Canada hits Maine farmers with 250% tariffs — and JD Vance is over it



Canada often enjoys a reputation as America's friendly neighbor, but Vice President JD Vance says the relationship has been anything but fair for U.S. workers and farmers.

In a recent speech on cross-border trade, Vance went in on Canada for imposing steep tariffs on American products while benefiting from the security and economic advantages provided by the United States.

The recent tariffs include 250% on Maine dairy while providing a free pass for Chinese goods through the back door and zero reciprocity.

“First of all, I’d say we’re very mindful of the fact that Maine is a border state with Canada. There’s a lot of cross-border transactions between Maine and Canada. And what we’re trying to do here is just make sure that Maine actually gets a fair deal,” Vance began.


He went on to say that not just Canada but China have “been the two worst countries when it comes to trade policy anywhere in the world.”

“Canada is a country that has underinvested in its military that quite literally would get invaded by a foreign country were it not for the umbrella of protection provided by the United States of America,” he said, asking, “And so how does Canada actually respond to that? By treating the people of Maine fairly?”

“No, they apply ridiculous tariffs and other nontariff duties on Maine products coming into Canada and they don’t expect Maine or anybody else to fight back,” he answered.

“We’re sick of that. We are actually going to fight back against unfair trade practices whether it’s coming from China or Canada,” he added.

“Good. And that is true. He’s absolutely right about that,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments.

“And by the way, it’s not just Maine products. It’s all U.S. products,” he adds.

Vance continued to explain that while you buy “dairy, cheese, butter, milk that comes from Canada into Maine, you probably are buying a product that has 0% tariffs on it.”

However, he went on, “If a Maine farmer sends dairy products into Canada, they could be paying as much as a 250% tariff.”

“Now, how is it fair to the farmers of Maine that they pay 250% when the Canadian farmers pay nothing? That unfairness is something that we just have to fix,” he added.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

MILK MONEY: How Mark Carney chose the dairy cartel — and China — over a Trump trade deal



On Friday night, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered his negotiators to walk away from a trade agreement with President Donald Trump, less than an hour before a new round of American tariffs was set to take effect.

To hear Carney tell it, the reason was simple: It was a “bad deal.”

Carney increasingly looks like a prime minister in China's pocket.

“We take this step confident that it is in the best interests of Canada,” Carney said Saturday. “And that, by rejecting a bad deal, standing up for Canada, and focusing on what we can control, we are building a Canada strong for all.”

On Tuesday, his government announced retaliatory tariffs of up to 50% on $27.6 billion in U.S. goods, effective September 8.

“When the United States of America asked too much and offered too little, we made a choice,” Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said. “We chose Canada.” Does anyone really believe that?

'War' cry

Carney walked away not because the deal was necessarily bad for Canada, but because confrontation with the United States serves his politics. He is prepared to endure 50% American tariffs on roughly $20 billion in Canadian exports because he is frankly ecstatic to be “at war” with the United States — it cements his appeal with an anti-American base that thrives on Canadian martyrdom.

“You're at war when you're attacked, and we got attacked,” Carney said.

Just as Carney vilified the U.S. and Trump in his last “elbows up” federal election campaign, he is again playing the victim card in his latest attempt to cast Trump as the unreasonable aggressor. Carney certainly appears to have planned for this rejection, and politically he is enjoying it — just as his Liberal Party has long galvanized its supporters with anti-American rhetoric.

Carney has provided few details to Canadians about just exactly why the trade deal was so “bad,” except to make outrageous suggestions that the U.S. was trying to strip Canada of its official bilingualism — which would be a wonderful phenomenon — and erode its French-language culture.

He has also claimed that Trump was demanding restrictions on trade deals Canada could make with other countries.

Playing around

But this is clearly a smoke screen. Carney hardly behaved as though securing a trade deal was urgent when he went on vacation to Italy just 10 days before the tariff deadline. He returned to Canada with the tariffs about to take effect but managed to gain a three-day moratorium as negotiations continued.

He wasn't serious about preserving the old economic relationship with the United States then, and he isn't now.

If Carney had been serious about preserving Canada's economic relationship with the United States, he would not have spent years arguing for a world economy less dependent on American economic power.

As early as 2009, while serving as governor of the Bank of Canada, Carney declared that “globalized product, capital, and labour markets lie at the heart of the New World Order to which we should aspire.”

A decade later, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney was explicitly discussing the growing international importance of China's currency, the renminbi, or yuan. In his 2019 Jackson Hole speech, he noted that “the greater use of the renminbi in international trade is also leading to its growing use in international finance” and discussed the possibility of it becoming “a truly global currency.”

