Connect with us

International

Trump puts new price tag on Canada joining “Golden Dome”

Published

3 minute read

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump has upped the cost for Canada to join the U.S. “Golden Dome” missile defense program to $71 billion—$10 billion more than his previous ask.

Key Details:

  • Trump confirmed the new $71 billion figure while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One.
  • Canada has pushed back, with PM Mark Carney and diplomats calling Trump’s offer a “protection racket.”
  • Trump said Canada could access the system for free if it became the 51st U.S. state.

Diving Deeper:

President Trump has put a new and steeper price on Canada’s potential entry into America’s “Golden Dome” missile defense program. Speaking from Air Force One on Monday, Trump told reporters, “They want to be in… Seventy-one billion they’re going to pay.”

That’s a $10 billion increase from the $61 billion figure Trump had previously floated, marking a sharp escalation in his negotiations with Ottawa. The Golden Dome, described by the administration as a “state-of-the-art” defense shield, aims to protect North America from a new era of missile threats—particularly those posed by China, Russia, and North Korea.

Trump has framed the Golden Dome as the long-awaited realization of Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” vision, using space-based sensors and interceptors to strike down incoming ballistic, cruise, or hypersonic missiles. Development timelines suggest full deployment is still 5–7 years off, but an initial $25 billion is already allocated in next year’s defense budget. The entire project may run upwards of $175 billion, with some estimates as high as $542 billion over 20 years.

Canada, which has long partnered with the U.S. under NORAD to detect airborne threats, has expressed interest in joining the project. But Trump is demanding a separate, costly buy-in. He reiterated that Ottawa would “have to pay a lot of money” to participate unless it pursued a full political union with the U.S. “It would be free if Canada became the 51st state,” he added.

Canadian leaders have pushed back hard. Prime Minister Mark Carney, re-elected in April after campaigning against U.S. interference, said Canada wants to protect its citizens but not under terms dictated from Washington. Ambassador to the U.N. Bob Rae went further, calling Trump’s offer a “protection racket.”

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

Business

BC Ferries Deal With China Risks Canada’s Security

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

A BC Ferries contract with China risks national security, public transparency and Canadian safety. Why are we still looking the other way?

Scott McGregor exposes how a billion-dollar BC Ferries deal with a Chinese shipyard reflects a deeper failure: Canadian institutions are shielding Beijing’s interests—at taxpayers’ expense—while ignoring glaring national security risks.

BC Ferries, the taxpayer-owned company operating ferry services along the B.C. coast, didn’t just sign a billion-dollar shipbuilding contract in China; it handed Beijing leverage over Canadian infrastructure.

Behind the bureaucratic talk of cost and efficiency lies a deeper scandal: a taxpayer-funded deal that puts national security, public transparency and Canadian citizens at risk, all to benefit a hostile regime.

When theBreaker.news, an independent investigative outlet in BC, filed freedom of information requests to uncover the contract’s details, BC Ferries refused to release a single page. The excuse? Disclosure might threaten its financial position, safety and the “interests of third parties.”

This refusal didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came the same day Chinese President Xi Jinping stood next to Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Beijing, giving a vivid display of authoritarian solidarity.

BC Ferries’ secrecy is bad optics. It flies in the face of multiple rulings by the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner, who has repeatedly upheld the public’s right to see contracts signed by public bodies. Cities and Crown corporations have been ordered to disclose their agreements with FIFA, the international soccer governing body, and with B.C. Place Stadium.

In fact, public institutions have disclosed deals far less sensitive than this one. Yet BC Ferries, propped up by a $1-billion loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), insists its Chinese shipbuilder must remain shielded from scrutiny. The result isn’t protection for taxpayers. It’s protection for Beijing’s leverage.

And that’s just the beginning. The more dangerous problem is legal. Canada has no bilateral agreements with China to guarantee fair legal treatment of its citizens. No non-prosecution provisions. No mutual legal assistance mechanisms. No safety net.

At home, corporations can sign remediation agreements to avoid prosecution if they cooperate and commit to reforms. But those agreements stop at Canada’s borders. They offer no protection for Canadians working in Weihai, the Chinese city where the vessels are built. If a dispute arises or Beijing flexes its power, those Canadians could face arbitrary detention, exit bans or national security charges. In a diplomatic crisis, they could become pawns.

