As Trump Loses It at Canada, Here’s What Reagan Really Said on Tariffs

The White House has terminated all trade negotiations with Canada after Donald Trump claimed an advert misrepresented former President Ronald Reagan’s thoughts on tariffs. But that’s not quite true.

Last week, Ontario’s provisional government issued an ad featuring a clip of Reagan from a 1987 radio address in which the conservative icon argued that tariffs undermine economic prosperity, and that they only serve to “hurt every American.”

Late Thursday, Trump nixed trade talks with Canada, declaring the clip was a “fake.” The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation also claimed that the footage of the fortieth president was selectively edited and is reportedly seeking legal options.

The axed negotiations leave in place a 35 percent tariff on Canadian goods, as well as additional tariffs on Canada’s car and steel products, two fines that have particularly devastated Ontario.

The one-minute advertisement uses portions of Reagan’s five-minute speech, creating the impression that Reagan is saying several sentences in succession that were actually separate during the original address. As edited, Reagan appears to say this during Ontario’s ad:

When someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes, for a short while, it works—but only for a short time.

But over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. Throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. America’s jobs and growth are at stake.

In reality … Reagan was still very critical of tariffs during the brief speech, perhaps even more so than depicted by the ad’s brevity. Not all of the sentences used in the advert, however, are in the exact order they appear in the complete speech. Here’s what Reagan actually said in his full address at Camp David on April 25, 1987, as released by the Reagan Foundation:

My fellow Americans, Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan will be visiting me here at the White House next week.

It’s an important visit because while I expect to take up our relations with our good friend Japan, which overall remain excellent, recent disagreements between our two countries on the issue of trade will also be high on our agenda. As perhaps you’ve heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan’s inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors.

Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take, and in a moment I’ll mention the sound economic reasons for this, that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements. As I’ve often said, our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade.

But you know, in imposing these tariffs, we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war. So next week, I’ll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message: We want to continue to work cooperatively on our trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring.

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada’s leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing, and today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff greatly deepened the Depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first when someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes, for a short while, it works—but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is, first homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars.

The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the ’30s made me determined when I came back to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now, it hasn’t always been easy. There are those in the Congress—just as there were back in the ‘30s—who want to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America’s prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than five million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports.

Well, I’ve never forgotten those jobs. And on trade issues, by and large, we’ve done well. In certain select cases, like the Japanese semiconductors, we’ve taken steps to stop unfair practices against American products, but we’ve still maintained our basic long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth.

So with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it’s terribly important not to restrict the president’s options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I’ll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation because it’s just another form of protectionism, and I may need your help to stop it. Remember, America’s jobs and growth are at stake. Until next week, thanks for listening and God bless you.

Watch Reagan’s full speech here.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is the latest Cabinet member to draw the ire of the Trump administration after pissing off the world’s richest man.

Last week, Duffy continued his push to fold NASA under his Transportation Department, a move that has angered both Elon Musk and other Cabinet members, as Musk and Trump’s original pick to head NASA, Jared Isaacman, has returned to favor among Republicans and Trump may once again nominate him for the role. But Duffy still resists, as he seems to desire the power that would come with NASA under his belt.

“Sean Dummy is trying to kill NASA!” Musk posted on X on Tuesday. “Having a NASA Administrator who knows literally ZERO about rockets & spacecraft undermines the American space program and endangers our astronauts,” he said the next, another shot at Duffy.

But according to NOTUS, it isn’t just Musk who’s angry.

“There are people in the White House who believe Duffy has made unnecessary chaos rather than just accept that his time is in the sunset,” one anonymous official said.

“Sean has overplayed his hand,” said another. “Not so much in dealing directly with the president, but more so with the West Wing and the rest of the administration. He has spent the last couple of weeks being a cowboy, and it’s caught up to him.”

