Daily Caller
Pollsters Say RFK Jr. Endorsement ‘Could Have A Really Big Impact’ And ‘Help Trump’

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Cohen
Republican pollster Lee Carter and Democratic pollster Carly Cooperman on Friday said that independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s endorsement of former President Donald Trump could significantly boost his campaign.
Kennedy announced during a Friday speech that he would suspend his campaign and endorse Trump in states where he is not on the ballot, only withdrawing his name from consideration in key battleground states as not to spoil the vote. Carter and Cooperman, on “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” said that in such a close election, the votes that Trump could gain from Kennedy’s decision might boost his chances of defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.
WATCH:
“When you’re looking at these battleground states, we’re looking at averages where Donald Trump might be ahead by 0.2%, and just getting some of those votes could have a really big impact. And I think RFK Jr. knows this,” Carter said. “He was very, very keen to say, ‘I am withdrawing my name from these 10 states because I know it can have an impact.’ And so I think there is a very, very clear directive here.”
“It’s absolutely the case that the polls in these swing states show that with RFK removed, there is a small advantage that goes to Donald Trump. And in these states, every single vote really does matter. This makes a lot of sense,” Cooperman said. “Democrats are far more enthusiastic about Kamala Harris as their presidential candidate than they were about Joe Biden. And so you’re seeing much more coalescing among Democrats for Kamala, and therefore the support that RFK was getting in the most recent polls was certainly going to help Trump more so with him removed from it.”
Cooperman also noted “there is uncertainty” about what Kennedy’s supporters will do in November.
“It’s going to really depend, what are these voters going to do? Are they going to stay home or are they going to throw their support behind Donald Trump? I’m very curious now to see how RFK Jr. is integrated into Donald Trump’s campaign and what kind of role they’re going to talk about for him and how they might use this,” Carter added.
“I think Donald Trump’s got to return himself to sort of the underdog status that would help to get those RFK Jr. supporters on his side,” the Republican pollster said.
Kennedy’s support plunged to as low as 2% as of early August, according to an Economist/YouGov poll. Trump is presently beating Harris in the main battleground states by 0.1%, according to the RealClearPoltics average.
A “Morning Joe” panel sounded the alarm on Friday about how difficult it will be for Harris to beat Trump, with the race being so tight and the former president historically outperforming polls on election day.
“You got to look at states like North Carolina and Arizona and, of course, Georgia. Now, you may get a break with minority voting down in Georgia, but you could also come up short in Pennsylvania and not quite win in North Carolina,” former MSNBC host Chris Matthews said. “This could squeak. This could be the toughest election, because if Pennsylvania doesn’t go the Democratic way and North Carolina doesn’t go that way, it’s tough, it’s really tough.”
Business
‘Taxation Without Representation’: Trump Admin Battles UN Over Global Carbon Tax

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The Trump administration is fighting to block a global carbon tax that a United Nations (UN) agency is attempting to pass quietly this week.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body based in London, is meeting this week to adopt a so-called “Net-Zero Framework,” which would levy significant penalties on carbon dioxide emissions from ships that exceed certain limits. The Trump administration argues the proposal could raise global shipping costs by as much as 10%, ultimately driving up prices for American consumers.
“President Trump has made it clear that the United States will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said in a joint statement Friday.
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!
“The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists,” the cabinet secretaries wrote.
This week, the UN is attempting to pass the first global carbon tax , which will increase energy, food, and fuel costs across the world. We will not allow the UN to tax American citizens and companies.
Under the leadership of @POTUS, the U.S. will be a hard NO. We call on…
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) October 15, 2025
The proposed tax is part of the IMO’s broader goal to bring global shipping to net-zero emissions “by or around” 2050. Qualifying ships that fall short of emissions targets would face taxes ranging from $100 to $380 per ton of CO2.
Notably, the tax would be paid directly by shipowners rather than governments.
The Net-Zero Framework could generate between $11 billion and $12 billion annually from 2028 through 2030, paid into a UN-controlled fund, according to University College London. Meanwhile, other estimates warn that if the global fleet misses the IMO’s targets by even 10%, the annual cost of emissions could climb to $20 to $30 billion by 2030 and potentially exceed $300 billion by 2035.
