AMERIKA

HR 9495: Bill Threatening Nonprofits Passes House

By Isaiah Thompson

November 21, 2024

Source: Nonprofit Quarterly


dog97209 - US Department of Treasury Washington DC

A bill, HR 9495, which would allow a presidentially appointed treasury secretary to unilaterally strip a nonprofit of its status if deemed a “terrorism-supporting” organization, has passed in the US House of Representatives.

The bill passed 219-184, mostly along partisan lines, with Republicans in support and Democrats opposing; 15 Democrats broke with their caucus to vote in favor of the bill.   NAME 'EM AND SHAME 'EM

The measure has raised alarm across the nonprofit sector and US civil society, and a multitude of organizations—from civil rights groups to nonprofit media to advocacy and direct service groups—have mobilized against the bill.

That measure was introduced with bipartisan support amid widespread campus protests over the war in Gaza, with at least the implication that some groups supporting or organizing those protests were also (or therefore) supporting “terrorism.”

That assumption alone would be enough to spark fears of political retribution by any president, via the secretary of the treasury, against disfavored nonprofit groups.

But the stakes of the bill were raised when Donald J. Trump won reelection this month.

Those mobilizing against the measure fear that Trump, who has publicly broadcast his interest and willingness to punish his perceived political opponents, will use the bill to target and silence any organization he disagrees with.

This September, the ACLU and some 150 organizations cosigned a letter opposing the legislation, expressing “deep concerns about the bill’s potential to grant the executive branch extraordinary power to investigate, harass, and effectively dismantle any nonprofit organization—including news outlets, universities, and civil liberties organizations like ours—by stripping them of their tax-exempt status based on a unilateral accusation of wrongdoing.”

Last week, the Council on Foundations, Independent Sector, National Council of Nonprofits, and United Philanthropy Forum penned another letter, stating:

This legislation would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to designate section 501(c) nonprofits as “terrorist supporting organizations” at the Secretary’s discretion, without requiring the Secretary to share their full evidence or reasoning with accused nonprofits. Furthermore, the legislation runs counter to constitutional due process protections by placing the burden of proof on the accused organization and providing only 90 days for organizations to demonstrate their innocence before revoking their tax-exempt status.

The bill failed an earlier House vote last week, when supporters failed to rally a 2/3 vote required for procedural reasons, with 52 Democrats breaking with their caucus to vote in favor. The House vote today, however, required only a simple majority to pass.

The bill now advances from the Republican-controlled House to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain—but where it very well may be defeated by Democratic senators, who still hold a slim majority.

Regardless, groups following the legislation warn that the bill is likely to return, at least in some form, in 2025—under a Republican-controlled Congress and President Donald Trump.

Isaiah Thompson is the Leadership Editor at NPQ. Prior to coming to NPQ in 2023, he worked for various news organizations, including WGBH News, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, the Bay State Banner, AxisPhilly, the Philadelphia City Paper, and the Miami New Times. His work has also appeared in ProPublica, This American Life, WNYC News, WHYY News, Al Jazeera America, Esquire, Salon, and other publications. He has been the recipient of various journalism awards for his work. Isaiah lives in Boston.

“F**k you,” Brazilian First Lady tells Elon Musk

Basit Mahmood 

Yesterday
Left Foot Forward

Musk has had a strained relationship with Brazil’s left-wing government.

Brazil’s first lady has sworn at billionaire Elon Musk at an event on tackling misinformation on social media, ahead of the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Janja Lula da Silva, whose husband is President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was talking about the need to combat fake news and regulate social media networks when she made the remarks about the Tesla CEO.

Musk has come in for criticism after taking over X, formerly Twitter, and allowing fake news and extremist content to go unchecked. He is also a close ally of Trump and was recently rewarded for his loyalty by being appointed to co-lead the new department of government efficiency to cut out ‘waste’.

While advocating for tougher social media regulation on a panel about disinformation, Janja Lula da Silva appeared to be startled by a loud noise, joking, “I think it’s Elon Musk.”

She then said she wasn’t afraid of him and added: “F*** you, Elon Musk.”

Musk has had a strained relationship with Brazil’s left-wing government.

Earlier this year, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered a nationwide ban on X, after it failed to name a legal representative in the country and suspend accounts for allegedly spreading misinformation.

