Project 2025 had a tariff plan, but Trump has gone off script
What this covers
Project 2025 was meant to be a U.S. Republican transition bible, outlining a vast set of proposed policies for the next leader. Within its 900 pages, was a plan to use tariffs to correct a perceived imbalance in trade, and to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. Once U.S. President Donald Trump took office, he endorsed this plan – but then, he went off-book.
Now, other Republicans, and Wall Street, are trying to figure out what the president’s long-term strategy is, and what to do about it.
Today, Tim Kiladze, one of the Globe’s financial reporters, is on the show to tell us about this Project 2025 tariff plan, how Trump suddenly changed course, and why it’s left global economies scrambling.
Subscribe to The Globe and Mail's Morning Update to get stories directly in your inbox: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/newsletters/subscribe-morning-update/
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Trump's tariff implementation has diverged significantly from Project 2025's theoretical framework because he lacks a coherent strategy, fails to anticipate retaliatory responses, and escalates conflicts impulsively, creating economic chaos that most Americans won't feel until mid-2025 but could devastate interconnected global economies.
- Project 2025 provided an academic reciprocal tariff framework, but Trump abandoned measured escalation for unpredictable ratcheting that catches even his own team off-guard
- Trump underestimated that other countries would retaliate (Smoot-Hawley precedent), and when they do, he doubles down rather than negotiates, alienating even conservative business leaders
- Economic pain from tariffs will be delayed 6-9 months due to inventory buffers and price lag, leaving the American public ignorant of consequences until fall 2025
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
The US economy is large and strong enough to likely 'come out as the winner' in a prolonged global tariff war of attrition compared to other countries, but this does not mean the US avoids loss—all countries lose when trade declines due to interconnectedness of modern supply chains.
“it is very likely that if this global trade War goes on and you know there's retaliatory tariffs across the board after April and you know Trump just kind of says I'm not changing so then everybody kind of lets this be the US is big enough and strong enough economically to probably come out as the winner if this goes on as kind of an economic War of Attrition the problem is you can all still lose because there's lower economic activity in General like we are all so interconnected nowadays that you can't live on an island by yourself as a country”
Automakers have publicly opposed Trump's tariff plans because their manufacturing supply chains span Canada, the US, and Mexico, with components crossing borders multiple times during production, making tariffs economically destructive to the industry Trump claims to want to revive.
“there are the public comments that have been made particularly by automakers who's manufacturing Supply chains like span Canada US Mexico and you know I think a lot of people have heard at least anecdotes about how Goods fly across the bow borders multiple times in in the span of making a car so you've had some people saying out loud like this is going to blow up the industry”
Peter Navarro served a four-month prison sentence for defying a congressional subpoena and is viewed by many as a 'wing nut' with radical ideas that 99 out of 100 economists would not advocate for, yet he is able to sell his positions convincingly to Trump.
“for a bit of context here you know he actually just last year served a four-month prison sentence for defying a congressional saprina so he's one of these Trump characters that from the first time around kind of seemed like they just kind of were like in the shadows but also having huge influence on the on the president and to some they're viewed as kind of wing nuts you know like they they have these kind of radical ideas that you know if you put a bunch of Economist in a room like 100 economists in a room 99 out of 100 would never advocate for what he's advocating but yet he sells it in such a strong way that it sounds convincing”
Project 2025 is a transition agenda assembled by the Heritage Foundation designed to prepare a Republican administration for 'day one' of a new presidency, with sections on trade written by Peter Navarro that call for reciprocal tariffs and more aggressive measures on China.
“project 2025 is a transition Bible for a Republican president that's Tim kollatz he's a financial reporter and columnist at the globe and it was set up by the Heritage Foundation which is kind of like a deeply conservative um think tank in Washington”
Manufacturing cannot be shifted back to the US in a year or even a few years—it is a multi-decade process like China's industrial buildup, but Trump is attempting the entire transition in months, creating unrealistic expectations and unnecessary pain.