Putting NASA under the Transportation Department would be an unprecedented move, as the agency does not handle transportation at all. And Duffy’s insistence on it has made him the whipping boy of the month in an administration that can never seem to go more than a month without one.

“Everyone, and I mean everyone in the West Wing, is furious at him,” said another source.

President Trump himself has yet to comment on the situation.

Republicans want Jack Smith to testify about his investigations into Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Now the former special counsel is calling their bluff: He says he wants to do it in front of the public.

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan and Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley on Thursday, Smith’s legal team requested that their client be given the opportunity to testify publicly to refute the “many mischaracterizations” of his investigations.

Smith’s lawyers also requested DOJ guidance on what exactly their client would be allowed to discuss, as well as access to the special counsel’s files.

“With the guidance and access described above, Mr. Smith is available to testify in an open hearing at your earliest convenience,” they wrote.

Last week, Jordan demanded that Smith appear in a closed-door session to discuss his investigations. Specifically, Jordan was incensed by a revelation that Smith had requested Senate Republicans’ phone records from the days before and after the deadly January 6 riot, in order to see who may have been involved in Trump’s alleged efforts to subvert the election. Trump earned himself four felony counts for those alleged efforts. Those charges were dismissed after he was elected to the White House in 2024.

“As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement,” Jordan wrote.

Speaking on CNN Thursday as a senior law enforcement analyst, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe said it was a great idea for Smith to go public. “I think it’s important that he’s speaking up in a way to kind of demystify what has been grossly misrepresented to the American people by the senators,” he said.

McCabe also explained that the kind of telephone records Smith had requested were run-of-the-mill investigative practice, and that it would have been conducted under the purview of a grand jury subpoena.

“This is not something that a prosecutor, an FBI agent, [would] just dream up off the top of their heads and, you know, call up the phone company and say, ‘Hey, send us everything you have.’ There is a process. These records are accessed lawfully under the purview of the grand jury,” he said, adding that the request had been “grossly misrepresented” by Republicans.

Senator Rand Paul is tired of being the only Republican senator willing to stand up to President Trump.

The libertarian spoke with Politico’s Dasha Burns just days after being deliberately left out of Trump’s gathering of GOP senators in the Rose Garden. “We have everybody but one person here,” Trump said Wednesday. “We’re just missing one person. You’ll never guess who that is. Let me give you—he automatically votes no on everything. He thinks it’s good politics. It’s really not good politics.”

Paul addressed the rift between himself and Trump in an interview with Burns, released on Friday.

“The president considers it to be bizarre and weird, but I believe that we should have less debt, and we should balance our budget.... I take it as a badge of courage, really,” Paul said. “There has to be someone left. What if there’s no one left who actually believes in balanced budgets? To me, I’m worried about the demise of a conservative voice within the Republican Party if we all become rubber stamps.”

While the Kentucky senator is certainly a supporter of the president, he has made a string of decisions that make his commitment to a more traditional brand of conservatism clear. He has come out against the extrajudicial Caribbean drug boat bombings, was “not a big fan” of Trump’s military parade, and most notably was one of only three Republican senators to vote against Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the grounds that it would increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion.

“If I’m given the choice of President Trump versus Harris or versus Biden, without question, I choose President Trump over and over again,” Paul told Burns. “But that doesn’t mean I’m going to sit back and just say, ‘Oh, I’m leaving all my beliefs on the doorstep. I’m no longer going to be for free trade. I’m no longer going to be for balanced budgets. I’m no longer going to be opposed to killing people without trials, without naming them, without evidence.’ No, I have to remain who I am.”

Paul also expressed discomfort with Trump’s willingness to attack any Republican who may disagree with him, like Representative Thomas Massie, who the president wants primaried, or even Paul himself.

“It’s a warning sign: ‘Oppose me or my policies and I’ll come after you.’ And I don’t think that’s good for the Republican Party, nor do I think it’s good for the country,” Paul continued. “I think what made America great is capitalism ... it’s a fallacy to say the nation’s being hollowed out by trade,” referring to Trump’s trade wars.

