Carney pivots from anti American campaign, embracing US and hailing Trump as “transformational president”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney met with President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday and praised the American leader as a “transformational president” with a relentless focus on workers, border security, and combatting fentanyl.

Key Details:

In front of reporters in the Oval Office, Carney said Trump was “focused on the economy, with a relentless focus on the American worker, securing your borders… ending the scourge of fentanyl and other opioids, and securing the world.”
The newly elected Canadian leader said he intends to implement a similar agenda in Canada, including heightened attention to border security, defense, and Arctic development.
Despite past trade friction between the two countries, Carney voiced confidence in the future of U.S.-Canada relations, stating, “We’re stronger when we work together… I look forward to addressing some of those issues that we have.”

Diving Deeper:

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered striking praise for President Donald Trump during a Tuesday visit to the White House, calling him a “transformational president” who has reshaped the global conversation on the economy, national security, and public health. Speaking alongside Trump in the Oval Office, Carney lauded the president’s focus on protecting American workers, confronting the fentanyl crisis, and reinforcing the nation’s borders.

“You’re a transformational president, focused on the economy, with a relentless focus on the American worker, securing your borders… ending the scourge of fentanyl and other opioids, and securing the world,” Carney told Trump.

According to Carney, many of the issues central to Trump’s presidency were also top concerns for Canadian voters. “I’ve been elected… with the help of my colleagues here, I’m going to spread the credit, to transform Canada with a similar focus on the economy, securing our borders, again, on fentanyl, much greater focus on defense and security, securing the Arctic and developing the Arctic,” he said.

Though the two leaders were cordial, the backdrop of their meeting carried a history of trade disputes. Early in Trump’s second term, his administration imposed tariffs on Canadian goods—a move that prompted retaliatory measures from then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Still, Carney emphasized cooperation and struck a hopeful tone, noting that the U.S.-Canada relationship has endured challenges before.

“The history of Canada and the U.S. is we’re stronger when we work together, and there’s many opportunities to work together,” Carney said. “I look forward to addressing some of those issues that we have, but also finding those areas of mutual cooperation so we can go forward.”

President Trump, for his part, congratulated Carney on his election and offered warm words of welcome. “I want to just congratulate you. That was a great election, actually,” Trump said. “We were watching it with interest, and I think Canada chose a very talented person, a very good person… it’s an honor to have you at the White House and the Oval Office.”

The meeting marked Carney’s first official trip to Washington since taking office and served as an early sign that the two North American leaders may chart a path of renewed collaboration—grounded in shared priorities of national strength and economic growth.

Related Topics:CanadaUSRelations CarneyCallsTrumpTransformationalPresident CarneyPivotsToUS CarneyTrump feature MXMNews

Up Next

Carney’s energy superpower rhetoric falls flat without policy certainty

Don't Miss

Reality check—Canadians are not getting an income tax cut

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump’s Strike on Iran Reshapes Global Power Balance, Deals First Blow to Beijing and CRINK Axis

National / 15 mins ago

Preston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?

armed forces / 30 mins ago

How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?

armed forces

How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?

Published on June 22, 2025

Todayville

David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

To my great surprise I recently noticed that, despite being deeply engaged in wars against at least four determined enemies, Israel doesn’t spend all that much more on their military than Canada does on its forces. What might that tell us about government efficiency?

There’s fairly universal agreement that Canada doesn’t spend enough on its military. But before we can even ask how much we should be spending, we should understand how much we’re already spending. And figuring that out isn’t nearly as easy as I’d expected.

Subscribe to The Audit

According to the 2025–26 Expenditures by Purpose data released by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence (DND) was allocated $35.7 billion (CAN). However, the New York Times recently reported that Primer Minister Carney’s $9.3 billion increase would bring the total defence-related spending to $62.7 billion – which suggests that, prior to the increase, we were set to spend $53.4 billion (CAN).

So I’ll work with both of those figures: $35.7 billion ($26 billion USD) and the pre-announcement $53.4 billion ($39 billion USD). By contrast, Israel currently spends around $37 billion (USD) on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) which is in the neighborhood of 18 percent of their total budget.¹ The IDF is (literally) getting a much bigger bang for their buck.²

I’m going to compare the military inventories of both countries to get a sense of what a dollar of government spending can get you. I understand that this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison and there are many complicating factors here. But I think the exercise could lead us to some useful insights. First off, here’s a very rough estimate of existing inventories:

I’m sure there are plenty of caveats we could apply to those numbers, including how much of that equipment is actually fit for service on any given day. But they’ll have to do.

In addition, there are currently 68,000 regular troops in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) along with 22,500 reserves, while the IDF employs 169,500 regular troops and 465,000 reserves. They also cost money.

Based on some very rough estimates,³ I’d assess the value of IDF assets at around 2.6 times the value of comparable CAF assets. That means that the IDF – using their procurement systems – would need to spend just $14.4 billion (USD) to purchase the equivalent of the current set of CAF assets.

Now compare that with our actual (pre-increase) expenditures of either $26 billion USD or $39 billion USD and it seems that we’re overspending by either 80 percent or 270 percent.

I think we’d be wise to wonder why that is.

Subscribe to The Audit

For full context, Israel receives around $3.8 billion (USD) in military aid annually from the U.S.

Speaking of which, for simplicity, I completely left the ongoing costs of ordinance out of my calculations.

If you’re really interested, you can see my calculations here.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Business

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on June 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.