“you cannot just shift a plant in a year so like what what would they expecting like how do they think this was going to play out...China did it bit by bit takes a long time this is a 20e process and it's like Donald Trump just wants to do it tomorrow and that's where the chaos really stems from”
Peter Navarro advocates for ideas that 99 out of 100 economists would reject, yet he is able to sell his tariff policy as convincing through rhetorical skill.
“if you put a bunch of Economist in a room like 100 economists in a room 99 out of 100 would never advocate for what he's advocating but yet he sells it in such a strong way that it sounds convincing”
China exploited free trade advantages by leveraging low-cost workers to dominate manufacturing over decades, becoming a dominant force in global production, which is the real basis for Trump's tariff argument against free trade.
“Trump is kind of throwing out every economic argument to try to give credit to the administration there China really did exploit this for a long time and had really lowcost workers and American companies were happy to ship their production over there and bit by bit they just became this dominant Force”
Trump administration officials did not anticipate that other countries would implement retaliatory tariffs in response to US tariffs, which is a critical miscalculation given the historical precedent of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs exacerbating the Great Depression through tit-for-tat escalation.
“last week what became apparent to me is one the White House Trump really did not anticipate retaliatory tariffs which is effectively what Canada has done and I think that is why Trump is so pissed off at Canada because if the rest of the world follows our model it's going to cause chaos and that has always been the underlying fear from economists that the White House would never talk about if they dismissed this idea that you know what really exacerbated the Great Depression a 100 years ago in the US as the smooth Holly ter fact they actually erected tariff barriers and the rest of the world replied and it just everything kind of just shut down and it made the pain much worse”
China built its manufacturing dominance incrementally over 20 years through gradual cost advantages and supply chain integration, whereas Trump expects to reverse this and rebuild US manufacturing overnight, creating an unrealistic timeline that explains the chaotic implementation.
“China really did exploit this for a long time and had really lowcost workers and American companies were happy to ship their production over there and bit by bit they just became this dominant Force but I think the difference that the administration is not taking into account is China did it bit by bit takes a long time this is a 20e process and it's like Donald Trump just wants to do it tomorrow and that's where the chaos really stems from”
If a global trade war persists beyond April with continued reciprocal tariffs across all trading partners, the US—despite its economic size—will not emerge as a unilateral winner because all countries lose through reduced economic activity, and global interconnection makes economic isolation impossible.
“it is very likely that if this global trade War goes on and you know there's retaliatory tariffs across the board after April and you know Trump just kind of says I'm not changing so then everybody kind of lets this be the US is big enough and strong enough economically to probably come out as the winner if this goes on as kind of an economic War of Attrition the problem is you can all still lose because there's lower economic activity in General like we are all so interconnected nowadays that you can't live on an island by yourself as a country”
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s exacerbated the Great Depression by erecting tariff barriers that prompted retaliatory tariffs worldwide, shutting down trade and magnifying economic pain—a historical precedent the White House does not acknowledge or appears to discount.
“that has always been the underlying fear from economists that the White House would never talk about if they dismissed this idea that you know what really exacerbated the Great Depression a 100 years ago in the US as the smooth Holly ter fact they actually erected tariff barriers and the rest of the world replied and it just everything kind of just shut down and it made the pain much worse and for some reason they just didn't think that other countries would do it now”
Project 2025's trade section, written by Navarro, proposes two major policy changes: reciprocal tariffs (matching other countries' tariff rates) and more aggressive measures against China, presented in an academically measured tone rather than inflammatory rhetoric.
“when you go and you read it now it's actually pretty thoughtful in that it's not written this with this ridiculous rhetoric that you hear coming out of the president's mouth uh it's very much calm and measured and even if you disagree with it it almost comes across like an academic argument... if you really boil it down there's two major things one is reciprocal tariffs so if someone charges us 10% we're going to charge them 10% and secondly more aggressive measures on China”
The tariff strategy aims to bring manufacturing back to the US, which is a legitimate goal supported by evidence that blue-collar jobs have been 'hollowed out over the years,' and Democrats previously advocated for similar positions, making the tariff rationale partially defensible on job-creation grounds.
