwest. Ontario and Quebec power grids are deeply integrated with U.S. states. Export tariffs here are probably the fastest pain Canada could deliver.
Lumber... Less dramatic. The U.S. has a domestic supply and can source from elsewhere, though costs go up. Meaningful but not decisive.
Precious metals... Potash is actually the sleeper hit here, not gold. Canada supplies a massive share of global potash, which means U.S. agriculture gets squeezed. That hits rural Republican constituencies hard... politically useful.
The Gripen/Europe play... Symbolically powerful, practically complicated. The F-35 cancellation would enrage Washington, but the Gripen E is a credible aircraft. More importantly, it signals a real strategic reorientation that Europe would notice and likely reward with faster trade deal momentum.
The problems with this scenario:
The tidewater pipelines are the critical weak link. Trans Mountain is done, but east-coast tidewater capacity is still constrained. Until that infrastructure exists, the oil leverage is partially theoretical. And building it under political pressure accelerates U.S. retaliation in the interim.
Also... Canada's economy takes real pain too, at least short-term.
The question is whether Canadians have the stomach for it, and right now, post-tariff anger, the answer might actually be YES!
The bigger picture:
What you're really describing is Canada forcing a fundamental repricing of the relationship... making the U.S. feel the cost of treating Canada as a subordinate rather than a partner. The irony is that Trump himself understands leverage. A Canada that actually uses its leverage might earn more respect than one that keeps absorbing punishment politely.
Europe's reaction would be key.
If Canada moves decisively, the EU has strong incentive to fast-track CETA expansion. That changes the math considerably.
Realistic? Politically difficult. But not as far-fetched as it would have seemed two years ago.
Allan said: Let's assume Canada approves pipelines by the end of summer, as they have promised... what would that do to the threat level?
Good question. It changes the calculus significantly.
What pipeline approval by end of summer actually means:
Approval is not flow. Even fast-tracked, new pipeline capacity to tidewater is likely 3-5 years from approval to operational. So the immediate export tariff threat on oil remains partially theoretical... Canada still needs U.S. pipeline infrastructure to move most of its crude in the near term.
However... and this is important:
The credibility of the threat changes dramatically the moment shovels are in the ground.
Right now Washington can dismiss Canadian energy leverage as bluster.
Once steel is being laid toward tidewater, the math shifts.
Markets respond, long-term supply contracts get renegotiated, and Asian buyers... particularly Japan, South Korea, and India... start making serious commitments rather than exploratory ones.
The threat trajectory looks something like this:
The electricity and potash pieces matter here too... because those don't require pipelines. Export tariffs on electricity could be implemented almost immediately, and that becomes the near-term credible threat while the pipeline story develops.
The political dynamic:
Carney would essentially be running a multi-year leverage-building strategy rather than a single dramatic move. The question is whether Canadian politics stays patient enough to see it through. Pipeline approval by summer suggests the political will is there... which is itself a signal Washington has to take seriously.
The honest assessment... pipeline approval by summer moves Canada from reactive to strategically serious.
That's a meaningful upgrade in threat level even before a single barrel reaches tidewater.
Allan said: Give me a timeline and a scenario where we take on the States and win!
Canada's hand going in:
Canada's moves:
What happens:
Washington's response:
Canada's counter:
Canada's moves:
What happens:
Washington's response:
Canada's counter:
The context:
Canada's moves:
What happens:
The terms Canada wins:
What Canada concedes:
The outcome:
The core logic is simple. Canada doesn't need to beat the United States in a direct confrontation.
Canada needs to raise the cost of bullying until the U.S. domestic political pressure does the work.
Farm states, energy states, auto states, and northeastern states all have direct economic pain points.
Those are Republican constituencies. (When Iowa senators are getting destroyed at town halls over fertilizer costs, Washington folds.)
The pipeline is the keystone.
Everything else is tactics.
Once Asian and European buyers are locked in as credible alternatives, Canada is no longer a captive supplier... and that changes everything about the negotiating dynamic permanently.
The real win isn't just the deal.
It's that Canada never goes back to being a captive!
.png)
Whenever a new poll comes out showing Trump’s abysmal ratings, public reactions follow a pattern.
Public comments don’t question Trump’s dipshit approval rating.
Rather, millions of people question the flip side: how does 38% of the nation still support such an obvious charlatan?
Are supporters delusional?
Suicidal?
Specifically, does MAGA not know that 15 million Americans, mostly their own, have now lost health insurance because of him?
Can they not read the Walmart price tags they hold in their own hands? Do they not know he’s weakening the NATO alliance their granddads fought for, or that he single-handedly empowered one of the most dangerous regimes in the world?