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

Lula’s Toughest Battle

Ron Jacobs

 November 20, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Lawfare is a relatively new term. In essence, it is the weaponization of bourgeois law, usually by the right wing. Various US supporters of Donald Trump would argue that his prosecutions also fall under this mantle, despite the fact that he has skated out of almost every attempt to prosecute him so far. However, this essay is not about Donald Trump. God knows there are enough of them on that subject.

In Latin America, lawfare has been mostly used to try and eliminate leftist opponents who operate within the confines of bourgeois law. Probably the best known use of this tactic is when Brazil’s far right government of Jair Bolsonaro employed it against Brazil’s former president Lula. A brief description of these attempts goes like this. Various elements of the mainstream media in Brazil published stories that suggested Lula had laundered money and illegally owned property. These charges were then brought to the legislature by opponents of the Left, who then employed an ambitious right-wing prosecutor to fabricate charges of corruption. Although the charges were somewhat fantastical, the right wing media were able to convince the public via what we now call fake news that there was genuine substance to the charges. In July 2017, Lula was convicted on charges of money laundering and corruption in a trial that could best be described as questionable. He spent 580 days in prison. He was released in 2019, and his conviction was nullified in 2021 by the Supreme Court. The same ruling also annulled all other pending cases against him. He fought the charges hard. His supporters backed him in the streets and in the courts.

A book titled Lula: A Biography was recently translated into English and published in 2024.

Written by journalist Fernando Morais and originally intended to be a history of Lula’s first presidency, it became a history of the ultimately fraudulent legal attack on Lula that put him in prison. In fact, the book opens with a riveting description of Lula’s arrest. Subsequent chapters discuss the lead-up to the arrest before Morais turns the reader’s attention to Lula’s childhood, eventual involvement in the union movement, and his rise to the presidency of Brazil. Morais’ approach is one that reads like a true crime story. Politics and power and the multitude of scenarios that combination can create populate the text. One is in Lula’s prison cell while he ruminates and plots his release with lawyers, advisers and friends. The excitement of a union hall filled with workers determined to prevent Lula’s arrest should he ask them to do so jumps from the page. As a former local union president, I was reminded of those moments when the membership truly realizes their power and stand poised to act should the situation require it. Likewise, I could feel the tension between the lines of battle-ready police as they faced an equally battle-ready crowd of protesters. The descriptions of these moments are contrasted with tales of family hardship and lamented love that evoke equal amounts of the emotions appropriate to those circumstances.

Still, this is a story, a history, of politics. Working class politics in an economy where exploitation and super-exploitation were the norm; where the state was rarely democratic and its laws were enforced by a code that emphasized subordination and enforced class division in favor of the ruling elites. In short, a capitalist dream and a worker’s nightmare. Once Lula had worked for a few years and began to understand why unions were not only useful but necessary to a life even slightly beyond mere survival, he dedicated himself to the union movement, defending workers’ existing rights and constantly fighting for less inequality and more working class power. Indeed, it was when he realized that the composition of Brazil’s national legislature was close to one hundred percent from the ruling class, that he decided to enter the electoral arena.

It’s never an easy task to get elected in a system designed to keep the class one represents out of power. As most readers probably understand, it is this design that informs every legislature in the capitalist world, with that in the United States being the most restrictive in that regard. When Lula first ran and the military and the capitalist class ran Brazil, the US Congress was arguably still less representative when it came to the working class of the United States; it’s even less representative of the US working class now. Lula was not successful his first run, but eventually garnered enough respect and popularity that he was elected president as a candidate of Brazil’s Workers Party—a party he helped found.

Like I mentioned previously, the author Morais has written his biography of Lula in a tight, suspenseful manner, keeping the reader riveted to the story unfolding with each page. In one moment the reader finds themselves in a massive protest, police pushing against the crowd anticipating an outburst from the disciplined crowd. In another section, one is locked in with Lula in his cell after his arrest in what was a vain attempt by the government to end a massive strike. There are vignettes of Lula’s family life—as a poor youth trying to scrape a living for his family and maybe occasionally attend school. We are brought into political debates within the union membership and its leaders. Lula and his faction work hard to keep the demands of the membership front and center as different political factions push for their own agendas. Usually, Lula and his associates succeed in keeping the union focused on worker demands. In turn, the union membership grows. A true sense of workers’ power begins to take shape. Despair is replaced by hope and actual progress in terms of salaries and working conditions. The next step is to change social conditions; to make the needs and hopes of the workers and other oppressed sections of the Brazilian economy the law of the land. Of course, the reaction from the propertied and monied class is relentless and angry. Gathering their forces, they enlist their own politicians, law enforcement, the military and the pressure of foreign interlopers from the Global North. The battle is joined. Ultimately, Lula is arrested and convicted on contrived charges. This is where the book reviewed here begins.

Ron Jacobs is the author of several books, including Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest book, titled Nowhere Land: Journeys Through a Broken Nation, is now available. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com

PATRICIA BAKER: Voting imperative as democracies become more fragile

The right to vote brings with it the responsibility to protect freedom and never take it for granted

Author of the article: Patricia Baker
Published Nov 18, 2024 • Last updated 1 hour ago • 8 minute read

Join the conversation

Article content

As a Canadian and dedicated voter, I have become more and more concerned about the political landscape of this country. When I reached the age of majority many years ago, this milestone gave me the constitutional right to vote, and I have taken this right seriously.

I have submitted my ballot in every federal and provincial election ever since.

The right to vote brings with it the responsibility to protect freedom and never take it for granted. But we must remember that even if we vote, we may not get what we want. We may have to live with what most voters have chosen, even if we don’t agree.

This may be why some do not bother to vote. The adage we hear, “My party isn’t going to get in anyway, so why should I bother to vote?”

When you look at countries in the world that are controlled by dictators, communists or fascists, voting is in a realm of its own. Even if this privilege exists, which is questionable, the authentic will of the people can’t evolve or exist either.

Democracies have become more and more vulnerable to outside interference, so the urgency to stand and protect us from regimes that have intentions to infiltrate our security, and integrity should have the electorate on high alert.

It has come to be a very serious and insidious under current, especially when we are going about our everyday lives, and everything seems to be as we know it.

We quite often take our freedoms and constitutional rights for granted as we get on with our lives, but it should always be a little voice in the back of our heads that we should be wary that we could be on the hit list for foreign political infiltration.

We the electorate also have a responsibility to pay attention to the directions our elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) wish to embark upon and what their mandates and platforms for re-election are.

We may want change because we tire of the leaders and parties which have been in power for too long. But we also should be thinking about what we are changing to. In simple terms, prospective leaders may be telling us they will maintain social programs already in place or introduce new ones that are awaiting approval which will help with everyday living costs. They may also endorse funneling more funds into public health care or doing what it takes to address climate change by reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

The introduction of more liberal ideas for the curriculums in public schools while supporting dental or pharmacare for Canadians who are not financial able to access these health benefits are being put before us.

On the other side of the political spectrum, a more conservative approach to managing this country’s spending and programs may be presented as legitimate alternatives to moving this country too far to the left of centre.

Programs may be delayed, curtailed or abandoned altogether to become what is believed to be a more fiscally responsible approach to spending. The reduction of the deficit by spending more cost effectively on social programs, immigration and climate change initiatives for instance, could be presented as in a more cost-effective manner to eventually rail it in

Although the centre and left of centre political parties seem to have been more open than the right about their plans for Canadians if they are elected, voters may have to resort to reading between the lines until such time a more open dialogue is presented.

Having said that, it may be helpful to reflect on the federal parties and their past promises and performances in governments they formed after being elected. Look back at the relationships the federal and provincial governments have had with each other during their respective mandates.

Were you happy with what you got in any of the past respective governments, and did they fulfill those promises that were attainable and responsible? Did they present themselves on the world stage in a stately manner? Were they open to constructive dialogue? Did they present Canada’s value as a democracy and protect it?

Social programs such as dental, pharmacare and reproductive/abortion services are expensive to initiate and operate, but they are considered to promote healthier outcomes for those who do not have access to or cannot afford them.

The argument for acceptance is that many low even middle-income Canadians will be healthier in the long run. Ultimately these programs will save government
coffers money by reducing visits and admissions to hospitals. Poor dental hygiene and limited or no access to prescription drugs for diabetes and heart disease for example, have been correctly identified as very costly expenditures for the public health care system to sustain.

