Last week, President Trump called off trade negotiations with Canada because the government of Ontario, one of the nation’s provinces, released a deceptively edited advertisement using former U.S. President Ronald Reagan to criticize American tariffs. It was the beginning of the Ontario provincial government’s public relations campaign in the U.S. opposing tariffs, which of course have been a prominent feature of Trump 2.0.
In a typically restrained response, Trump erupted in fury against the spot, using all caps to call the ad “FAKE” as he announced the suspension of trade negotiations with Canada. “Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED,” Trump wrote on his personal social media platform Truth Social.
Ugh.
I can’t defend this, and nobody should. Sure, it was a dishonest ad, but the U.S. allows dishonest ads that don’t amount to fraud or false advertising. It’s called freedom of speech. Trump has benefited from dishonest ads himself. Yes, Ontario should wear a bag over its head, which would be a huge bag. The ad used statements that Reagan made but distorted his meaning by taking them from different parts of a speech he gave about “free and fair trade” in April 1987 as he announced new tariffs on Japan. The correct, fair and ethical response by Trump would have been to lambast Ontario for its lie, reveal the real speech, and let the government of Canada deal with the incident. (Ontario had already signaled that it was pulling the ad before Trump’s Truth Social eruption.)
The President cited the objections of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, a nonprofit founded by the Gipper as justification for his strike at Canada. The foundation had also posted a statement, on X, criticizing the advertisement. “The ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address, and the Government of Ontario did not seek or receive permission to use and edit the remarks,” the nonprofit wrote. Again, Freedom of Speech, you idiots. Nobody needs “permission” to use a President’s public statements in whole or in part, for any purpose whatsoever, including sinister ones.
“Defending a former President’s reputation” is no justification for a current President taking punitive action against a foreign country. Next: Trump wrote that he believed the Ontario government was trying to undermine legal decisions surrounding his administration’s use of tariffs. “They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts,” Trump wrote. In another Truth Social post, Trump said Canada was “trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court in one of the most important rulings in the history of our Country.” Oh, bullhockey. If our courts and the Supreme Court are allowing ads by foreign countries to influence their rulings on U.S. law, then we need to impeach a lot of judges. The suggestion is absurd and offensive.
In fact, the whole episode reveals Trump’s persistent cluelessness about freedom of speech, how a President has to behave in order to support it and also the importance of countering accusations that he favors censorship. If taking adverse measures against a national government because a President doesn’t like what one of that nation’s provincial governments says isn’t a technical violation of the First Amendment, it is definitely contrary to the spirit of its principles.
What is the typical, legally untrained, constitutionally illiterate (like Trump?) member of the American public likely to take from this episode? That criticizing Trump policies can be punished? That it’s illegal to misrepresent revered conservative Presidents? If Trump will take adverse action against a country that disrespects a former POTUS, what is he likely to do to a citizen or organization that criticizes him?
In addition to its wildly excessive nature, the strike against Canada also looks decidedly kingly. EA has often defended Trump against the Big Lie that his use of his Presidential powers is “autocratic,” but in this instance he is using them to express personal pique, which I regard as decidedly autocratic behavior. (Vlad Tepes, aka. “Dracula,” was reportedly offended when foreign visitors once complained of the odor emanating from the rotting corpses on long pikes that old Vlad liked to festoon the grounds with in Transylvania. So the despot put the visitors on pikes too, but higher than the others so they wouldn’t be bothered by the smell. That Vlad!)
On Fox News, former Reagan aide Ari Fleischer was asked about Trump’s smack at our northern neighbors and said that it was a negotiating ploy, explaining that acting impulsively and even irrationally can pay off in negotiations because an adversary becomes wary of crossing unpredictable negotiation partners. In other words, “it’s so crazy it might work.”
Not good enough, Ari. Unethical tactics that pay off are still unethical, and this one was ominous as well as unethical.
Ethics Alarms 
“If our courts and the Supreme Court are allowing ads by foreign countries to influence their rulings on U.S. law, then we need to impeach a lot of judges. The suggestion is absurd and offensive.”
On the other hand, they might try sending maple syrup, peppermint bark and moose steaks to Clarence Thomas.
A foreign country has freedom of speech rights provided it by the U.S. Constitution? We’re in negotiations, verging on a trade war with Canada. Sometimes, “Fuck you and strong letter to follow” is completely appropriate. As is packing up your papers from the table into your brief case and walking out of the room.
Show the fucking superior, passive aggressive Canadians that actions have consequences.
And by the way, the ad completely hoodwinked me. CBS editing an interview with Kamala Harris is unethical and exposed them to paying damages, but an incredibly deceptive commercial like that during a trade negotiation/war elicits nothing more than a “thank you sir, may I have another?”
Which is why the punishment for speech is “technically” OK when the speech is a foreign citizen or entity. But this speech was nothing,just annoying. And Trump’s instinct was to take a major punitive action because he thought dead RR’s booboo was hurt.
I’d argue the commercial was an incredibly effective state sponsored disinformation campaign. Until I read your exposure of the spot, I assumed it was legit. The commercial is certainly better than any Russian effort dreamt up, er, alleged to have occurred during the 2016 election, whereupon our crack “intelligence community” confidently declared the Russians had interfered.
“If Trump will take adverse action against a country that disrespects a former POTUS, what is he likely to do to a citizen or organization that criticizes him?”
Oh, you mean the way the entire professional media complex of any stripe has been doing since 2016?
This one is funny.
This episode is just one more in a string of events where Trump says enough of the world taking advantage of us, and God bless him for it.