Carney argued that the dollar-dominated international monetary system was becoming unsustainable and proposed a new “synthetic hegemonic currency” that would reduce the world's dependence on the U.S. dollar.

New order

Now, as prime minister, Carney has gone considerably farther in embracing Beijing.

During his January visit to China, where he forged a new strategic partnership with Beijing, Carney told Chinese Premier Li Qiang that the progress in their relationship “sets us up well for the new world order.”

Days later at Davos, Carney spoke of a “rupture in the world order” and argued that middle powers such as Canada should seize the opportunity to build a new order. He pointedly noted that Canada had concluded strategic partnerships with China and Qatar in the past few days.

Carney increasingly looks like a prime minister in China's pocket. Rather than retreat from Beijing in response to American concerns, he has been accelerating Canada's economic embrace of it.

But what, exactly, was the “bad deal” that Carney rejected?

In an interview with the New York Times, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer revealed previously undisclosed details of the American offer.

“The United States had offered to reduce its tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos, and eliminate a recently imposed tariff on Canadian lumber,” the Times reported, adding that Greer said the measures “would have given Canada the most preferential treatment of any trading partner.”

There were, of course, sticking points. One involved Chinese goods entering the United States through Canada.

According to an August 2026 White House report, “The Great Transshipment Scam,” Canada is among the countries the Trump administration identifies as “Tier 1” conduits for illegal transshipment — the practice of routing goods through third countries to evade American tariffs:

In plain terms, illegal transshipment is smuggling disguised as trade — fraud cloaked in paperwork — and, in truth, nothing new. For centuries, traders have routed goods through third countries to exploit tariff gaps, dodge imperial duties, skirt embargoes, and take advantage of preferential access offered by certain ports.

Washington wants its trading partners to crack down on Chinese transshipment. Mexico did — and got a trade deal.

Milking it

Then there's Carney's fealty to Canada's powerful dairy cartel.

Carney has pledged that he is “loyal” to Canada's supply-management policies, especially as they apply to dairy products. The system protects Canadian dairy, poultry, and egg producers from foreign competition and keeps prices artificially high.

Trump has repeatedly eviscerated this economic policy and demanded greater access for American farmers.

The dairy cartel is exceedingly powerful in Canada and played an important role in the 2017 Conservative Party leadership race, when Maxime Bernier, a former foreign affairs minister who campaigned against supply management, was narrowly defeated by Andrew Scheer, who supported it.

Bernier recently told me that Carney's refusal to put supply management on the negotiating table amounted to sabotaging the discussion with Washington.

He specifically blamed Canada's protected dairy, poultry, and egg producers for standing in the way of a better agreement.

“We must put on the table the cartel in supply management, the cartel in dairy, poultry, and eggs,” Bernier said.

“If you put that on the table, we will be able, I believe so, to have a deal with President Trump.”

And Bernier was blunt about where he believes Canada's political leaders stand: “Carney and Poilievre are on the side of the cartel. They are not on the side of Canadian consumers.”

Politics as usual?

Bernier knows something about the political power of supply management. Recalling his own Conservative leadership defeat, he said dairy interests “decided to buy membership cards for the Conservative Party of Canada ... to be able to beat me at the leadership contest.”

“They know what happened to me when I did fight against the cartel,” Bernier said.

So was this really a bad deal for Canada, or just the usual machinations of a prime minister who deeply comprehends the political advantages of being “at war” with the U.S.?

Carney has effectively placed his political future in the hands of the dairy cartel and his wager on China, even though Canada's economic and military future remains inextricably tied to the United States, its largest trading partner and defense ally.

Some might call this insanity. But it's really just politics as usual for Mark Carney.

Trump SLAMS Canada with MASSIVE tariffs over rejected trade deal — and Canada responds defiantly



President Donald Trump has threatened to punish Canada with 50% tariffs on automotive and steel imports after the country's leaders rejected his trade deal offer.

In a post on Truth Social on Monday, he cited Canada's tariffs on farms and said the situation was no longer sustainable. The new tariffs will go into effect on New Year's Day, 2027, the president said.

'We’re all in ... everyone’s in for an economic war.'

"On January First, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50%. Build in the U.S. and there are ZERO TARIFFS," wrote the president.

"Canada will be treated like a State no longer!" he added. "On Trade, and in other ways, also, they are among the worst Nations in the World to deal with. They feel entitled, and yet, WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US!"

Ontario Premier Doug Ford responded defiantly to the tariffs.

"He underestimates Canada. We’re all in,” Ford said. “Up here, we’re at a fever pitch, everyone’s in for an economic war. They know they’re going to have to sacrifice."