This is preventative medicine, and it has been proven over time that a healthy population is able to be much more productive and relies on health care much less than an ailing population with chronic diseases that they cannot afford to prevent in the first place.

Access and affordability are everything and yes fiscal responsibility is also required for a healthy prosperous economy to be able to grow into a stable asset. Being beleaguered under massive debt is very counterproductive.

On the other hand, if we are being promised balanced budgets, with cuts to climate change initiatives or social programs, will this in the long run balance the budget?

Will resisting calls for our reliance on fossil fuels to be harnessed and eventually over time replaced with clean energy eventually balance the budget and eliminate the deficit?

Can the effects of climate change destroy communities, flood and burn valuable land and resources while debts for restoration are handed down from one generation to the next?

Will social programs help those in need? What will happen if they are not enough?

If abortion rights are maintained at status quo, will this help women be safe and maintain their right to choose what they do with their own body?

Having said all of this, voters cannot be expected to abandon their own needs and struggles either. The economy, housing, health care, cost of living and immigration are the major issues facing Canadians.

The upcoming election could be coming sooner than later, it has not been determined, but all the parties in their unmitigated quest to govern this country are going to encourage the electorate to vote in their favour.

Promises will be made across the board, and voters will then be inundated with all sorts of information which may require serious thought and reflection. On the other hand, some voters and non-voters alike may just choose to tune it all out and change the channel.

Social media is an integral part of our lives, how we communicate, access information on a multitude of various levels and make decisions on the important aspects that affect our lives.

But social media may also provide misleading or inaccurate messaging to voters depending on which area of the political spectrum they support. The electorate has the right to base their affiliations with the parties and leaders who appeal to them on a personal level as well as those who try to address and alleviate their personal struggles.

Unfortunately, some politicians may have inclinations to bring us closer to mandates that are designed to minimize or curtail some of the rights and freedoms which citizens already possess. They may hinder the passage of laws that uphold these rights to strengthen these mandates.

Should these aspirations begin to evolve towards the erosion of the rights and freedoms of the people, this should be of great concern to the electorate. A slow but planned transition towards a government using their power to infringe and eventually eliminate the rights of their citizens can be elusive and go unaddressed until it may be too late to go back.

An example that could affect potentially half the population of Canada, would be access to abortion and reproductive services. Can these services continue to be viable and protected across Canada? Can they survive the pushback from those who believe that abortion should not be a viable choice for women?

We have seen how Roe Versus Wade, in law for over fifty years in the United States, has been challenged and overruled as each state sets its agenda. The question that still begs an answer on this side of the border is whether this could happen here.

Up until 1988, inducing an abortion in Canada was a crime and, in that year, the Supreme Court struck this ruling down calling it unconstitutional and therefore abortion was decriminalized.
It remains a publicly funded and registered medical procedure under the Canada Health Act. Women do have the Charter right to choose what happens to their bodies.

But there could also be increasing pressures on women to reconsider their decision to have an abortion based on information shared with them which they may not understand or is contrary to their wishes.

Women will seek to undergo an abortion for various reasons, many if not all have arisen from some very dark and unconscionable events. It cannot go without saying that if they are asking for the pregnancy to be terminated, it remains to be a very private matter.

There is always the possibility this choice could be influenced by some who feel she should proceed with the pregnancy, producing confusion and guilt for her even contemplating abortion.

The opioid and mental health crisis are very serious health care issues and solutions on how to treat them in a humane, yet effective program has formed a huge divide with politicians, health care providers and the electorate.

Wherever a voter’s support lies on such crisis or the political party they endorse, looking beyond personal affiliations is key to having enough science-based information available to look beyond political electoral promises.

From a left of centre approach, supervised consumption sites are promoted for homelessness and addiction. Right of centre believe Hart Hubs, which provide safety, treatment and recovery and possible mandatory admission without consent, are the way to treat this crisis.

