Kevin O’Leary Says Trump’s Tariffs A Gateway To US-Canada Economic Unity

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

‘It’s The Beginning Of A Giant Negotiation’

“Shark Tank” co-star Kevin O’Leary said Monday on Fox Business that President Donald Trump’s looming tariff on steel and aluminum imports have broader implications for US-Canada relations.

During an appearance on “The Evening Edit,” O’Leary discussed the impact of tariffs as the start of significant negotiations. He said there is potential for broader economic integration between the U.S. and Canada. Trump plans to impose tariffs of 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada, along with an additional 10% tariff on Canadian oil, natural gas, and electricity. Despite these significant figures, Trump has imposed only a 10% tariff on oil, the cheapest U.S. imports. O’Leary said this is merely the opening move in what could be a transformative economic negotiation.

“So all of this to me, if you separate the signal from the noise, forget the noise. The signal is, let’s get an economic union together,” O’Leary said. O’Leary said there is a global uproar over the U.S.’s proposed 25% tariffs and the reciprocal tariffs from countries like India, which have set their tariffs on some U.S. products at up to 23%.

“Those are two different baskets. Obviously, the one that people are talking about quite a bit tonight is India. They’ve got certain product services in different sectors, up to 23%. Now we’re going to have reciprocal tariffs in the U.S. against them. [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi will immediately fly to Washington. The negotiations will begin,” O’Leary said.

O’Leary, however, said Canada’s situation differs from others.

“It’s the same everywhere. The Canadian situation is unique. Almost the entire 200 million deficit that the president’s talking about comes from one single source. That’s energy coming out of Irving Refineries on the east coast down to Boston, and all of that oil, 4.3 million barrels a day coming in at Alberta into the west,” O’Leary said. “And so that’s the most inexpensive oil [that] the U.S. imports. That’s why he only put a 10% tariff on it. But it’s the beginning of a giant negotiation. Aluminum, 70% of aluminum comes in the U.S. It’s made in Canada for one singular reason.”

While some skeptics doubt Canada’s willingness to merge economies, a growing number of Canadians, O’Leary said, are open to exploring such a possibility.

“What is on the table that now 43% of Canadians want to explore more of? Forget all these tariffs. Let’s join the two economies, become a behemoth, common currency perhaps, and then take on China,” O’Leary added. “I mean, that’s really what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the security of the north, not the 49th parallel.”

When asked about what the U.S. could gain from such tariffs beyond economic leverage, O’Leary said it’s about the broader geopolitical benefits:

“Let me assure you that 11 out of 10 Canadians would rather trade their Trudeau pesos for American dollars. They already have American dollar accounts. Trudeau has wiped out 41% of their net worth the last nine years. They want an economic union because it’s good for business. Everybody understands that. The two countries are so intertwined, and they both believe in democracy and free speech and freedom and all the rest,” O’Leary said.

O’Leary was asked what can Trump get for the American consumer and the American voter in return for these tariffs.

“Security on energy,” O’Leary said.

“Alberta has five times more oil and gas than the entire United States. Complete security on uranium, aluminum, all of the incredible resources Canada has with only 41 million people there and access to it in a free flow. No tariffs.”

Trump aggressively employed tariffs to coerce Canada and Mexico into making concessions aimed at resolving the crisis at the southern border. In response, Canada has committed to bolstering security along its northern border, while Mexico has agreed to station 10,000 National Guard troops at the border.

During former President Joe Biden’s tenure, approximately 8.5 million migrants were encountered at the U.S.-Mexico border, and this period also saw an increase in fentanyl seizures, primarily driven by Chinese chemical companies. Meanwhile, even though less frequent, illegal crossings at the northern border also surged during the Biden administration.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller feature KevinO'Leary MarianeAngela TariffsToEconomicUnity TrumpTariffs US-CanadaEconomicUnity

Up Next

Musk Quietly Inserts DOGE Across Federal Agencies In Move That Could Uproot $162,000,000,000 Govt Industry

Don't Miss

Canadians owe Smith a debt of gratitude

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

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Crime / 7 hours ago

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

COVID-19 / 7 hours ago

Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Daily Caller

Trump Orders Review Of Why U.S. Childhood Vaccination Schedule Has More Shots Than Peer Countries

Published on December 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump will direct his top health officials to conduct a systematic review of the childhood vaccinations schedule by reviewing those of other high-income countries and update domestic recommendations if the schedules abroad appear superior, according to a memorandum obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“In January 2025, the United States recommended vaccinating all children for 18 diseases, including COVID-19, making our country a high outlier in the number of vaccinations recommended for all children,” the memo will state. “Study is warranted to ensure that Americans are receiving the best, scientifically-supported medical advice in the world.”

Trump directs the secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to adopt best practices from other countries if deemed more medically sound. The memo cites the contrast between the U.S., which recommends vaccination for 18 diseases, and Denmark, which recommends vaccinations for 10 diseases; Japan, which recommends vaccinations for 14 diseases; and Germany, which recommends vaccinations for 15 diseases.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule.

The Trump Administration ended the blanket recommendation for all children to get annual COVID-19 vaccine boosters in perpetuity. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary and Chief Medical Officer Vinay Prasad announced in May that the agency would not approve new COVID booster shots for children and healthy non-elderly adults without clinical trials demonstrating the benefit. On Friday, Prasad told his staff at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research that a review by career staff traced the deaths of 10 children to the COVID vaccine, announced new changes to vaccine regulation, and asked for “introspection.”

Trump’s memo follows a two-day meeting of vaccine advisors to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in which the committee adopted changes to U.S. policy on Hepatitis B vaccination that bring the country’s policy in alignment with 24 peer nations.

Total vaccines in January 2025 before the change in COVID policy. Credit: ACIP

The meeting included a presentation by FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Director Tracy Beth Høeg showing the discordance between the childhood vaccination schedule in the U.S. and those of other developed nations.

“Why are we so different from other developed nations, and is it ethically and scientifically justified?” Høeg asked. “We owe our children science-based recommendations here in the United States.”