On Friday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney walked away from talks with the Trump administration on trade, and the U.S. responded on Saturday by immediately imposing 50% tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian products.

Carney said Canada would retaliate with reciprocal tariffs beginning Sept. 8.

Ford went on to threaten to cut off energy and materials from Ontario to the U.S.

"I’ll cut them off," Ford said in reference to critical minerals. "You won’t get a grain of sand out of Ontario."

He noted that Canada provides electricity for about 1.5 million homes and businesses.

"He can kiss my ass as far as I'm concerned," Ford added.

"We need to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him. He's arrogant, he's cocky."

RELATED: Trump says Canada is considering his offer to become the 51st state of the US

Canada is one of the largest trading partners of the U.S., but the U.S. depends far less on Canadian imports than our neighbor to the north depends on U.S. imports.

About 59% of Canada's imports come from the U.S., while only 12.6% of U.S. imports come from Canada.

The Trump administration also launched a new campaign Monday to cripple Iran through economic sanctions in order to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz completely.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If Trump Wants To Reduce Beef Prices, He Should Help Struggling Farmers Grow Their Herds

Instead of looking for short-term Band-Aids to mask the beef price problem heading into the mid-terms, the Trump admin should instead focus on ways to incentivize heifer retention in order to increase long-term cattle supply.
Socialism Likely to Win in the Short Term, But There’s a Catch | Christopher Rufo
play icon

Socialism Likely to Win in the Short Term, But There’s a Catch | Christopher Rufo

American Manufacturers Are Reshoring, And The Big Beautiful Bill Helped

'President Trump gave manufacturers the foundation, competitiveness and certainty to invest.'

Trump hits foreign drug manufacturers in HUGE announcement



The cost of generic drugs will likely change drastically after the latest tariff announcement from President Donald Trump.

The president said in a post on Truth Social that he would allow generic drug imports to have zero tariffs for two years, then face two large hikes afterward.

'The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States.'

Trump said the tariffs were designed to encourage drug companies to move their manufacturing operations back to the U.S.

"Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter," he wrote.

"The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States," Trump added.

Generic drugs account for 90% of the prescriptions in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration, and half of generic drugs are manufactured in India. China, on the other hand, is the source for 95% of imported ibuprofen and 70% of imported acetaminophen.

White House spokesman Kush Desai cited other efforts from the administration to reshore manufacturing in comments to CBS News.

"The President's resounding success securing firm reshoring plans from global drugmakers as part of our most-favored-nations deals and Section 232 tariff program for branded drugs is proof that this administration has a track record of success to get critical manufacturing back into the United States," Desai said in an email.

RELATED: The hidden danger in Trump’s drug-price plan

Experts indicated to CBS News that manufacturers were likely to pass on the tariff costs to consumers but that the already low prices meant the cost increases could be modest.

However, some manufacturers may choose to pull out of the U.S. market altogether and cause drug shortages.

"Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump concluded.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why The Trump Admin Shelved His Signature Trade Deal

Needed some 'rebalancing'

Trump Admin Puts Signature Trade Pact On Ice

'The United States did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form.'

Stellantis’ China gamble could reshape America’s auto industry forever



Chinese cars are a security risk.

That's the message Washington has been sending the American consumer: Cheaper vehicles aren't worth exposing sensitive data to theft. Hence the massive tariffs aimed at China.

The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.

But while America was focused on keeping brands like BYD and NIO out of local dealerships, the global auto industry quietly found another way in.

And Stellantis just made that strategy official.

Ties that bind

The parent company of Jeep, Ram, Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat has embraced deeper partnerships with Chinese automakers and suppliers as part of its global restructuring effort. New CEO Antonio Filosa is betting the company's future on partnerships, software integration, shared manufacturing, AI systems, and Chinese EV technology.

That should concern every American consumer, every UAW worker, every supplier, and every policymaker. The issue is no longer simply about cars built in China. It's about China becoming embedded inside the future of the American auto industry itself.

Stellantis recently announced a roughly $1.17 billion partnership with China's Dongfeng Group to build new-energy vehicles at a Wuhan manufacturing plant beginning in 2027. The agreement includes future Peugeot and Jeep models for China and other global markets.

But that's only part of the story.

FaST and furious

At its recent Investor Day presentation, Stellantis unveiled its "FaSTLAne 2030" strategy, a $70 billion restructuring plan featuring 60 new models, expanded AI integration, autonomous-driving development, and manufacturing partnerships stretching across China, Europe, India, and North America.

The message from Filosa was unmistakable: Partnerships will be "embedded" in Stellantis' future strategy.

That should have set off alarms in Washington.