But voters on both sides of these issues may also share support for both. There is so much to think about. But every vote counts and ultimately the electorate will decide. `

Patricia Baker is a Sault Star district correspondent, columnist and retired Sault Area Hospital nurse

 

Dali Arrives in China to Begin Repairs Eight Months After Baltimore Allison

Dali departed Virginia in September and has now arrived in China for repairs (Thimble Shoals Shipwatching/YouTube)

Published Nov 14, 2024 1:53 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

The containership Dali arrived without incident at China’s Fuzhou Port yesterday, November 13, after a nearly two-month voyage from Norfolk, Virginia. It is nearly eight months since the vessel stepped out of obscurity to become the center of worldwide attention after she destroyed Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key bridge and with a trail of legal entanglements set to run at least until mid-2026.

The nine-year-old containership (116,851 dwt) registered in Singapore traveled empty to China after offloading its containers in Virginia and undergoing initial repairs. Port officials in China emphasized the close coordination required to bring the vessel into port due to the extent of the damage. She continues to have no functioning anchors as one was cut off in Baltimore and the machinery was damaged when the roadway and bridge collapsed onto the bow. The thrusters are also reported to be severely damaged.

The containership is going to the Fujian Huadong Shipyard in the Luoyuan Bay Port Area. According to Chinese media reports, the plan calls for fitting a replacement bow on the vessel. No timeline was given for the repairs.

Last week in Baltimore, U.S. District Court Judge James Bredar released the trial plan and timeline for the first of likely several court cases. The judge has bifurcated the case meaning they will first consider if the vessel’s owners Grace Ocean and operators Synergy Marine will be able to limit liability to approximately $44 million under a 1800s admiralty law. 

Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine while agreeing to a settlement with the U.S. federal government for the $100 million clean-up costs, which were covered by insurance, continue to deny liability for the vessel hitting the bridge. They “expressed rejected” liability when announcing the settlement and said it was not indicative of liability. It has been suggested that they will seek to place a portion of the blame on Maryland and Baltimore for failing to protect the bridge as well as possibly a faulty electrical system design by the ship’s builder Hyundai Heavy Industries. Quietly, Grace Ocean has also paid nearly $100,000 to the U.S. Coast Guard’s pollution fund for oil pollution from the incident.

Judge Bredar compromised between the owners and operator’s lawyers which proposed a January 2027 trial and lawyers for the multitude of claims which were seeking a December 2025 trial. The trial date is now set for June 1, 2026, and it will be a bench trial, meaning it will be decided by the judge without a jury. 

Several key dates were also set including a plan to start taking witness depositions for a week in December 2024 and again in the first half of 2025. Expert witnesses will be scheduled between December 2025 and February 2026. The deadline for additional cargo claims is the end of next week while the deadline for fact discovery was set for July 2025. He anticipates pre-trial in April and May 2026 ahead of the two-week trial in June 2026. 

In earlier hearings, Judge Bredar said his goal was to get the case to “the launching pad for settlement.” If they fail to settle, the June 2026 trial would determine issues such as if the ship was unsafe and lacked a properly trained crew and proper maintenance, all points argued by Maryland and other claimants. The second phase would seek to portion the liability and award the potential claims which range from Maryland which is seeking the replacement cost of the bridge to Baltimore which cites the economic impacts, individual businesses affected, and the families of the six victims.

 

The Man Who Can Help Trump Bring Peace to Korea

by Kyle Anzalone Posted onNovember 12, 2024

Columbia Professor of Genetics Joseph D. Terwilliger has an exceptional resume. Along with his post at an elite institution, he is an accomplished tuba player, speaks a multitude of languages, has traveled to nearly every country on Washington’s official enemies list, and served as translator for NBA legend Dennis Rodman when he traveled to North Korea to meet with Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un.

So, how did Terwilliger translate the conversation between two of the most fascinating people on the planet?

Part of the story involves his career as a geneticist. He spent years teaching at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. Unlike the perception most Americans have of North Koreans, Joe speaks highly of the people and paints a picture distinctly different from the Kim-run death cult that is often presented.

The other part involves Terwilliger making a $2,500 gamble. After Rodman made his first trip to North Korea, Joe saw an opportunity.

Terwilliger was in North Korea during Rodman’s first visit. He told the Libertarian Institute that he witnessed the students “[rethinking] their stereotypes about Americans” because Rodman was willing to say positive things about their country.