“a lot of bluecollar jobs have been hollowed out over the years which again is something Democrats used to talk about and this is part of the argument for tariffs right that want to bring manufacturing back to the states”
The average American public does not understand tariffs and how they work, creating an information gap where voters who supported Trump see only the 'manufacturing jobs will return' message without understanding the economic costs being imposed on them.
“the average American does not understand tariffs...for those who voted for Donald Trump they're only hearing the Snippets of like you know we're bringing manufacturing back and they're like okay cool that's what I wanted you know”
Automakers are particularly concerned because manufacturing supply chains span Canada, US, and Mexico, with goods crossing borders multiple times during assembly, making blanket tariffs on USMCA partners economically destructive to the auto industry that Trump hopes to protect.
“there are the public comments that have been made particularly by automakers who's manufacturing Supply chains like span Canada US Mexico and you know I think a lot of people have heard at least anecdotes about how Goods fly across the bow borders multiple times in in the span of making a car so you've had some people saying out loud like this is going to blow up the industry”
The principle of comparative advantage—that trading partners can mutually benefit by focusing on what they do best—has been established for centuries, but Trump is 'throwing out every economic argument' and ignoring this fundamental principle of international trade.
“the idea of free trade really boils down to something we learned centuries ago which is that if you've got a trading partner both of you can benefit if you focus on what you do best Trump is kind of throwing out every economic argument to try to give credit to the administration there China really did exploit this for a long time”
After Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced electricity tariffs on U.S. imports, Trump tweeted that Canadian tariffs would rise from 25% to 50%, demonstrating his tariff decisions are reactive, impulsive, and broadcast on social media.
“this is when Ontario Premier Doug Ford said okay we're going to put a search charge on electricity we sent to the states and then Trump said all right well now your tariffs are going to be 50% instead of 25% effectively a tweet on trth social”
As stock markets have begun to correct downward due to tariff uncertainty, Trump has shifted his public messaging to a 'no pain no gain' narrative similar to how China frames economic pain as necessary for long-term strength, representing a cultural departure from traditional American economic philosophy.
“and there's been enough chatter about how fake that is in the US um that now it's changing and now that the stock market's starting to correct and fall because investors are like whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa you are diverging so much um and so now the narrative is no pain no gain that type of idea and starting to project this idea that is very similar to be honest to how you know China's leaders talk about you know we need to build for the future and even if that means years of pain you know this will make us stronger in the end and so you have this crazy thing going on where it's that's not the traditional American way but it's also not necessarily wrong”
As tariffs have destabilized markets and the stock market has begun to correct, Trump's public narrative has shifted from specific claims (fentanyl) to a broader 'no pain no gain' ideology similar to how Chinese leaders justify long-term economic pain.
“and now it's changing and now that the stock market's starting to correct and fall because investors are like whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa you are diverging so much um and so now the narrative is no pain no gain that type of idea and starting to project this idea that is very similar to be honest to how you know China's leaders talk about you know we need to build for the future and even if that means years of pain you know this will make us stronger in the end”
Trump's approach to tariffs has significantly diverged from Project 2025, particularly in the case of Canada, where Trump is pursuing tariffs that eliminate compromise and demand 'winning' without accepting negotiated trade-offs that are normally embedded in free trade agreements.
“one of the biggest examples of that sadly for us is Canada to this idea of you know we need to have reciprocal trade and all of that well that is negotiated into the Free Trade Agreement and that is why these things take so long to negotiate because everybody has a side and certain things that they want to protect and so you kind of come to this compromise is what it boils down to and it's like he's saying the compromise can't exist anymore it's like we have to win whatever winning looks like”
There is a divide within the Republican Party between traditional conservative and business-oriented Republicans (like George Bush type Republicans) and Trump's White House circle, where the traditional conservatives and business leaders do not align with Trump despite his party control.
“in the business Community you're hearing this more and more and this is what I kept hearing in Washington about you know the best way I can describe it is that the traditional conservatives and Conservative Business Leaders like they just don't like Trump like within the Republican Party there's the Republicans that you might think of as like kind of the George Bush type Republicans and then there's the White House and the White House is its own bubble it's just it's chaos”
Project 2025's trade section fails to adequately address the real-world political problem of retaliatory tariffs and constituent pain, because it was written as an academic exercise by theorists without experience managing the political fallout when senators must explain tariff-driven job losses to their constituents.
