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

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Mariane Angela
‘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.
Crime
‘We’re Going To Lose’: Steve Bannon Warns Withholding Epstein Files Would Doom GOP

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Cohen
Former White House adviser Steve Bannon warned on Friday that Republicans would suffer major losses if President Donald Trump’s administration does not move to release documents related to deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and associations.
Axios reported on Sunday that a two-page memo showed the Department Of Justice (DOJ) and FBI found no evidence Epstein kept a “client list” or was murdered, but public doubts have continued. Bannon said on “Bannon’s War Room” that failure to release information would lead to the dissipation of one-tenth of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and significant losses for the Republican Party in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.
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!
“It’s not about just a pedophile ring and all that, it’s about who governs us, right? And that’s why it’s not going to go away … For this to go away, you’re going to lose 10% of the MAGA movement,” Bannon said. “If we lose 10% of the MAGA movement right now, we’re going to lose 40 seats in ’26, we’re going to lose the [presidency]. They don’t even have to steal it, which they’re going to try to do in ’28, because they’re going to sit there and they go, ‘They’ve disheartened the hardest-core populist nationalists’ — that’s always been who governs us.”
Bannon also demanded the publication of all the Epstein documents on “Bannon’s War Room” Thursday. He called on the DOJ to go to court and push for the release of the documents or for Trump to appoint a special counsel to manage the publication.
Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with sex trafficking. Shortly after, he was found dead in his New York Metropolitan Correctional Center cell shortly after. Officials asserted that he hanged himself in his cell.
However, Epstein’s death has sparked years of theories because of the malfunctioning of prison cameras, along with guards admitting to falsifying documents about checking on the then-inmate. The DOJ inspector general later confirmed that multiple surveillance cameras outside of his cell were inoperable, while others captured the common area outside his door.
Both Bannon and Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson have speculated that Epstein had connections to intelligence agencies.
Former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta allegedly indicated that Epstein was tied to intelligence, according to Vicky Ward in The Daily Beast.
Business
UN’s ‘Plastics Treaty’ Sports A Junk Science Wrapper

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Craig Rucker
According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.
Just as people were beginning to breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Trump administration’s rollback of onerous climate policies, the United Nations is set to finalize a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty by the end of the year that will impose new regulations, and, ultimately higher costs, on one of the world’s most widely used products.
Plastics – derived from petroleum – are found in everything from water bottles, tea bags, and food packaging to syringes, IV tubes, prosthetics, and underground water pipes. In justifying the goal of its treaty to regulate “the entire life cycle of plastic – from upstream production to downstream waste,” the U.N. has put a bull’s eye on plastic waste. “An estimated 18 to 20 percent of global plastic waste ends up in the ocean,” the UN says.
As delegates from over 170 countries prepare for the final round of negotiations in Geneva next month, debate is intensifying over the future of plastic production, regulation, and innovation. With proposals ranging from sweeping bans on single-use plastics to caps on virgin plastic output, policymakers are increasingly citing the 2020 Pew Charitable Trusts report, Breaking the Plastic Wave, as one of the primary justifications.
But many of the dire warnings made in this report, if scrutinized, ring as hollow as an empty PET soda bottle. Indeed, a closer look reveals Pew’s report is less a roadmap to progress than a glossy piece of junk science propaganda—built on false assumptions and misguided solutions.
Pew’s core claim is dire: without urgent global action, plastic entering the oceans will triple by 2040. But this alarmist forecast glosses over a fundamental fact—plastic pollution is not a global problem in equal measure. According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.
This blind spot has serious consequences. Pew’s solutions—cutting plastic production, phasing out single-use items, and implementing rigid global regulations—miss the mark entirely. Banning straws in the U.S. or taxing packaging in Europe won’t stop waste from being dumped into rivers in countries with little or no waste infrastructure. Policies targeting Western consumption don’t solve the problem—they simply shift it or, worse, stifle useful innovation.
The real tragedy isn’t plastic itself, but the mismanagement of plastic waste—and the regulatory stranglehold that blocks better solutions. In many countries, recycling is a government-run monopoly with little incentive to innovate. Meanwhile, private-sector entrepreneurs working on advanced recycling, biodegradable materials, and AI-powered sorting systems face burdensome red tape and market distortion.
Pew pays lip service to innovation but ultimately favors centralized planning and control. That’s a mistake. Time and again, it’s been technology—not top-down mandates—that has delivered environmental breakthroughs.
What the world needs is not another top-down, bureaucratic report like Pew’s, but an open dialogue among experts, entrepreneurs, and the public where new ideas can flourish. Imagine small-scale pyrolysis units that convert waste into fuel in remote villages, or decentralized recycling centers that empower informal waste collectors. These ideas are already in development—but they’re being sidelined by policymakers fixated on bans and quotas.
Worse still, efforts to demonize plastic often ignore its benefits. Plastic is lightweight, durable, and often more environmentally efficient than alternatives like glass or aluminum. The problem isn’t the material—it’s how it has been managed after its use. That’s a “systems” failure, not a material flaw.
Breaking the Plastic Wave champions a top-down, bureaucratic vision that limits choice, discourages private innovation, and rewards entrenched interests under the guise of environmentalism. Many of the groups calling for bans are also lobbying for subsidies and regulatory frameworks that benefit their own agendas—while pushing out disruptive newcomers.
With the UN expected to finalize the treaty by early 2026, nations will have to face the question of ratification. Even if the Trump White House refuses to sign the treaty – which is likely – ordinary Americans could still feel the sting of this ill-advised scheme. Manufacturers of life-saving plastic medical devices, for example, are part of a network of global suppliers. Companies located in countries that ratify the treaty will have no choice but to pass the higher costs along, and Americans will not be spared.
Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas—not the offices of policy NGOs—will deliver the solutions we need. It’s time to break the wave of junk science—not ride it.
Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).
-
COVID-193 hours ago
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
-
Business1 hour ago
Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems
-
Indigenous2 hours ago
Internal emails show Canadian gov’t doubted ‘mass graves’ narrative but went along with it
-
Bruce Dowbiggin4 hours ago
Eau Canada! Join Us In An Inclusive New National Anthem
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
9 Things You Should Know About PK/PD in Drug Research
-
Business2 days ago
Cannabis Legalization Is Starting to Look Like a Really Dumb Idea
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
The Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Media2 days ago
CBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship