Posted originally on CTH on January 27, 2026 | Sundance
Ontario Premier Doug Ford went for a pizza with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Following the meeting Doug Ford appears on camera for a debrief to explain how he has reversed his opposition to Chinese EV imports. The presser looks like a hostage video (prompted):
“A Party intending to negotiate a free trade agreement with a non-market country shall inform the other Parties at least three months prior to commencing negotiations and, upon request, provide information regarding the objectives of those negotiations.
A Party that enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market country shall provide the other Parties with the full text of the agreement prior to signing.
If a Party enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market country, the other Parties may terminate this Agreement on six months’ notice and replace it with a bilateral agreement.” [SOURCE]
Posted originally on CTH on January 25, 2026 | Sundance
Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Kirsten Hillman, appears on CBS Face The Nation to discuss ongoing political and trade relations between Canada and the United States – Video and Transcript below.
During one segment of the interview, Ambassador Hillman is asked about the dissolution of the USMCA (CUSMA) trade agreement, and immediately Hillman falls back upon the same Justin Trudeau position of the government. The U.S. politicians will not allow President Trump to dissolve the USMCA.
“I think that we have to believe that our political leaders are going to be listening to the people in the constituencies for whom that instrument was drawn up, and they’re saying, this is vital to us, do no harm.”
Canada is counting on American political opposition to defend the economic interests of Canada. This is exactly the same position that former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau espoused in 2017 and 2018.
[Transcript] – So a lot is going on in the relationship between our two countries. We are so deeply integrated here on trade, you buy more from the U.S. than any other country. We have the world’s longest land border. We have shared defense interests through NATO, shared air defense with NORAD. Are we like in the middle of a divorce? Like, how do you describe the relationship?
AMB HILLMAN I- I- we’re not in the middle of a divorce, but we are in the middle of a change. There’s no question about it. I think that we are finding ourselves, quite frankly, in- in a situation where some of the foundations that have governed our relationship for a long time, that you know, integrated supply chains are good, that working together on strategic issues is- are important, that looking out for each other in important ways is- is a number one priority. I think in some quarters, Canadians feel that those foundations are being tested. We will adapt. We will make it through, I have no doubt about that, but it’s yeah, it’s a complicated time.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Well, you know, Canada had agreed to join this Board of Peace that President Trump announced out at Davos, and then overnight Thursday, the president disinvited Canada. Is this kind of public snub interfering in the relationship, and- and what does that indicate to you about what this Board of Peace is that Canada had said it did want to be a part of?
AMB HILLMAN
So we had expressed an interest in the Board of Peace a number of weeks ago, and essentially, a Board of Peace that is seeking to find peace, in particular, in Gaza and stability, is something that Canada was very much supportive of. The- the parameters of that Board of Peace had just really started to come out and- and our government was considering it, but hadn’t- hadn’t really made a decision. But I think that- that honestly, I think that the most important thing to say here, from the perspective of Canada, is that we have always and will always be promoting peace and stability and human rights around the world. We’ll do it with our allies in various fora, at NATO, at the U.N. bilaterally with like minded countries. So we’re not going to change that and- and we will give it our all in- in any fora that- that is available to us.
MARGARET BRENNAN
It- It’s kind of now described as an alternative to the United Nations. Is that something you’re comfortable with?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, we are deep supporters of the United Nations. We feel that it’s, you know, it’s not perfect, no large institution is, but having a place where the whole world can get together and express their views on issues that are important to the globe is vital. And as I say, NATO is vital, and we work with our EU counterparts and EU-Canada, you know, security discussions and in- in various other configurations. So probably all of these different fora are- are essential. The Board of Peace has yet to be fully, I think, understood, and we’ll see- we’ll- we’ll see where that goes, but the outcomes are what matter to Canada.
MARGARET BRENNAN
So your prime minister gave a national address on Thursday, and I understand he denounced authoritarianism and exclusion. He did not mention President Trump by name, but he did rebuke the claim that Trump made at Davos, that Canada lives because of the United States. You’re talking about what people receive at home, everyone has local politics, so when something like that is said, do you fear that this is starting not just a spat, but this is like a generational split between our two countries, like, how are people receiving this at home?
AMB HILLMAN
Look, I think Canadians- Canadians know that Canada lives because of Canadians, because what Canadians do for Canada, and right now, that’s where we’re trying to focus our attention. By doing what- you know, focusing our attention on what we can control as a nation for ourselves and our own economy and our own security and our own relationships around the world. The United States is always going to be a vital partner. Geography, as you said in your opener, 5,500 miles of border, deep ties, millions of Canadians and Americans that work together every day, that- that you know, do research and study and have families across the border so that- that is there, and that is something that I actually think brings strength to the relationship at times where, you know, in other- at other levels, and maybe at the political level, it- it’s more complicated.
MARGARET BRENNAN
It’s very complicated. I mean, it- it’s almost unthinkable that a phrase like authoritarianism and exclusion that that could be thought to be referring to the leader of the president of the United States?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, I think that there are concerns globally for- by our government, that we have institutions and norms, rules that have governed our countries, yours, mine, and all like minded countries for generations that are really being tested, really being tested. And- and I think what matters is how we react in the face of these tests, and for us, for our country, for our prime minister, you know, there are important implications for our country. And he’s- he’s trying to articulate a vision. And I think he is articulating a very strong vision for how we must adapt. And again, it’s- it’s about being pragmatic and principled, and that’s- that’s what we’re going to continue to be.
MARGARET BRENNAN
You have had a long career here in the United States, deeply involved with trade in particular. You helped to negotiate that free trade deal known as USMCA during the first Trump administration. President Trump was asked about it, January 13. He said, I really don’t care in terms of renewing it, there’s no real advantage. We don’t need Canada products here. Is that free trade deal doomed?
AMB HILLMAN
No, it is not doomed. That is my view. All three countries, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico did broad consultations, national consultations, with their business communities in particular, on what- how that agreement works for them. And really without exception, the American comments back were sure we’d like to maybe update this or change this a little bit, but job number one is to do no harm to this agreement, which is the economic foundation of our continental partnership and leads to very important U.S. competitiveness, and Canadian and Mexican competitiveness vis-a-vis other parts of this world. So I think there’s- I think that we have to believe that our political leaders are going to be listening to the people in the constituencies for whom that instrument was drawn up, and they’re saying, this is vital to us, do no harm.
MARGARET BRENNAN
So do you think there’s a bilateral trade deal here? Is that what the Trump administration is going for, rather than the three way deal or–
AMB HILLMAN
I- you know, I think- I- I- we hear- we hear that sometimes, we hear different things. It is important to remember that even within that agreement, there are a lot of bilateral elements, but there is- there are advantages to doing things trilaterally. There’s a lot of supply chain movement that happens between our three countries. And if you, if you break it into two, you could have different rules and disconnects there that are inefficient for business. So we’re driven- look, Canada will be driven by what the best thing to do is, as I say, for the companies and constituencies that are relying on that agreement to create jobs.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Because you heard the commerce secretary say at Davos, you know, globalism isn’t working. I mean, these free trade deals are part of that globalism. And it was just a week ago, your prime minister was in Beijing, and he described Canada’s relationship with China as more predictable than its relationship with the United States. He really meant more predictable than the Trump administration’s United States.
AMB HILLMAN
Look, there’s no question that the last number of months have been unpredictable for us in our relationship with the United States. You know, we have a trade agreement that had us virtually tariff free between our two countries, and now we have very serious tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and that’s causing a lot of challenges within our country. There are people that are losing their jobs. There are industries that are being reoriented, and it’s very difficult. So that is seen as, yes, unpredictable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But fortress North America had been an idea. I mean, the treasury secretary talked about it, that the United States, Mexico, Canada, we could stand up together, you know, have shared values, and stand up to China. That seems dead, if Canada is really describing a new alliance here with Beijing.
AMB HILLMAN: Well, I think- I think we have to put this in perspective. The- the agreement that we did with China a few weeks ago was a very focused and surgical agreement that was largely, or almost exclusively, designed to de-escalate some tariff escalation that had happened over the past year and a bit. So over the past year and a bit, China had put very punitive tariffs on Canadian agricultural products and fish and seafood, shutting Canadians out from one of their primary markets, if not for some of them, their primary market. And so we went to Beijing to re-establish market access for our farmers and our fishers. It’s exactly what the U.S. administration did in October when they re-established market access for U.S. soy farmers, and in exchange, rolled back some tariffs and fees. So this is a very pragmatic, very focused approach. I think it’s important to put it in context.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But even Ontario’s premier said this is letting Chinese “spy cars” into your country. I think he means electric vehicles that will be cheaply made in China. Are you worried about becoming too beholden to China and its cheap manufacturing?
AMB HILLMAN: No, we’re not, because, we- the- the auto side of this agreement was again to take us back to 2023, we had the importation of vehicles made in China. Many of those were Teslas, as a matter of fact, and we’ve gone back and stuck to the level of 2023 for those imports. So this isn’t a revolutionary new thing. This is really just trying to roll back or de-escalate what had been escalated over the past year and a bit.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Well, the treasury secretary is saying that Albertans are going to have a referendum on succeeding from Canada. He seems to be urging that. What do you make of this–
AMB HILLMAN: Well–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –and comments like that?
AMB HILLMAN: I think it’s important to let Albertans and Canadians manage their own very delicate domestic, you know, politics themselves. I think that that’s probably wise counsel. Having grown up in Alberta, you know, it’s a- it’s a- it’s a province that has lots of strong views about the way in which it interacts with the rest of the country, as do other parts of our nation. And those are important debates to be had, but they’re debates for our country to have within its own citizenry.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It seems to be stirring the pot there a bit, but I want to ask you what your prime minister said at Davos. He got a standing ovation for this speech. He described a ruptured global order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a new brutal reality, which he described as a predatory one. Take a listen.
MARK CARNEY, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
[SOUNDS ON TAPE ENDS]
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said, if you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu. What does this new world order look like?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, that’s a good question. I mean, I think he laid out in his- his discussion, his speech, his- his view of what is happening in our world. And it’s- it’s a world in which rules that governed every player in the globe, every country were maybe not perfectly abided by, as he said, maybe not always exactly exercised as one would hope, but still were sufficient to form the basis of the prosperity, the stability, the predictability that we all used to maximize peace and stability and- and maximize economic reality. So we’re moving away our economic benefits, and we’re moving away from that, and we have to- countries like ours, have to figure out what that means for us. I think that what it does mean for us is that we can’t walk away from our principles. We can’t walk away from our belief in rules that are to be abided by by everyone if they commit to them. But at the same time, we have to be pragmatic and we have to look inward to control what we can within our own economies to be as resilient as we possibly can within our own economies, and part of that means engaging pragmatically with a broad array of countries around the world, in trade agreements, in investment relationships and in partnerships.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sounds like Canada is picking off our friends.
AMB HILLMAN: You know, I- no, I think Canada is trying to make sure that it is the most resilient it can be for our own benefit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m being told that President Trump posted on social media just a few moments ago that Canada is against the Golden Dome over Greenland and has voted against it to choose to be closer to China. That’s how it was described to me. Yet President Trump had previously talked about Canada participating in this Golden Dome project, which isn’t yet built, but it’s supposed to be missile- layered missile defense, as I understand it. Do you know what he’s talking about, that Canada has rejected being involved?
AMB HILLMAN: No, I’m afraid I don’t, but what I can say about the Golden Dome is this, Canada is- is investing over $80 billion over the next five years in our defens-, in our defense systems, and a big part of that is Arctic defense. And a big part of our Arctic defense investments are something called over-the-horizon radar, which is a system that allows us to see the threats that are coming into the Arctic before they arrive. So that is part- and when we have talked to the president about protecting our hemisphere, we have talked about ways in which our different capabilities can work together so that we have eyes on the region and we cooperate in a way that protects both of our countries.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the president has described that as Canada wanting to plug in to the system. As you understand it, that’s the better description, your own system that would coordinate?
AMB HILLMAN: Right. Much as we do across all sorts of defense systems, where we’re interoperable. We- we work together. We make our investments that make sense for Canada and defending our territory and defending our sovereignty, but we work with the Americans and- and other allies to maximize the benefits of those.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in- in short, you do think there needs to be more focus on Arctic defense, but you’re on board to help do that?