“this is where you have kind of theorists and academics versus real politic or whatever you want to call it because the politics of it all really matter and so somebody down there said to me you know the technocrat crowd have never had to sit in front of a fuming US senator and have to explain like okay you're killing my farmers in my district like what are you guys doing”
The White House made two major miscalculations in implementing tariffs: first, Trump did not anticipate that other countries would impose retaliatory tariffs, which has caused him to blame Canada specifically; and second, the White House underestimated how Trump would escalate in response to retaliation.
“one the White House Trump really did not anticipate retaliatory tariffs which is effectively what Canada has done and I think that is why Trump is so pissed off at Canada because if the rest of the world follows our model it's going to cause chaos”
The average American does not understand tariffs and holds implicit assumptions of 'superpower arrogance,' believing the US can absorb economic pain from tariffs or will simply be immune to it, making them inattentive to actual consequences.
“the average American does not understand tariffs and I met one day with a very you know connected Republican strategist pollster um who have a lot of sway in the US who has some Canadian connections I'll leave it at that just to kind of protect them but they understood the Canadian side of things and I just asked like what is it like how how is this happening and just very calmly they said back to me superpower arrogance wow they just implicitly assume that they can absorb whatever economic pain is coming like or worse that they'll just be immune”
Tariff pain will likely not be felt by the average American for 6-12 months because large companies have pre-emptively stockpiled goods (aluminum, steel, potash for fertilizer), delaying the moment when consumers experience price increases or supply disruptions.
“there's been some kind of a big American companies that that anticipating some of this pain have stockpiled some Goods so maybe some Auto plants already brought in a bunch of aluminum or steel you know what I mean like that kind of thing or Farmers they wanted Canadian pot as which is kind of like a fertilizer for their crops they preloaded that for this year's crop you know so we actually won't feel the pain maybe till next year”
Peter Navarro's Project 2025 trade section is written in calm, measured, and academic language, presenting arguments that are thoughtful rather than rhetoric-driven, making it appear as an intellectual exercise rather than a passionate political manifesto.
“when you go and you read it now it's actually pretty thoughtful in that it's not written this with this ridiculous rhetoric that you hear coming out of the president's mouth uh it's very much calm and measured and even if you disagree with it it almost comes across like an academic argument”
The White House and Trump are focused on winning his 'term' (achieving short-term political wins) rather than thinking about long-term consequences ('how does this look in 10 years'), revealing a fundamental mismatch between the time horizon of political incentives and the time horizon of economic restructuring.
“I don't know if the white house or the president is even thinking that way they're so focused on getting his win for his term that there's not thinking about like well in 10 years from now like how does this look”
There is a distinction between theorists/academics (who created Project 2025) and political realities: academics don't face political pressure from constituents when their policies cause pain, whereas politicians and policymakers do.
“this is where you have kind of theorists and academics versus real politic or whatever you want to call it because the politics of it all really matter and so somebody down there said to me you know the technocrat crowd have never had to sit in front of a fuming US senator and have to explain like okay you're killing my farmers in my district like what are you guys doing you know”
There is a possibility that Congress could take control of tariff policy away from the White House through fiscal policy mechanisms, but Republican senators have largely not resisted Trump's plans so far, and resistance likely requires constituent pain before senators feel politically empowered to push back.
“whether it actually plays out don't know because so far you know like for instance Republican Senators have been very happy to just kind of go along with most of his plans...I think what's going to come down to is waiting for their constituents to feel pain to then give feedback to the Senators and then they kind of feel like they have the ammo to say Mr President this is not working”
By the end of the week following Canadian retaliatory measures, Canadian officials including Ontario Premier Doug Ford traveled to the US and adopted a de-escalatory tone at press conferences, indicating a strategic shift to managing Trump through careful messaging rather than direct pushback.