Paul also shed light on a deep fear of challenging the president on anything within the party.

“I hear a lot of flack from Republicans and they want me to do it. They say, ‘Oh, well, you’re not afraid of the president. You go tell him his nominee can’t make it,’” Paul said. “I’m just tired of always being the whipping boy.”

The full interview is available here.

Donald Trump is mad at Canada again, this time over a TV ad criticizing his tariffs.

In a Truth Social post late Thursday night, Trump declared that “ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED” thanks to an ad, paid for by the government of Ontario, which used audio from a 1987 speech from President Ronald Reagan where he said, “Trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer.”

In a statement, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute—which thus far has not had much to say about Trump’s tariffs—said that the ad misrepresented Reagan’s remarks and that the Province of Ontario did not seek permission to use the audio, and that it “is reviewing its legal options in this matter.” Trump attached this statement to his post.

On Friday morning, Trump blasted Canada again, claiming the country “CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!”

“They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY,” Trump ranted on Truth Social. He claimed that the country was trying to “illegally influence” the Supreme Court against the president’s tariffs, and that Canada had a long history of cheating on import taxes.

Trump is failing (or refusing) to realize that the province of Ontario took out this ad, not the entire Canadian government. Trump’s anger is equivalent to another country blaming him and the U.S. government for an ad made by California or New York. Ontario happens to be led by Premier Doug Ford of Canada’s Conservative Party, who was a supporter of Trump prior to the president’s trade war and attacks on the country’s sovereignty.

The breaking off of trade negotiations comes only days after Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to revamp the country’s economy to be less dependent on the U.S., saying the once-close ties between the two countries are now a vulnerability.

“Our relationship with the United States will never again be the same as it was.... We have to take care of ourselves, because we can’t rely on one foreign partner. We have to take care of each other because we are stronger together,” Carney said in a Wednesday night speech. Trump’s freakout over a TV ad is already proving Carney right.

Watch the ad that made Trump so angry below.

President Donald Trump floated the idea of expanding his extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels to dry land—or as one might refer to it, he pitched declaring war.

During a roundtable press conference Thursday, Trump claimed that he had all but eradicated drug trafficking by sea, after launching the ninth strike on a foreign vessel earlier this week without providing any actual evidence linking the boats to any drug cartel.

“So, now they’re coming in by land, and even the land is concerned, because I told them, that’s gonna be next,” Trump rambled. “You know the land is gonna be next? And we may go to the Senate, we may go to the Congress and tell them about it, but I can’t imagine they’d have any problem with it.”

“What are they gonna do? Say ‘Gee, we don’t want to stop drugs pouring in?’” Trump added.

But only Congress can decide if the United States is at war—not Trump—even if he thinks the GOP-led legislative branch is too weak-willed to stop him. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the president has attempted to bypass Congress’s authority.

Trump has already decided to unilaterally declare war on the so-called narcoterrorist drug boats, by announcing a state of “non-international armed conflict” against vessels that are part of “designated terrorist organizations.” A memo sent to Congress last month claimed that Trump had the authority to determine cartels were “nonstate armed groups,” and that their transport of drugs constituted “an armed attack against the United States.”

Two Americans are suing Donald Trump for razing the White House’s East Wing.

While the rest of the nation was stunned by the haphazard destruction of one of the nation’s oldest and most cherished democratic symbols, at least two individuals moved to stop it. Charles K. Voorhees and Judith A. Voorhees filed a temporary restraining order Thursday intended to stop Trump’s bulldozing.

In a three-page court filing, the plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration violated the National Capital Planning Act of 1952 by failing to acquire the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission, which has been closed since the government shutdown began 23 days ago.