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno (R) has been leading the effort to block Chinese vehicles and components from gaining a foothold in the United States because of concerns over technology and supply-chain dependence. Yet while lawmakers debate tariffs, one of America's best-known automakers is openly moving deeper into partnerships with China.

For years, Americans were told tariffs would stop China from gaining influence over the U.S. auto market. But tariffs mainly target finished vehicles imported directly from China. They do little to prevent American or European automakers from incorporating Chinese-developed batteries, software, electronics, and EV platforms into vehicles sold under Western brands.

Beneath the badge

Consumers may soon be driving vehicles wearing Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, or Ram badges while much of the underlying technology comes from Chinese partnerships: batteries, semiconductors, AI systems, autonomous-driving technology, and connected-car software.

To control these is to control the modern automotive supply chain. China already dominates large portions of that ecosystem, and many legacy automakers increasingly appear to believe they cannot compete globally in EVs without Chinese involvement.

For the UAW and the industrial Midwest, the implications are enormous.

For decades, organized labor fought outsourcing to lower-cost countries. But the shift toward electric vehicles creates a different challenge. EVs generally require fewer moving parts than traditional internal-combustion vehicles, reducing demand for engines, transmissions, and many of the suppliers that support them. If battery production, electronics, and software also migrate overseas, the economic consequences could ripple through the entire manufacturing base.

America's automotive economy extends far beyond assembly plants. It includes steel suppliers, logistics companies, plastics manufacturers, tool-and-die shops, engineering firms, rail networks, repair facilities, dealerships, and thousands of small businesses. When supply chains move, entire local economies move with them.

RELATED: America's salvage yards are on fire — and drivers are the ones getting burned

Andy Cross/Getty Images

If you can't beat 'em ...

Stellantis' own strategy reflects that trend.

By the end of the decade, the company wants half its global production running on just three platforms. Its new STLA One architecture will support more than 30 models while integrating advanced software, steer-by-wire systems, AI capabilities, and connected cockpit technologies.

At the same time, Stellantis plans to cut more than 800,000 units of manufacturing capacity in Europe while aggressively restructuring operations around efficiency and lower costs.

Even more revealing is its expanding relationship with Leapmotor, the Chinese EV company in which Stellantis already owns a controlling stake through a joint venture. What began as a distribution agreement has expanded into manufacturing cooperation and joint sourcing designed to improve "cost competitiveness."

Rolling computers

The auto industry has seen this pattern before.

Detroit once dominated global manufacturing before outsourcing and offshoring reshaped the landscape. Today's version isn't just about where vehicles are assembled. Modern cars are rolling computers connected to cellular networks, cloud services, cameras, microphones, GPS systems, and over-the-air software updates.

That is why national security concerns now collide directly with automotive policy.

The Biden administration imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EV imports and proposed restrictions on connected vehicle technology because of concerns over data collection and infrastructure security. Those concerns are legitimate. Modern vehicles collect extraordinary amounts of information, including location data, driving behavior, communications, and other personal information.

Now, imagine foreign-developed software integrated into millions of connected vehicles operating across the United States.

That concern helps explain why Moreno's proposal to block Chinese vehicles and components represents a major escalation in the debate over America's automotive future.

His message is straightforward: Chinese companies should not gain a strategic foothold inside the U.S. auto industry.

China syndrome

President Trump spent years warning about unfair Chinese trade practices and the hollowing out of American manufacturing. His tariffs forced companies to rethink supply chains and brought China's influence into the political spotlight.

Yet despite those efforts, many automakers continued moving deeper into China's EV ecosystem because executives saw lower costs, faster development, and access to advanced battery technology.

Stellantis is hardly alone. Ford has partnered with CATL. Volkswagen expanded its ties with Xpeng. General Motors continues to rely on Chinese-linked battery supply chains, and Tesla maintains an enormous manufacturing footprint in China.

The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.

If America loses control of automotive batteries, semiconductors, software platforms, AI systems, and electronics manufacturing, the consequences could extend far beyond the auto business. This remains one of the country's largest manufacturing sectors and one of its biggest sources of middle-class industrial employment.

Consumers were promised that the EV transition would spark a manufacturing renaissance. Instead, America risks becoming increasingly dependent on foreign-controlled supply chains for many of the most important technologies inside next-generation vehicles.

The next generation of cars may still wear familiar American badges while relying heavily on Chinese-developed batteries, software, and technology underneath the sheet metal.

That's the issue Washington is finally beginning to confront.

The real battle is no longer about where vehicles are assembled. It's about who controls the technology inside them, who owns the supply chains behind them, and whether America still intends to build the next generation of vehicles itself.