AMB HILLMAN: We’re deeply committed to Arctic defense. Absolutely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I need to ask you about NATO, because you’re also a partner at NATO. The only time that NATO’s Article 5 was ever invoked, and you know this, was after the 9/11 attacks on this country. That collective defense clause, an attack on one is an attack on all, meant that Europe and Canada, they sent troops right alongside American troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Here’s what President Trump said.
[SOUND ON TAPE BEGINS]
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’ve never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan, or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, little off the front lines.
[SOUNDS ON TAPE ENDS]
MARGARET BRENNAN
He was speaking about all NATO troops. But we did check and about 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. 158 were killed, 635 wounded in action. What is a remark like that do to people at home?
AMB HILLMAN: You know, I think what’s most important is that we know what our Canadians have done, and I know that your American armed forces are deeply respectful and deeply appreciative of having stood side by side with Canadians in those very, very treacherous and difficult fights. We know that to be true. They know that to be true, and that’s what matters.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, thank you for your time as it wraps up here in Washington.
AMB HILLMAN: Thank you for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Great to have you. We’ll be back in a moment.
Posted originally on CTH on January 24, 2026 | Sundance
Canada signing a trade agreement with China to permit the import of EVs is another escalation in the exploitation of the USMCA compact.
For the position of China, using Canada as a route to ship component goods into the United States is just a slight expansion of their current technique to avoid U.S. tariffs. However, President Trump is taking action immediately.
Noting on his Truth Social platform, President Trump announced that if Canada does effectively go through with allowing the import of Chinese electric vehicles, then the U.S. will impose a 100% countervailing duty against all Canadian imports.
“[…] As a part of the deal, Canada will ease the tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles that it imposed in tandem with the U.S. in 2024. In exchange, China will lower retaliatory tariffs on key Canadian agricultural products.” ~Politico
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney continues giving President Trump the ammunition to dissolve the USMCA trade agreement this year.
USTR Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have both expressed anticipation of a new bilateral trade agreement to stop all this Canadian nonsense.
Posted originally on CTH on January 23, 2026 | Sundance
Hilarious Bloomberg interview with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The topics are European trade and politics combined with the overlay of Canadian trade and politics. The Bloomberg panelists question Lutnick about the similar “feelings” of the Europeans and Canadians, as it pertains to the outcome of trade discussions. It’s the feelings that make things difficult to negotiate.
Secretary Lutnick doesn’t dismiss the narrative but deconstructs the substance of the topic brilliantly. Lutnick notes the ridiculous nature of the Canadian trade position and their decision to go running to China because their feelings are hurt. Lutnick then affirms the USMCA is going to be dissolved mid-summer and fall of this year.
As we noted at the end of last year, splitting the USMCA into two bilateral trade deals, one for Mexico and one for Canada, will be one of the most interesting and long-term economically significant moves in U.S. trade history. It is going to be a lot of fun to watch these negotiations, and the pre-positioning gives us a preview of what is to come.
Mexico is doing everything almost perfectly in preparation for their bilateral deal. Canada is doing exactly the opposite and positioning themselves for the worst possible outcome of a deal with the USA. The disparity in approaches is so different, even now it is remarkable to watch. PROMPTED:
(VIA BLOOMBERG) – […] Canada has “the second-best deal in the world” with its access to the US market, Lutnick said, behind only Mexico. The Commerce chief also indicated that Canada’s tilt toward China could become an issue in talks over revamping the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement known as USMCA.
If Ottawa opts to import Chinese electric vehicles and other trade-strengthening steps with Beijing, “do you think the president of the United States is going to say you should keep having the second-best deal in the world” during USMCA talks, Lutnick questioned.
[…] Canada’s Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne told reporters in Quebec City that every Group of Seven nation is charting its own strategic path forward with China, and Canada is no different.
“We’ll continue to work hand in hand with our US partner,” he said. “At the same time, I think Canadians have understood by now that diversification is key. We need to be more resilient.”
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said separately Thursday that her nation will work to maintain the USMCA trade deal despite recent disputes between Carney and US President Donald Trump. Speaking at her daily press briefing, she also said she would try to talk with Carney.
Next week, Mexico’s Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard will travel to Washington for trade talks, Sheinbaum also said, speaking in Puebla, Mexico. (read full article)
Having travelled to regions of the world in discussions with people who factually determine economic outcomes, it is clear that every single policy shift undertaken by the Canadian government of Mark Carney is exactly the opposite of what is needed. In the next 24 months, the lifestyle of every Canadian will forever change.