So, Joe won a game of HORSE against Dennis with a $2,500 silent auction bid. There, he and Rodman discussed a return visit to North Korea.

“[The] hope was to engage Kim Jong Un to try and build a relationship based on trust,” a mission Joe believes he was able to accomplish. “When we took the basketball players to [North Korea on Kim’s] birthday, [the supreme leader] remarked that we were the first Americans that ever kept their word.”

During Donald Trump’s first presidency, he showed a willingness to break with long-established policy in Washington, which has insisted that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons before any talks can begin.

Of course, Kim would never give up his nuclear arsenal, as it serves as a deterrent to an attack from the United States. But that does not mean relations with the DPRK could not improve.

In 2018, Trump and Kim met in Singapore and signed a deal meant to create a roadmap for a more substantial agreement in Hanoi the next year. During the second summit, rather than present Kim with a peace deal, Trump allowed his ultra-hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton to sabotage the talks.

Bolton exploited his position at the table to demand North Korea follow the “Libya-model” of denuclearization. Invoking Libya as an example raised immediate red flags for Kim, as the long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was subjected to a regime change by NATO and roadside execution after giving up his nuclear program.

Terwilliger said the examples of Libya and Iraq were recounted to him by Kim during his trip to North Korea. “Kim told me Gaddafi gave up his nukes in exchange for security guarantees, and then we killed Gaddafi. [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussien] let nuclear inspectors in – they found nothing – and we killed Saddam anyway.”

He added that Kim further recounted that Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state, harbored Osama bin Laden, and the U.S. did not go to war with Islamabad.

Trump made a historic trip to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to again shake hands with Kim in 2019. Unfortunately, by this late date Trump was unable to turn the summit into a more substantial diplomatic effort.

For the past four years, the world has been subject to the dictates of the feeble Joe Biden and his inept staff, who have attempted to cover up the president’s weakness by waging war across the globe.

In the Asia-Pacific, Biden returned to the previous policy of refusing to engage with Pyongyang unless Kim forfeited his nukes.

However, Biden was also committed to Trump and Barack Obama’s military buildup targeting China. That policy calls to create more alliances between the United States and Asia-Pacific nations for a future war with the People’s Republic.

While Washington claims the blocs have no hostile intentions, Beijing and Pyongyang see the growing military presence near their waters as a significant threat.

Combined with the mistake of refusing to engage with Kim, Biden also sought to isolate Russia from the rest of the world as punishment for President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Predictably, this only pushed Moscow to form closer relations with its Asian neighbors. During the Biden administration, Putin has significantly strengthened Russia’s military ties with both North Korea and China.

With the recent pact between Pyongyang and Moscow – which includes a mutual defense agreement – is it too late for the United States to make a deal with North Korea? Tensions have steadily increased with hundreds of missile tests, dueling war games near the border, and frequent American deployments of nuclear-capable weapons platforms to the Korean Peninsula.

Donald Trump has pledged to end wars, not start them. If he wants to be a peacemaker, why not start in Korea?

Terwilliger believes there is an opportunity for diplomacy, and he could be just the man to do the job. He is one of the very few people in the West who knows Kim personally. Joe is a libertarian who is dedicated to peace. His familiarity with North Korea, gained from his years of teaching there as well as his knowledge of the Korean language, make the perfect combination to ink a heretofore elusive deal with the DPRK.

“I think they mistrust us, but trust building is needed, and there is a personal relationship Trump and I have with the North Koreans that can be used for good.” Terwilliger emphasized, “The objective should be exchange of ambassadors, end of war treaty and an agreement about peaceful coexistence of North and South Korea without the baggage of unification issues or denuclearization.”

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

Top Trump White House pick has strong view on Canada's government. It's not flattering

Trump's reported choice for national security adviser can't wait to see the Liberals lose next election

Alexander Panetta · CBC News · Posted: Nov 11, 202

Mike Waltz, seen speaking during the Republican convention in July, is reportedly Donald Trump's pick for national security advisor. (Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• X
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

The man reportedly tapped for the top international role inside the Trump White House isn't just predicting the defeat of Canada's Trudeau government: He's celebrating it.

Mike Waltz has a vast digital footprint on international issues in his six years as a congressman, following careers in business, defence policy, and as a decorated special-forces veteran.