The Voorhees further claimed that, in fast-tracking the East Wing’s demo, Trump had breached the National Historic Preservation Act and bypassed legally required oversight from the Commission of Fine Arts. They also alleged that Trump and his associates had intentionally “decoupled” the demolition and construction process, picking apart semantics in order to stretch a loophole that could justify their unapproved blueprint for federally-owned grounds.

But their lawsuit may be too late to salvage the historic monument. Nothing but rubble remained of the East Wing by midday Thursday, according to satellite images of the grounds. The demo was apparently an essential component of the president’s plan to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom that he had initially pledged wouldn’t interfere with the preexisting structure.

The White House’s partial destruction is, ultimately, another illustration that the country’s constitutional system of checks and balances has all but eroded. The international real estate mogul’s desire to destroy the government—and with it, the architectural face of American democracy—has received practically zero pushback from his allies in Congress, who appear all too willing to sit back as Trump courts billionaires to fund his golden banquet hall.

Resisting Trump’s drafts for the East Wing would require someone in power to actually hold the president accountable. But his desire to destroy and redevelop the White House as he sees fit should come as no surprise, since he’s never appeared to be a fan of the national symbol. During his first term, Trump reportedly called the White House “a dump” (an allegation that he has publicly refuted) and has spent no small part of his second term living and dining at his own properties rather than the executive mansion.

A Justice Department investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James yielded information that may potentially spoil the Trump administration’s plans to convict her of mortgage fraud.

The DOJ, led by inexperienced Trump-appointed interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, accused James of committing mortgage fraud and lying about a second home being rented out as an “investment property,” collecting “thousands” in rent money and saving over $17,000 in the process.

But prosecutors who investigated James warned Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Seibert, that the evidence for those claims wasn’t so clear. They found that James allowed her niece and her children to live in the house rent-free in 2020, and she only reported collecting $1,350 in rent money on her tax return from that year, which was allegedly to cover the cost of utilities. The small sum undercuts the DOJ theory that she was using it as an investment property.

Government lawyers are also doubtful that they’ll be able to prove that James committed mortgage fraud due to the vague standards around what does and doesn’t count as occupancy in a second home. While the DOJ argues that James didn’t visit the home enough to be an occupant, Fannie Mae guidelines don’t specify that a person needs to sleep in the property overnight.

This all points to signs that the indictment is simply revenge for James’s successful fraud suit against Trump, which made her a lifelong enemy of our spiteful president.

“I will not bow, I will not break, I will not bend,” James said earlier this month at a rally for New York’s Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani in the midst of her federal indictment. “I will not capitulate, I will not give in.”

The Trump administration’s desperate attempt to incriminate her may have made doing that a bit earlier.

It looks like Stephen Miller’s quest to hire 10,000 so-called “Homeland Defenders” by January isn’t going so well.

During a multi-agency meeting earlier this week, Miller voiced frustration that Immigration and Customs Enforcement wasn’t bringing in deportation officers fast enough, CNN reported Thursday. Meanwhile, multiple sources told CNN that ICE has struggled to process the sudden surge of applicants after the agency dangled a $50,000 signing bonus in front of their noses, in the hopes of enticing Americans to join the legion of law enforcement officials ripping families apart. 

“It’s a shit show,” an administration official told CNN.

One senior ICE official told CNN that “HR is not equipped to hire en masse,” adding, “No one has support staff to support this.” In fact, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has had to lend out some personnel to help handle ICE’s influx of applications, which DHS reports has skyrocketed to 175,000.  

ICE officials are really feeling the strain once new recruits arrive for the agency’s training program, where more than 200 applicants have already been terminated from the program because they did not meet the physical or academic requirements, one source told CNN.

Sources told NBC News Wednesday that multiple new recruits had arrived for training without being properly vetted, and just under 10 were turned away due to disqualifying criminal backgrounds or failed drug testing. At ICE’s training academy in Brunswick, Georgia, staff discovered one recruit had previously been involved in a domestic violence incident, and was once charged with strong-arm robbery and battery. DHS officials told NBC News that other recruits in the six-week training course had not submitted their fingerprints for background checks, which is required by ICE. 