President Trump is reestablishing an entirely new economic, trade and finance system. The era of the Marshal Plan is over; it has been factually deconstructed in the past 12 months.
Canadians and Europeans are desperately trying to offset the ramifications, hold on to their economic benefits and find a new mechanism to afford the domestic indulgences now eliminated by President Trump and the absence of money.
The EU and Canada have chased ‘climate change’ and ‘green energy’ schemes into a dead end of economic crisis. German Chancellor Merz has admitted the problem to the world. The direct and collateral damage is generational, and only just now beginning to surface.
When combined with their intransigent resistance to adapt to President Trump’s global economic and trade reset, core issue “reciprocity”, this reality takes both economies down a path that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Choosing to embrace China in lieu of modifying bilateral trade agreements with the USA is a short-sighted fool’s errand. Unfortunately, with political calculations each entity, Canada and/or the EU collective, are pandering to their “feeling” base out of an unwillingness to change trade behavior as demanded by Trump.
From Ottawa to London, to Paris, Berlin and Brussels the geopolitical landscape is changing permanently as President Donald Trump resets their global trade relationship to the United States.
President Trump is leveraging the largest consumer market in the world to the benefit of the customer; that’s America. Trump’s direct and specific intent is transactional, to rebuild an industrial and self-sufficient nation that is the envy of the world.
For several generations, Canada and the EU have exploited their biggest customer and taken the U.S. for granted. Both the EU and Canadian economies are stalled and soon to be shrinking. The USA economy will easily grow above 5% GDP and Mexico is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of their proactive positioning.
It’s not about ‘feelings’ it is just the cold reality of the economics.
Posted originally on CTH on January 13, 2026 | Sundance
President Trump’s impromptu remarks from inside the Ford F150 plant will probably not make headline news because, well, quite frankly, what President Trump says below is something the financial media just don’t want to discuss.
This is really an important point. In the era where information is skewed based on the interests of the organization sharing the information, government or private sector media, it is extremely valuable to just listen to what President Trump says directly. In comments such as this brief segment below, you can see exactly where he is going with manufacturing and trade policy.
Specifically pay attention to how President Trump emphasizes, then reemphasizes the irrelevance of the USMCA from his perspective. As we have noted all along, the Trump administration (USTR Greer) will abandon the trilateral USMCA this year and instead begin a formal process for two bilateral free trade agreements.
Now, the entire financial media system is pretending this is not going to happen, especially in the statements by every stakeholder north of the border. However, listen to how President Trump himself describes the USMCA or CUSMA as the Snow Mexicans like to call it. Trump is completely nonplussed about what is going to happen. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on December 31, 2025 | Sundance
A recent article in Politico quoting several cabinet members of Prime Minister Mark Carney reflects a particular reality of the problem their economy will face in 2026.
It appears that Canadian government officials have finally recognized the Trump administration plans to dissolve the USMCA or what Canada calls CUSMA next year. With that reality they have a big problem.
For the past few decades Canada bought into the carbon scam and enacted climate change goals into law for carbon pricing, alternative energy production, industry and manufacturing costs. These mechanisms to control “climate change” are nuts in the big picture.
In order for Canada to position their economy to be in alignment with the rest of North America (USA and Mexico), Carney would have to reverse years of legislated rules and regulations. That is not going to happen, and Canada will always be at a disadvantage because of it.
(Politico) – […] It’s a moment of existential crisis for Canada, a senior Carney government official told POLITICO. Waiting out the Trump administration isn’t an option, the official said, arguing that what’s happening in the United States reflects a generational shift — not a temporary disruption — and that returning to a policy of closer integration with America would be foolish. (more)
With three quarters of their economic production tied to exports into the USA, and with the USMCA likely to be dissolved in favor of a bilateral trade agreement, Canada now has to find other markets for its products or lower all the trade barriers currently in place. Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to find alternative markets.
Carney has looked toward Europe, but that is a closed trade bloc difficult to engage. Carney has looked to southeast Asia, but that is an export driven market with limited capabilities to import costly western products. Carney has looked to Japan and China, but on scale there’s little to be gained.