This isn’t a theoretical risk. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor spent nearly three years in Chinese prisons after Canada detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. That episode exposed the Chinese Communist Party’s playbook of hostage diplomacy. It should have ruled out any deal that places Canadian citizens or Crown assets under Chinese jurisdiction.

Yet even with that memory still fresh, the arrangement continues, quietly, with little public debate.

What we’re witnessing is a textbook case of hybrid warfare. Economic deals masked as trade. State financing disguised as commercial contracts. Political leverage embedded in infrastructure projects. And Canada, still clinging to the outdated promises of globalization, is paying for its own exposure.

At the moment when Beijing is supplying components for Russia’s war machine, Ottawa is greenlighting the outsourcing of core coastal infrastructure to a state-owned Chinese shipyard.

Parliament appears to be taking notice of the situation. The House of Commons Transport Committee has initiated a review of the $1 billion federal loan associated with the BC Ferries deal. The expected witnesses for this review include the CEO of the corporation, the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland and Infrastructure Minister Gregor Robertson.

The review follows political pushback, including criticism from Freeland, who resigned from cabinet on Sept. 16, and had previously called the outsourcing decision “disappointing.”

This review is necessary because BC Ferries is a Crown-owned utility, governed by an NDP-appointed board and funded through federal support.

When a public entity conceals the terms of a massive contract and hands work to a Chinese state-controlled firm, it’s not just acting secretively. It’s normalizing a culture of opacity that weakens Canadian sovereignty and shields foreign interests from democratic accountability.

BC Ferries defends the deal by pointing to its projected economic benefits: four new major vessels, hybrid propulsion systems, 50,000 job-years and more than $4.5 billion in forecasted economic output.

But those figures come at the cost of strategic blindness.

Time and again, Canadian policymakers treat China like an ordinary business partner, even as the Chinese Communist Party uses law, finance and supply chains as tools of global influence. While other democracies are pulling back from partnerships with Chinese state firms, Canada looks the other way, tethered to outdated trade assumptions and short-term economics.

The remedy starts with sunlight. Contracts signed by public bodies must be disclosed, especially when they involve authoritarian regimes. But transparency is only the first step.

Canada must adopt a hybrid warfare lens for every major economic decision. That means asking hard questions: Does this deal strengthen or weaken our position? Does it open the door to foreign influence? Does it endanger Canadians abroad? Short-term savings can breed long-term dependency, and in China’s case, geopolitical exposure.

BC Ferries’ shipbuilding contract with China isn’t just a procurement mistake. It’s a warning.

Without legal safeguards, public oversight and strategic foresight, Canada isn’t just buying ferries; it’s handing over control.

And Canadians deserve better.

Scott McGregor is an intelligence consultant and co-author of The Mosaic Effect. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

International

Trump says he won’t back down on Antifa terrorism designation

Published on

From The Center Square

By

President Donald Trump is moving quickly against an organization that he blames for destruction, looting and protests, another indication the president is acting faster during his second term.

Trump has long wanted to take action against the decentralized, leaderless  collection of groups, networks and people who claim to be anti-fadcist. But it didn’t get done during his first term in office. 

Trump proposed taking action against Antifa amid violence in Portland in 2019. During the George Floyd protests in May 2020, Trump made a similar announcement, but nothing followed.

“Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA an ‘ORGANIZATION OF TERROR,'” Trump wrote in a social media post in August 2019. “Portland is being watched very closely.”

This week, months into a fast-paced second term, Trump formally designated the organization after The Center Square asked him about it in an Oval Office news conference and said he could take it further with an international designation.

Trump’s second-term move came after a spate of political violence in the U.S., including the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION,” Trump posted on Monday. “I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices.” 

Trump designated Mexican drug cartels and violent foreign gangs as a foreign terror organization early in his second term. He has used those designations to go after drug traffickers and Tren de Aragua, among other cartels.

A foreign terror organization designation would pressure other countries to do the same. According to the U.S. Department of State, a foreign terror organization designation for Antifa would isolate the organization internationally and “deter donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named organizations.”

Some have been critical of the designation.

A Cato scholar said Trump’s move to designate Antifa a domestic terror organization was misguided.

“George Orwell, one of the most well-known anti-fascists of the last century, is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave right now,” Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, wrote. 

Eddington said, legal or not, Trump has shown he’s ready to take action.

“What matters is that the administration asserts the authority to do this, and it has thousands of armed and armored federal law enforcement agents ready and able to carry out Trump’s orders,” he wrote.