Some critics equated the proposal to “taxation without representation,” noting that an unelected committee would have the authority to set and potentially raise the tax.
The Trump administration is urging member states to reject the proposal and has threatened retaliatory measures against countries that support it. These include investigations into anti-competitive practices, visa restrictions for maritime crews, commercial and financial penalties, higher port fees for ships tied to those nations, and possible sanctions on officials promoting climate policies.
“The Trump administration is right to draw a hard line against the UN’s latest scheme to export its climate agenda through global taxes and trade barriers,” Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Isaac said the proposed carbon tax, along with other measures — including the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which requires companies to disclose environmental and social impacts — “represent an alarming attempt to impose costly, extraterritorial regulations on American businesses and consumers.”
“These measures threaten U.S. sovereignty, inflate energy and transport costs, and weaponize climate policy as a tool of economic coercion,” Isaac said. “The United States must not tolerate foreign governments using environmental pretexts to dictate how we trade, build, and move goods. President Trump’s firm stance puts American workers and energy security first, where they belong.”
Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, also commended the administration’s efforts to block the UN measure.
“Not only does [Trump] oppose the UN carbon tax, but he has instructed his administration to take action against nations that try to implement it against the U.S.,” Milloy told the DCNF. “I am simply in awe of his commitment to ending the international climate hoax, which has long been aimed at stealing from and otherwise crippling our country’s economy and national security.”
Business
Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Later this week the United Nations will hold a vote on a multi-billion climate-change tax targeted squarely at American industry. Without quick and decisive action by the White House, this U.N. tax on fossil fuels will become international law.
This resolution before the International Maritime Organization will impose a carbon tax on cargo and cruise ships that carry $20 trillion of merchandise over international waters. Roughly 80% of the bulkage of world trade is transported by ship.
The resolution is intended to advance the very “net zero” carbon emissions standard that has knee-capped the European economies for years and that American voters have rejected.
This tax is clearly an unnecessary restraint on world trade, thus making all citizens of the world poorer.
It is also an international tax that would be applied to American vessels and, as such, is a dangerous precedent-setting assault on U.S. sovereignty. Since when are American businesses subject to international taxes imposed by the United Nations?
The U.S maritime industry believes the global tax would cost American shippers more than $100 billion over the next seven years if enacted.
Worst of all, if the resolution passes, it will require the retirement of older ships and enable a multi-billion-dollar wealth transfer to China, which has come to dominate shipbuilding in recent years. China STRONGLY supports the tax scheme, even though, ironically, no nation has emitted more pollutants into the atmosphere than they have. Yet WE are getting socked with a tax that indirectly pays for THEIR pollution.
Despite the fact that we pay a disproportionate share of the tax, the U.S. has almost no say on how the revenues are spent. This is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.
Even if the United States chooses not to implement the tax on domestic shipping, it will still be enforced by foreign ports of origin or destination as well as by flag states. As a result, American importers and exporters will be required to pay the tax regardless of domestic policy decisions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy have jointly stated that America “will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or our businesses.” They call the financial impact on the U.S. of this global carbon tax “disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”
The U.S. maritime industry complains that although American vessels carry only about 12% of the globally shipped merchandise, U.S. flag vessels would bear almost 20% of this tax. No wonder China and Europe are for it. The EU nations get 17 yes votes to swamp the one no vote out of Washington.
Unfortunately, right now without White House pressure, we could lose this vote because of defections by our allies.
To prevent this tax, the White House should announce a set of retaliation measures. This could include a dollar-for-dollar reduction in U.S. payments to NATO, the U.N., IMF and World Bank.
At a time when financial markets are dealing with trade disputes, the last thing the world — least of all the United States — needs is a United Nations excise tax on trade.
Stephen Moore is co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet
-
Business2 days ago
Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships
-
Alberta2 days ago
Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline
-
National1 day ago
Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case
-
Business1 day ago
Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy
-
Alberta9 hours ago
Alberta taxpayers should know how much their municipal governments spend
-
Alberta9 hours ago
Premier Smith addresses the most important issue facing Alberta teachers: Classroom Complexity
-
Alberta1 day ago
Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design