The question is, where can Canada send its products if not to the USA. The brutally honest answer is nowhere. There just isn’t any other market, or combination of markets, who could replace the consumer base of the USA. Canada is refusing to admit this reality and 2026 is going to be a harsh awakening for the Canadian people.
The USMCA is currently facilitating around 60% of Canada’s exports into the United States. Cancel that agreement and suddenly 100% of all Canada-U.S. trade is on the table for negotiations.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and President Trump are going to put the squeeze on Mark Carney and every province within Canada as a consequence of their intransigence.
[…] Two-thirds of Canada’s economy is powered by trade, and roughly three-quarters of its exports flow to the U.S. It’s a C$1.3 trillion annual relationship that was celebrated on both sides of the border in good times but has become a source of leverage for America, especially with the Trump administration expected to continue squeezing Canadian industries with tariffs.
Europe is Carney’s top priority for deepening existing free-trade relationships. But closer integration with the European Union is a long game, and Canada has no interest in joining the bloc, according to the official, pushing Ottawa to explore other regions.
“Trade diversification is nothing new. People have talked about this for decades,” Sidhu said. “The difference here is other countries’ willingness to look at Canada as a reliable, stable trading partner,” he added, saying Trump has had a bigger influence on Ottawa’s strategy than any difference in trade philosophy between Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney.
Canada’s governing Liberal Party is under new management, forcing a cohort of Trudeau-era lawmakers to quickly learn the language of economics to make an impression with the new boss. Social issues have been demoted — as have brown shoes.
Cabinet ministers are competing to establish themselves as closers to meet Carney’s high expectations. The result is overlapping mandates that sow confusion over who owns what.
Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc leads a new portfolio created under Carney, who sliced out North America from the international trade minister’s purview. (read more)
Posted originally CTH on December 29, 2025 | Sundance
Outlining why there literally is not enough time for a lengthy dual-track legislative trade policy to be constructed, Ambassador Jamieson Greer gives a great encapsulation of the urgency behind the trade policies, tariffs and negotiations between the U.S. and trade partners.
If President Donald Trump did not win in 2024, another four years of parasitic trade policy would have crossed the Rubicon of U.S. manufacturing recovery. The urgently applied tariff strategy gave the administration breathing room to reestablish domestic economic growth. USTR Greer and President Trump are now fine-tuning the tariffs country by country, sector by sector, to achieve ultimate economic benefit. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on December 29, 2025 | Sundance
In addition to being the main economic engine in Europe, Germany is the epicenter of the European Union’s overall goal to chase the green energy agenda.
For the past several years Germany has been deconstructing their fossil fuel energy production and replacing it with far more expensive alternatives. This has led to large increases in overall energy prices, and downstream increases in manufacturing costs.
The consequences have been snowballing throughout 2025, while cheap competitive alternatives coming into the EU from China have compounded their problem. Recently a survey of major industries was conducted in Germany to determine the forecast for 2026, the results are not good.
Approximately half of the industrial sectors in Germany are anticipating job losses, cuts or layoffs this year.
22 out of 46 business associations are preparing to downsize their labor force. Only 9 of the 46 are expected to increase hiring.
At a top-line this looks bad. However, when you look at the sectors contracting versus the sectors stable or expanding, you suddenly realize there is a bigger geopolitical problem within the forecast.
Job losses are expected in auto manufacturing, the textile sector, wood and paper fabrication. Job gains are expected in aerospace, shipbuilding and defense production – i.e. the war machinery.
When the largest and most developed industrial economy in Europe is pinning its economic survival on war machinery, a particular momentum is created. It is never a good outcome for Europe when Germany becomes reliant on war to maintain employment.
Unfortunately, that economic forecast does provide context to the German position for continued Ukraine/Russia conflict. You might say that without a war, Germany could slip into a severe economic contraction; not good.
BERLIN, Dec 29 (Reuters) – A majority of German business associations expect job cuts in 2026 as the country’s economic crisis persists, with industry hit hardest by global protectionism and weak exports, a survey by the German Economic Institute IW showed on Monday.
Of 46 business associations surveyed, 22 anticipate workforce reductions next year. Only nine expect to increase hiring and 15 foresee stable employment levels.