“so I think what you're seeing play out now is you know during last week by the end of the week the Canadian officials flew down Doug Ford including you know our finance minister Etc and afterwards like I was at the press conference at the Canadian embassy and everyone was projecting calm it was just like we had a great meeting”
Trump's tariff threats include references to the 51st state and similar language that inflame Canadian public opinion, making it impossible for Canadian politicians to be measured in response because they will be punished politically if they appear too conciliatory to an American public making annexation jokes.
“they don't understand that because the Canadian public is so pissed off particularly because of like the 51st state comments and things of that sort our politicians even if they want to be super measured they can't be that much because then they'll go offside with the Canadian public”
Ontario Premier Doug Ford held a press conference to explicitly deny rumors of American military attack and state there is no threat, indicating that Canadian leadership felt compelled to address war anxiety among the public.
“on Tuesday Ontario Premier Doug Ford gave this press conference which was kind of like an update saying you know there is no attack they are not coming he he directly said something to that effect cuz I think they realized that we really need to tone down this rhetoric so that we can have more kind of calm discussions”
Multiple insiders and people involved in writing Project 2025 have told Tim Kollatz that the White House does not have a coherent grand strategy, despite investors hoping there was one hidden beneath the chaos.
“the worst part is no one knows and the big piece of feedback I got and this is from somebody who wrote part of project 2025 do not think that they have a plan like I want to caution you from thinking that there is a grand strategy because I think a lot of investors in particular until very recently were thinking that for all the chaos look through it look look through the noise and there's a strategy here”
Trump voters are primarily hearing a simplified narrative that 'we're bringing manufacturing back' without understanding the actual mechanisms of tariffs or the downstream consequences, which is why the tariff policy has political support despite its economic logic problems.
“for those who voted for Donald Trump they're only hearing the Snippets of like you know we're bringing manufacturing back and they're like okay cool that's what I wanted you know”
Sources from Project 2025 writers have told the speaker that the White House should NOT be thought to have a grand strategy, and investors who believe tariff chaos conceals a hidden strategy are mistaken—there is likely no coherent plan.
“the big piece of feedback I got and this is from somebody who wrote part of project 2025 do not think that they have a plan like I want to caution you from thinking that there is a grand strategy because I think a lot of investors in particular until very recently were thinking that for all the chaos look through it look look through the noise and there's a strategy here”
Project 2025's trade section does not adequately address or plan for retaliatory tariffs, treating them only as an afterthought, revealing a gap between academic theorizing and real political consequences.
“if you go back to project 2025 to my point about how it's kind of like an academic exercise that stuff isn't in there or if it's in there it's like so breezed past um and this is where you have kind of theorists and academics versus real politic or whatever you want to call it”
Trump's tariff policies have diverged significantly from Project 2025's framework, particularly evident in his treatment of Canada, where he rejected negotiated compromises embedded in the Free Trade Agreement and demanded unilateral winning without reciprocal agreement.
“one of the biggest examples of that sadly for us is Canada to this idea of you know we need to have reciprocal trade and all of that well that is negotiated into the Free Trade Agreement and that is why these things take so long to negotiate because everybody has a side and certain things that they want to protect and so you kind of come to this compromise is what it boils down to and it's like he's saying the compromise can't exist anymore it's like we have to win whatever winning looks like”
The speaker predicts tariff pain may not arrive until September (months away), which is 'horrifying' because policy consequences will not manifest until then, leaving the public angry and bewildered in the interim without understanding what is happening to them.
“I think we all need to breathe like it may not be until September which is horrifying...we're all sitting here kind of just like bitter angry and completely understandably SO waiting like when are they going to realize what's going on”
There is a stark difference in public perception and discourse between the US and Canada regarding Trump's tariffs, with Canadians discussing potential military conflict and conscription while Americans remain largely disengaged, reflecting asymmetric threat perception and communication breakdown.