“Oh, you mean the way the entire professional media complex of any stripe has been doing since 2016?”
This one is easy: They aren’t the President of the United States.
I know you can do better than that.
Your comment seems to indicate how Trump would respond to someone criticizing him – which has happened ad nauseum. Tell me what I’m missing in what you’re trying to say with the statement I’ve quoted.
If I look at the whole thing, it doesn’t seem to change the calculus.
“What is the typical, legally untrained, constitutionally illiterate (like Trump?) member of the American public likely to take from this episode? That criticizing Trump policies can be punished? That it’s illegal to misrepresent revered conservative Presidents? If Trump will take adverse action against a country that disrespects a former POTUS, what is he likely to do to a citizen or organization that criticizes him?”
If your statement hinges on illegal to misrepresent presidents, I can maaaaybe see what you’re trying to say?
But nothing Trump did in response to the Canadians involved law enforcement, so I don’t get it.
If it’s in reference to him saying it’s illegal for them to try and influence a court decision, strictly speaking I’m sure it is. That technically speaking the Canadians efforts don’t rise to the legal definition is less the issue than the Canadians spending $170M to snowball US voters in to affecting US policymakers.
And we all see it for what it is. It’s unethical as all hell, and if Trump’s commentary on it isn’t legally perfect, I don’t care.
And, really, calling it out and letting the Canadian government handle it? How sure are we they didn’t provide the funding to Ontario?
If you do the right things for the right reasons but verbalize it poorly, is it unethical?
He’s done the right thing in saying we’re not letting other nations take advantage of the US anymore.
Good.
It ‘s simple: he is taking punitive action against mere words, and mere words that have no likely adverse effect justifying the punishment. Look at the post headline. It’s bullying. It’s capricious. And it gives legitimate ammunition to anyone say the guy is an autocrat. Your argument is that he has done stuff like this before? What kind of a defense is that? I resume that a President capable of reacting that way is capable of ordering the IRS to audit a critic—say on an ethics blog—who issues FAKE criticism.
Except that he’s handled criticism in sundry ways, sometimes well, sometimes not.
And it’s funny you should mention IRS activities at the behest of a president – the most recent of whom to do so was Barry Soetoro. Trump’s DOJ has only pursued people who’ve actually committed crimes under existing law, unlike his opponents. So the worst you’d get hit with from DJT is being called a fake ethicist.
Bullying? No. He’s not picking on people he can take advantage of, he’s responding to a FOREIGN government looking to take advantage of the US.
The speech may be “free” but it’s marketing. And clever, manipulative marketing WORKS. It’s why they paid $170M for it. To SCAM people in the US. And words can have tremendous effect. It’s how Barry the fraud got elected. Anybody who looked at what he actually said knew he would be a disaster. But his words fooled people. Same thing Ontario is trying to do – use words to fool people.
Free speech is not free from its consequences. FAFO for Ontario.
Bully for us!
“Trump’s persistent cluelessness about freedom of speech, how a President has to behave in order to support it”
Curious why you think (1) Trump is clueless about freedom of speech and (2) that he feels he has any reason to support it (?) Seems to me his views are pretty clear and consistent. A primary reason he admires the North Korean regime is that its people are fullsome in their praise of Dear Leader and any who dare criticize him are generally executed publicly in some creative fashion. I don’t believe such critics are offered a choice of execution method….
I may have missed something as I don’t live in the US and so don’t get a full helping, so to speak, of US news. I don’t recall Trump admiring North Korea.
He doesn’t. It’s an Axis talking point.
Thank you. I suspected it might be, I have seen it on Reddit, but you know Reddit…you can’t question anything there. I do know that the surviving family members of people kidnapped and taken into North Korea had asked Trump to negotiate with Kim for their release . Yokota Megumi’s case is perhaps the most heartbreaking, kidnapped at 13 years old. I though at the time that actually going there was a bold move, but the internet called it kissing up to a dictator.
He says nice things about hostile nation leaders because its smart negotiation strategy. The Axis lie that he is an aspiring dictator is just that. Trump supports freedom of speech but doesn’t think about it or comprehend its nuances, and he ignores it when it’s inconvenient. All instinctual not analytical. I’m sure it never occurred to him that slapping Canada had any free speech implications at all.
North Korea snippets “We fell in love, OK? No, really,” Trump declared. “He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.” …. “His country does love him. His people, you see the fervor. They have a great fervor.”
[You can see how the American people are falling woefully short here!]
How are we to interpret this purported love affair with Kim and admiration for the great fervor of the North Korean people?
First, this is an “Axis talking point”, which means you should ignore it as a lie, meaningless, or preferably both.
Second, it is a smart negotiating strategy. Say nice things about hostile leaders, and say insulting things about allies (well, those we used to think of as allies, anyway). Such a clever plot twist!
Third, ultimately it’s all a theater performance. Just enjoy it! The JD show, or whatever ensues when the current demolition derby comes to the end of its run, will likely be considerably less entertaining.
You are 100% right.
One thing about Trump is that he will use almost any excuse to put pressure on those he opposes. Exposing Canada’s unethical use of video would only be noticed by the media if he did something extreme, which he did. If Trump had just bitched about it, the media would’ve ignored it.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but sometimes their collision flashes a light on things that would otherwise be ignored, and shouldn’t be. No, we can’t excuse the behavior ethically, but I can’t manufacture outrage against it in this case.
One thing Trump understands — you don’t play by Marquess of Queensberry rules when your opponent is playing at MMA.