The White House cited “coordinated efforts” to “obstruct” federal law enforcement, specifically immigration enforcement operations through “organized riots” and “violent assaults,” including doxing.

The White House said the designation will allow law enforcement to use federal resources to investigate and “dismantle” the group or anyone “claiming to act on behalf” of the group. In addition, it will allow the federal government to investigate and prosecute those responsible for funding Antifa.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, said Trump is using the designation to target left-leaning groups he doesn’t like.

“Designating Antifa – which has no defined organizational structure or leadership – as a domestic terrorism organization is not only incorrect, it serves no purpose other than an excuse for the Trump administration to stifle dissent, investigate anyone – or any group – they don’t like, punish their enemies, and potentially label any American they want as a terrorist,” he said in a statement. “Never in our history has the U.S. government named a domestic terrorist organization.”

Thompson said domestic terrorism has been on the rise, but blamed right-wing groups for that violence, not left-wing groups.

“Domestic terrorism has been on the rise for years, but government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations – along with all available data – are clear: the real threat is from right-wing violent extremism,” Thompson said. “Sadly, the Trump administration ignored this threat in its first term and has so far this year as it has diverted vast resources and personnel away from countering this very real threat towards its extreme mass deportation agenda.”

The Center Square contacted Thompson’s team for an interview and additional comment. A spokesperson referred The Center Square back to Thompson’s statement.

A June 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service noted that Antifa groups can differ widely.

“Contemporary U.S. antifa adherents likely do not share a list of enemies, as the movement lacks a unifying organizational structure or detailed ideology that might shape such a list,” the report noted. “Local groups do not necessarily listen to each other’s pronouncements and might aim their animus at enemies specific to their group. Further, ‘fascism’ is notoriously difficult to define. Thus, particular antifa groups may oppose different things based on how they identify who or what is fascist.”

That same report said not all antifa members were violent.

“Some members are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protest such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching,” according to the report. “As a core purpose, antifa groups track and react to the activities of individuals or groups they see as advocating fascist views, such as neoNazis, racist skinheads, white supremacists, and white nationalists.”

However, Antifa has not been afraid to use violence.

“Violence by U.S. antifa members is not new. For example, in 2012 Anti-Racist Action (ARA; an antiracist group now known as The Torch Network or Torch Antifa) attacked a meeting of the Illinois European Heritage Association, consisting of white supremacists from the National Socialist Movement and people from other groups. Brandishing items such as hammers, baseball bats, and police batons, the attackers entered a Chicago-area restaurant and assaulted meeting attendees,” the Congressional Research Service report noted.

Republicans have been trying to go after Antifa for years. 

U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a resolution in the Senate in July 2019 to condemn the violent acts of Antifa and to designate the group a domestic terror organization.

“Looting, destroying personal property, and violence cannot be tolerated. Antifa seized upon a movement of legitimate grievances to promote violence and anarchy, working against justice for all,” Cassidy said in May 2020. “The President is right to recognize the destructive role of Antifa by designating them domestic terrorists.”

Earlier this summer, Cruz and others introduced the Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots Act. The one-page bill would add rioting to the list of racketeering predicate offenses. Doing so would enable the Department of Justice to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which provides for extended criminal penalties for those involved in racketeering. 

“Every American has the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, but not to commit violence. Domestic NGOs and foreign adversaries fund and use riots in the United States to undermine the security and prosperity of Americans,” Cruz said.

U.S. Rep. Beth Van Duyn, R-Texas, filed companion legislation in the House.

“It is time we empower our law enforcement with a commonsense tool to treat these violent mobs, their funding sources, and their organizers as the criminal enterprises they are by passing the Stop FUNDERS Act,” she said in a statement at the time. “Since the days of the George Floyd riots, to the violence we see across American cities and college campuses today, it is obvious there are well funded, well outfitted, and highly coordinated efforts to plan and execute violent and potentially deadly missions of chaos and mayhem. This is organized crime, and we need to attack it as such.”

Van Duyn also filed a bill to prevent anyone convicted of rioting from getting a loan from the Small Business Administration.

The Center Square contacted Van Duyn for additional comment, but did not hear back before publication.

In a fact sheet released by the White House shortly after the designation, it listed several acts of violence attributed to Antifa, including a July ambush on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, resulting in one officer being shot in the neck.

Continue Reading

Trending

X