“there's an incredible difference right now between the discussions in the US versus what is happening in Canada... in the Tim Horton line and they said to me would you join the military if they attacked... her son has asked her like do you think there'll be a draft... Canadians are flying to the US could feel almost like flying Behind Enemy Lines or something like it was like what's going on down here within like 3 hours I was like no one here is talking about Canada”
Trump administration officials are now managing Trump publicly to prevent escalation (keeping him 'un-inflamed') rather than following a coherent strategy, with backchannels requesting other countries not provoke him, while market reactions indicate a perception of miscalculation among White House advisors like Treasury Secretary Howard Lutnick.
“I think the back Channel now is very much like please guys don't inflame him meaning Mr Trump and I can work with you because if things get too inflamed then he gets inflamed and then I this is either lutnick or somebody around Trump has to kind of manage him publicly plus the markets are now you know investors are now speaking so there's a lot you're seeing more news coming out of Washington about the White House is miscalculating you know there's a piece in political about how Howard lutnick is effectively been a disaster so far”
Congressional Republican Senators have not meaningfully resisted Trump's tariff policies despite public concerns, suggesting political deference to Trump will only change once constituents feel economic pain and feedback reaches them, enabling them to claim mandate for resistance.
“Republican Senators have been very happy to just kind of go along with most of his plans if you look even now just kind of the confirmation hearings and some of the more radical politicians or or secretaries that have been confirmed they haven't stood up to him so I think what's going to come down to is waiting for their constituents to feel pain to then give feedback to the Senators and then they kind of feel like they have the ammo to say Mr President this is not working okay”
Large American companies have begun stockpiling goods (aluminum, steel, potash fertilizer) in anticipation of tariff impacts, which delays the real economic pain felt by consumers and workers until late 2025 or possibly 2026, creating a lag between policy implementation and voter realization of consequences.
“there's been some kind of a big American companies that that anticipating some of this pain have stockpiled some Goods so maybe some Auto plants already brought in a bunch of aluminum or steel you know what I mean like that kind of thing or Farmers they wanted Canadian pot as which is kind of like a fertilizer for their crops they preloaded that for this year's crop you know so we actually won't feel the pain maybe till next year”
Ontario Premier Doug Ford held a press conference explicitly denying that the US was attacking Canada or that military action was imminent, because he recognized that Canadians were so angry about the tariff threats and '51st state' comments that Canadian politicians had to soothe fears to enable calm diplomatic negotiations.
“because the Canadian public is so pissed off particularly because of like the 51st state comments and things of that sort our politicians even if they want to be super measured they can't be that much because then they'll go offside with the Canadian public...Ontario Premier Doug Ford gave this press conference which was kind of like an update saying you know there is no attack they are not coming he he directly said something to that effect cuz I think they realized that we really need to tone down this rhetoric”
There is a stark difference in public discourse and concern between the US and Canada, with Canadians deeply worried about military confrontation (asking if they would join the military if attacked, worrying about a draft), while Americans are not thinking about Canada and remain largely unaware of tariff impacts.
“there's an incredible difference right now between the discussions in the US versus what is happening in Canada...before I went down one of my colleagues here at work we were talking we went to Tim Horton's it was the most Canadian thing in a way we went to Tim Horton pick up a coffee I remember we were in the Tim Horton line and they said to me would you join the military if they attacked wow so it's that level of conversation and this is happening a lot another an editor here her son is in University she just told me that her son has asked her like do you think there'll be a draft”
The White House and Trump are focused on achieving a political win within his term rather than considering long-term economic consequences 10 years out, suggesting a time horizon mismatch between political incentives and economic sustainability.
“I don't know if the white house or the president is even thinking that way they're so focused on getting his win for his term that there's not thinking about like well in 10 years from now like how does this look”
Tim's primary prediction is that meaningful tariff consequences won't be politically salient until September 2025 or later, and he would 'like to go into a sleep chamber for 6 months' because real pain is inevitable in the interim but without corresponding political recalibration.
“my big takeaway from it all has been we got to give it time which is so unfortunate because it's going to there's going to be real pain in in the meantime but I keep saying I wanted just go into a sleep chamber for 6 months because I I don't think anything's going to drastically change until you know the average American person feels some pain”
Reports from Washington indicate that Howard Lutnick has been 'a disaster' in his role implementing tariff policy, and critical reporting in Politico suggests the White House is miscalculating tariff strategy, indicating emerging internal criticism within the administration.