He's been selected by Donald Trump for the powerful position of national security adviser in the next White House, a multitude of U.S. media outlets reported Monday evening, though Trump did not publicly comment on any of these reports.

His online commentary emphasizes his view that U.S. allies must pull their weight on security issues, including with regards to China, which he views as a serious national-security threat.

Waltz predicts Liberals will lose next election

His unflattering opinion of the Trudeau government is manifest in a string of social media comments over the years, including one happily predicting its demise in the next election.

Earlier this year, he posted a video from Canada's question period where opposition leader Pierre Poilievre ridiculed Trudeau's housing policies.

• Analysis
  With Trump's return, another wave of uncertainty washes over Canadian politics

• Trudeau and Trump discuss trade, security issues in post-election phone call

"This guy is going to send Trudeau packing in 2025 (finally) and start digging Canada out of the progressive mess it's in," Waltz posted on the X social media platform.

"His trolling of Trudeau's nonsense worth a watch!"

Waltz's criticisms of Trudeau were frequently related to China.

He called Trudeau shameful for abstaining from a vote on Chinese genocide of Muslim Uyghurs. He referred in different social media posts to China interfering in Canada's elections. 

"This is a MASSIVE scandal," he said in one post. 

He lamented Trudeau's government allowing the sale of a lithium mine to a Chinese-state owned entity. This was two years ago, and Canada has since moved to boot those Chinese state owners from certain critical-minerals sites.

Waltz also complained about Chinese donors pledging $1 million to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and reportedly wanting to erect a statue of the first Chinese communist leader outside a Montreal university.

The Florida congressman has other connections to Canada.

His other Canadian connection: pipeline business

His wife, Julia Nesheiwat, is a vice president for Calgary-based TC Energy Corp.; it's the energy company formerly known as TransCanada, builder of the ill-fated Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Waltz's social media posts are now a window into a substantive reality awaiting Canada on Jan. 20, when the new administration takes office.

• Analysis
  Canada, prepare for the big squeeze. Trump will press on several sensitive fronts

• Federal government would have to double military spending to meet NATO target

The Trump team is expected to press, aggressively, for allies including Canada to take defence spending and security more seriously.

This will unfold amid threats from Trump to punish all countries, including allies, with trade measures including a minimum 10 per cent tariff on imports.

Canada's argument against those tariffs is expected to include the point that it is a contributor to U.S. security — as a supplier of oil, and potentially minerals, that lessen American dependence on overseas countries, including China.

It's an argument Waltz would presumably know well — given his personal connection to TC Energy. 

Waltz also delivered a shoutout to former prime minister Stephen Harper at an international gathering of conservatives in 2022.

His comments about the next Canadian election point to another dynamic looming over the coming months: The question of whether Canada-U.S. talks on sensitive issues, like tariffs and defence spending, will happen mostly before or after Canada's election. 

Waltz: NATO allies need to 'step up' defence spending

Waltz holds standard Republican views on some international issues.

He was passionately supportive of helping Ukraine, certainly in the aftermath of Russia's invasion, but, as his party grew more skeptical, he echoed that sentiment.

He's mocked NATO allies for doing the bare minimum in meeting defence spending commitments.

Waltz joked in one post about European countries meeting the two per cent spending target, saying it was like "congratulating the F student on getting a D. We need our allies to step up, instead of letting them off and making American taxpayers foot the bill!"

His track record of commenting on Canada dwarfs that of the rumoured next secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio.

In the past, Rubio has frequently mentioned working with Canada in a failed attempt to isolate Venezuela's Maduro government.

That said, he did express his disgust with how warmly Trudeau eulogized Fidel Castro after the Cuban dictator's death in 2016.

• 'Grueling and arduous': A look back at Canada-U.S. relations during the first Trump presidency

"Is this a real statement or a parody?" Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants, tweeted at the time. "Because if this is a real statement from the PM of Canada it is shameful & embarrassing."

Another nominee for a senior role is even better versed on Canadian issues.

Lawmaker Elise Stefanik, tapped to be Trump's UN ambassador, serves in a border district in New York, is knowledgeable on cross-border files, and used to co-lead a congressional group focused on Canadian affairs before rising to national prominence as an aggressive Trump defender.