CNN reported that in one case, ICE gave a conditional offer to a Drug Enforcement Administration informant, which was only caught by the DEA. In another case, an individual had a pending gun charge.

These mistakes come as the Trump administration has attempted to speed up the onboarding process, which used to take months, into a partially remote process that only takes 47 days, CNN reported. 

Scott Shuchart, former head of policy at ICE during the Biden administration, suggested that the Trump administration had gone too far in attempting to streamline the process.“They’re trying to do something borderline impossible and they’re doing it too fast,” he told CNN. 

Donald Trump has free license to reshape the White House as he sees fits, according to his staff.

With no warning, the president razed the White House’s East Wing this week to make way for a $300 million ballroom that he claimed would be “100 percent” paid for by himself and his “friends.” 

As the demo bore on, it became clear that what had been originally pitched as a minor expansion to one of the most prominent symbols of American democracy would not only destroy the historic two-story addition, which was constructed under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It would also overshadow the White House entirely, with a square footage nearly double the size of the rest of the building.

Despite public backlash, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down Thursday that the president had total, unquestionable authority to alter the premises however he desires, repeatedly leaning on the supposed allowances of a legal precedent that she failed to name. 

“The White House has explained that the reason you didn’t submit construction plans to the [National Capital Planning Commission] is because that commission, along with others, don’t have oversight over demolitions, but only over construction,” CBS reporter Weijia Jiang said. “So, can you help us understand—can the president tear down anything he wants without oversight? Could he demolish this building or, say, the Jefferson Memorial?”

“So, it’s not the president who came up with that legal opinion himself. That’s a legal opinion that’s been held by the NCPC for many years,” Leavitt said, suggesting that only vertical construction requires the express approval of the federal planning agency. “There have been many presidents in the past who have made their mark on this beautiful White House complex.”

“It sounds like the answer is yes, he can tear down whatever he wants?” Jiang pressed. 

“That’s not what we’re saying. That’s a legal opinion that’s been held for many years,” the 27-year-old press secretary reiterated. 

“That’s how you’re interpreting it,” Jiang said. 

“No, it’s something that presidents have done for years and years,” Leavitt continued, holding up photos of the West Wing’s construction in 1902 while condescendingly prompting Jiang to explain where the “rubble” in the photo came from.

The White House (along with the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court) is technically exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires agencies to undergo a review process and field public opinion before altering historical landmarks. Traditionally, presidents have voluntarily submitted construction proposals to the NCPC anyway, in a show of transparency.

But the Trump administration’s rationale for bulldozing past presidential precedent and public expectation also flagrantly ignores the fact that any significant project on the White House grounds, such as tearing down walls or new construction, requires congressional approval and a lengthy approval process to proceed.

The destruction is a far cry from what Trump had proposed when he first floated the idea of constructing a ballroom on the White House grounds. During the initial announcement in July, Trump claimed that his project “won’t interfere with the current building. It won’t be. It’ll be near it but not touching it.”

Beyond the gargantuan overhaul, the sitting president doesn’t appear to be a huge fan of the national symbol. During his first term, Trump reportedly called the White House “a dump” (an allegation that he has publicly refuted), and he has spent no small part of his second term living and dining at his own properties rather than the executive mansion.

It is not clear whether the National Capital Planning Commission was consulted or received any meaningful insight prior to the White House’s demolition, particularly as it has been closed since the government shut down 23 days ago.

“The decisions were made in complete secrecy and undertaken without public disclosure or proper consultation,”  the ranking members on the House Oversight and Natural Resources committees and the subcommittee on energy on mineral resources wrote Trump in a letter Thursday. “The American people deserve full transparency regarding the substantial demolition, preparation, and construction at the White House during a government shutdown, particularly when it concerns alterations to one of our nation’s most historically significant buildings.”