[…] Some bright spots emerged in sectors benefiting from increased defense spending, including aerospace and shipbuilding. (read more)
We will keep watching with additional background context for the Ukraine/Russia negotiations.
Posted originally on CTH on December 13, 2025 | Sundance |
The geopolitical baseline for Europe is often determined by the economics of their situation. In 2024 approximately 408,000 cars from China were sold in Europe. For 2025 that number is now expected to exceed 700,000 units despite tariffs.
Previously we highlighted the short-term ramifications of the European Union push to force the sale of electric vehicle (EVs) upon the consumer base. {SEE HERE} EU automakers unable to meet the compliance goal began purchasing carbon credits to avoid stiff EU fines. Many of those carbon credits were purchased from Chinese automakers, who then turned around and started using the extra EU revenue to discount Chinese cars sold in Europe.
In essence, EU car companies started subsiding China to undercut their own market. An outcome of the EU chasing the ridiculous green energy project throughout the European free trade zone.
Now reports are beginning to surface of how the non-EV segment of the industry is being lost to less expensive Chinese hybrid autos that: (1) are much cheaper, (2) not bad in quality, and (3) are not subject to the 35% EV tariff rate.
The EU tariff applied to gasoline powered cars or hybrids from China is 10%. That tariff is not enough to stop the imports. The Chinese hybrid autos are substantially less than European car brands, and there’s no financial incentive for China to build auto plants in the EU zone especially when you consider the EU is subsidizing those cars by purchasing carbon credits.
When analyzed from a cost and consequence, the entire EU dynamic toward car companies is a little funny. However, for Germany this is a serious issue, and with the German industrial economy already stagnant – every impact to their auto industry only makes the situation worse.
When you overlay the big picture of their expensive “green energy” costs, the EU find themselves in an unescapable downward spiral. Quite literally, all commonsense seems to have been lost in their green energy chase.
By focusing on energy targets, specifically by trying to force production of European electric vehicles that are not favored by European car purchasers, the EU is shrinking their economy to the benefit of Beijing exploitation.
EUROPE – This year, sales of Chinese-made cars across the EU, UK, and EFTA are expected to exceed 700,000. This is up significantly from the 408,000 that were sold in 2024.
The surge comes despite the fact that additional tariffs of up to 35 percent, on top of the existing 10 percent import duty, were instated in November of last year.
Rather than dampen demand, the tariffs have simply redirected it. While the added fees specifically target EVs and extended-range electric vehicles, hybrid and internal combustion engine (ICE) models remain subject only to the base 10 percent tariff.
Predictably, Chinese brands have leaned into that category, shifting their European strategy toward models that sidestep the higher costs.
Thanks to significantly lower production costs, up to 30 percent cheaper than in Europe, it doesn’t make financial sense for these brands to relocate production just to serve a tariff-guarded market. Instead, they’re exploiting the gap. (read more)
The only Chinese auto plant current in the works for construction is in Hungary, not coincidentally the country with the most common sense as it applies to energy costs. BYD (Build Your Dream) is building a plant in Hungary expected to manufacture 150,000 units/yr.
While most EVs are generally best for short duration use, the Chinese hybrid vehicles are not a terrible build quality if you are an auto purchaser that changes vehicles frequently. We dodged a bullet by electing President Trump in 2024, because Joe Biden (Blackrock) had positioned the North American auto industry toward a similar fate as currently happening in Europe.
The Europeans and leftists in the U.S. scoffed at President Trump for rejecting the premise behind the Green New Deal, which included electric car mandates. Those same Europeans are now watching as their industrial economy collapses segment by segment; taken over by far cheaper Chinese industrial outputs.
Posted originally on CTH on December 5, 2025 | Sundance
In the world of Trumpian geopolitical trade stuff, three issues are very interesting to watch. (1) The strategic reset with Russia which could break the official western construct of financial control. (2) The proactive and defensive positioning of Mexico (desperate attempt to retain economic attachment), and (3) the certain dissolution of the USMCA what Canadians call CUSMA.
Canadian media are starting to realize something we have talked about on these pages for years; President Trump intends to end the USMCA because the USMCA was used as a fracture point to eliminate NAFTA.