The answer is ‘No, no, and no.’ Nearly 40% of the country—38%, to be exact— can’t connect the dots on who’s making their lives harder.
We don’t need another study to figure out why, because it couldn’t be more obvious: As of May 12, 2026, 38% of the nation still supports Trump because 38% of the nation watches Fox News, purveyors of pure Trump propaganda.
And compared to other consumers, Fox News viewers do not diversify their sources.
After the 2020 election, the Pew Research Center did a deep dive to learn what Americans heard, perceived and knew about it. Researchers found, for example, that 63% of Fox News viewers had given Trump an “excellent” rating on Covid. Trump suggested injecting bleach into unspecified orifices while over 1 million Americans died, yet Fox viewers thought he did an excellent job??
More accurately it was a con job, perpetrated by Fox News.
Fox News propaganda
Coming into the present news cycle, the Pope-Trump conflict illustrates the con in real time. Pope Leo XIV criticized Trump’s war with Iran by condemning leaders who manipulate religion for military gain. Trump, manifestly devoid of impulse control, immediately shot back on Truth Social that the Pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible for Foreign Policy” as if he were a political adversary. In follow up Fox News Digital interviews, Trump doubled down and refused to apologize as Fox hosts clapped like seals.
While most media outlets questioned Trump’s sanity for attacking the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion people, Fox dissembled with headlines like, “60 Minutes accused of using left-leaning Cardinals to bait Trump into feud with Vatican” and “Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump. When Trump dispatched Marco Rubio to patch things up with the Pope last week, most media reported that it didn’t work, but Fox called it a big success and applauded what a great job Rubio did.
Fox News even tried to accuse other media networks of intentionally ‘baiting’ a response from Trump. They invited Elise Stefanik onto the network to tell Pope Leo XIV to “stay out of politics,” while other guests labelled the Pope’s foreign policy views ‘wrong’ and ‘liberal.’ Sean Hannity questioned whether the Pope fully understood the Iran conflict, and several other Fox commentators questioned whether the Pontiff had “read the Bible” about geocomplexities in Iran. To be clear, not one Fox host questioned whether Trump had “read the map” before he delivered the Strait of Hormuz to the mullahs.
The First Amendment protects political speech but it does not protect fraud
The Pope example alone illustrates how MAGA is being lied to on a daily basis, but it’s just one example. Fox News serves up daily falsehoods about climate change, immigrants, public education, NATO, black crime, ICE, and the war in Iran to craft a pro-Trump narrative, assuming their lies are legally protected by the First Amendment as “political speech.”
Enough damage is now evident to challenge that legal assumption.
In 2010, Supreme Court republicans fast-tracked America’s slide into oligarchy when they ruled in Citizens United that corporate political donations were a form of free speech. Citizens United further clarified that, under the First Amendment, political speech warrants the “highest level of protection against government regulation” following the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan’s restatement, and an earlier ruling that any regulations on political speech must withstand the highest level of strict scrutiny.
But while First Amendment protection for political speech is old news, there’s another long-toothed maxim: The First Amendment does not protect fraud. In 2012, under United States v. Alvarez, the Court confirmed thatfraud is a ‘narrowly limited class of speech’ not entitled to First Amendment protection. In Alvarez, the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a law that made lying about military medals a crime, because no one gained a ‘material advantage’ from the lie. Unless someone is profiting from their false speech, the court ruled, there’s no actionable fraud—they’re simply lying. But false speech connected to economic gain on one side and economic harm on the other is fraud, legally unprotected under the First Amendment.
Under this definition, Fox News is engaged in classic consumer fraud. Fox admitted in the Dominion case that they lied to their viewers for profit, and paid out nearly $1 billion in settlement as a result. But their lies didn’t stop after that case, they continue to sell 24/7 Trump propaganda as ‘news.’ They are perpetrating the same fraud, one that hooks viewers, profiting Fox and their corporate backers, while materially harming victims by convincing them to vote against their own economic interests.
Under Supreme Court precedent, Fox News isn’t engaging in protected political speech. It’s engaging in commercial fraud. And the victims aren’t just Fox viewers, even though studies show they are harmed the most: the entire nation is enduring political violence, extreme division and rumblings of civil war because 38% of the country is being lied to.
Albert Einstein once said, “A people that were to honor falsehood…would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.” Is mere national survival a sufficient justification to return to requiring accuracy in the news? Is it legally sufficient to pass strict scrutiny? If it is not, after a Democrat-run Congress returns to the Fairness Doctrine, this high court will have elevated partisan interests to the point of national suicide.
Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the free Substack, The Haake Take.