“there's a piece in political about how Howard lutnick is effectively been a disaster so far so like the knives are out”
Steel and aluminum tariffs represent Trump's strongest commitment to Project 2025-aligned policy, because Trump has backed down from other threats (like autos) but doubled down on steel and aluminum, which aligns with Navarro's argument about rebuilding manufacturing capacity for defense and Western alliance support.
“I think the real shift to be honest was the steel and aluminum tariffs because for so many of the threats he's made so far he would kind of back off... but then steel and aluminum came and it was just like no we are not backing down... Peter Navaro does talk about needing to rebuild America's kind of manufacturing base for things like steel so that he says we need to uh be able to manufacture Machinery like War Machinery basically so that we can defend our Western allies if they are attacked”
Canadian politicians cannot publicly appear measured or conciliatory toward Trump, even if they prefer diplomacy, because the Canadian public is mobilized by Trump's '51st state' rhetoric and other inflammatory comments, forcing politicians to match public anger or face political consequences.
“the Canadian public is so pissed off particularly because of like the 51st state comments and things of that sort our politicians even if they want to be super measured they can't be that much because then they'll go offside with the Canadian public you know it all kind of becomes this game”
Media and political sources indicate that Howard Lutnick, likely Trump's Secretary of Commerce, has been 'effectively a disaster' in his handling of trade policy, with 'the knives out' among Washington insiders regarding his competence.
“there's a lot you're seeing more news coming out of Washington about the White House is miscalculating you know there's a piece in political about how Howard lutnick is effectively been a disaster so far so like the knives are out”
The April 2nd reciprocal tariff announcement was presented as a structured framework investors could plan around, but it now appears to be a false signal—the White House doesn't actually have a coherent reciprocal tariff plan, and the date was set more as procedural theater than as implementation of a real policy.
“there was also like an official White House memorandum that went out about studying these reciprocal tariffs and on April 2nd everybody's going to kind of find out what their number is that's that's how it's being conveyed so people were clinging on to that but then more and more madness was happening and now people are realizing like maybe this is not like maybe there is no strategy here”
Within the Republican Party and business community, there is a divide between traditional conservatives and Bush-era Republicans who are skeptical of Trump, and the White House bubble which operates in chaos, suggesting institutional fracture within the Republican coalition.
“in the business Community you're hearing this more and more and this is what I kept hearing in Washington about you know the best way I can describe it is that the traditional conservatives and Conservative Business Leaders like they just don't like Trump like within the Republican Party there's the Republicans that you might think of as like kind of the George Bush type Republicans and then there's the White House and the White House is its own bubble it's just it's chaos”
Manica Rammén Wims is the host of 'The Deciel' from the Globe and Mail, a Canadian news program discussing Trump's tariff policy.
“I'm manica rammen welms and this is the deciel from the globe and mail”
Project 2025 is a transition agenda prepared by the Heritage Foundation for a Republican president, outlining plans for the next administration's first days in office.
“project 2025 is a transition Bible for a Republican president... it was set up by the Heritage Foundation which is kind of like a deeply conservative um think tank in Washington... they assembled this agenda that they called something prepared by and for conservatives who will be ready on day one of the next Administration to save our country”
Peter Navarro, who served in the first Trump Administration and advocated for aggressive tariffs, wrote the dominant trade policy section of Project 2025 and recently completed a four-month prison sentence for defying a congressional subpoena.
“the dominant section on trade is written by Peter Navarro um he was the one in the first Trump Administration who advocated for more aggressive tariffs or tariffs of any sort um to kind of rebalance trade in favor of the US... he actually just last year served a four-month prison sentence for defying a congressional saprina”
Project 2025 was discussed extensively during the 2024 US presidential campaign but tariff policy specifically was not emphasized in that public discourse, allowing Trump to implement tariffs with less pre-election accountability.
“I think most of us remember hearing about project 2025 it came up a lot during the US presidential election campaign last year but not really when it comes to trade and tariff policy”