Wall Street, the U.S. Congress, the massive K-Street lobbying network around the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the entire political apparatus of business and industry would never permit the end to NAFTA; too many trillions at stake. So, President Trump replaced NAFTA with the interim USMCA, which was better but factually more useful in elimination of the original.
Now, as we have discussed by highlighting President Trump’s no-so-subtle words on the issue, the Canadian media is realizing the USMCA will be dissolved in favor of two independently negotiated bilateral trade agreements; one with Canada and one with Mexico.
🚨MAJOR BREAKING
Trump signals that he could EXIT from USMCA entirely.
This is EXTINCTION LEVEL to Canada.
He going to do it. I have a strong feeling about this.
(CTV) – U.S. President Donald Trump could decide next year to withdraw from the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement (CUSMA), Politico reported on Thursday, citing U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
“The president’s view is he only wants deals that are a good deal. The reason why we built a review period into CUSMA was in case we needed to revise it, review it or exit it,” Greer told Politico’s White House bureau chief Dasha Burns in a podcast episode that airs Friday.
Greer also raised the idea of negotiating separately with Canada and Mexico and dividing the agreement into two parts in the podcast, adding that he spoke with Trump about that possibility just this week.
The White House, Canadian and Mexican governments did not immediately respond to Reuters request for comment.
Trump on Wednesday said that the CUSMA agreement – which faces an upcoming review- will either be left to expire or another deal will be worked out.
The USMCA, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020 and was negotiated during Trump’s first term as president, requires the three countries to hold a joint review after six years. (link)
I have talked to a lot of Canadians on the issues of economics and trade. As a result, I can say with complete sincerity that not since the COVID-19 examples of New Zealand (lockdowns) and Australia (vaxx), has a nation engaged in such a level of mass cognitive dissonance as the govt of Canada on the issue of economics and trade – in the past few years. It is stunning.
To understand the reality of the situation Here’s an IN-DEPTH LINK. Apparently, few really understand the full scope of the issues.
For those who have followed along with the U.S-Canada trade positioning, the current status of conflict between the Trump administration and the government of Canada is not surprising. {GO DEEP}
Going all the way back to the replacement of NAFTA, with the USMCA, President Trump always said he did not favor multilateral trade deals with multiple countries; instead, he preferred bilateral free trade agreements.
Some people have construed the bilateral preference of President Trump to be the elimination of globalism in favor of nationalism in trade agreements.
While the outcome of the Trump approach indeed aligns with that theme, it is not specifically the objective of President Trump to eliminate global trade, but rather to focus on specific interests in trade that benefit the unique nature of each party involved.
As a result, the USMCA -or CUSMA as said in Canada- is not in alignment with a bilateral free trade agreement, and the conflicted differences between trade with Mexico and trade with Canada are an outcome of this dynamic. The solution is simply to eliminate the multilateral in favor of the bilateral approach. This is the objective of President Trump as expressed.
There is zero leverage on the Canadian side of the trade negotiation, zero.
There is nothing that Canada provides to the USA that the USA cannot create, produce or secure independently. The nature of the economic relationship is entirely lopsided, with the USA getting nothing in return for the massive outflow of U.S. dollars (USD).
Our trade relationship with Canada is based on the U.S. government simply liking our northern neighbor and giving them terms and conditions for their economy to benefit from proximity. Take the friendship out of the equation, which is key to understanding the polar political ideology of the two nations, and there is simply not much reciprocal trade benefit.
Take away the soft wood lumber, we have our own. Take away the oil, we have multitudes of domestic production options. Take away the minerals, again we have both our own unused capacities and enhanced trade agreements with other Free Trade Agreement nations.
Then look at the possibility of a strategic U.S-Russia economic alliance, and all those contracted icebreakers take on new meaning.
Some may think this is an overly harsh view of our Canadian friends. However, the Canadian majority believes in climate change and unfortunately leftist politicians control their industrial economy. Canada is in the middle of a mass formation psychosis. Canada needs to get hard, dispatch cultural Maxism and put deliberate men in charge.
A Canadian conservative is essentially a politically correct Mitt Romney; not strong enough to make a difference.
The best thing President Trump can do for our Canadian friends is to help strategic regions while their overall economy collapses around them. Then we hope guys like this surface to rebuild the Great White North.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 