The Maple Monitor 7: Canada–U.S. Rift, Carney’s Asia Pivot, and a China Reset
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/27
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Tsukerman unpack Canada’s escalating spat with Washington after a $75M ad lambasted Trump, coinciding with his abrupt exit from trade talks. Tsukerman frames the ad as a convenient pretext: a face-saving door-slam that squandered U.S. leverage and nudged Ottawa toward Beijing. With Mark Carney courting Asian partners, the pair parse whether murmurs of a Canada–China “reset” are really an escalation of a long tilt. They revisit Reagan-versus-MAGA trade history and the political theatrics at play. Bottom line: tariffs, ego, and misused leverage risk fracturing North American cooperation while expanding China’s influence.rebuild a viable middle class.
Interview conducted October 24, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now we can jump to Canada for The Maple Monitor.
Irina Tsukerman: Oh, Canada.
Jacobsen: We have trade friction with the U.S., a flashpoint, a token for a war shot here, and a U.S.-targeted advertising campaign. He used, in a 1987 Ronald Reagan speech, a reference to another series we did this week. Trump expounded, “We’re going to terminate trade with Canada.” The ad campaign cost $75 million Canadian, which is approximately $55 million American. Premier Ford has said he will rescind the ad. This is all… this is like a combination.
So, to give context to non-Canadians, this is entirely in character for that family. I’m not just talking about the family—this has torn apart the relationship in trade talks so far. So, to give some preliminary context, and then I’ll lean into the meat of what we’re going to talk about today.
It sounds like an American politician to me, and the reaction was very American. It sounds ridiculous, completely overblown, and inappropriate—and it also sounds like an excuse Trump was looking for to withdraw from those talks. The proportionality of the cost of this ad versus what’s at stake is literally a fraction. It makes no sense, and it’s not serious.
Tsukerman: What’s very interesting to me is what no one is pointing out, which is that Trump had promised the American voting base to make basically 90 deals in 90 days, or something like that. Meanwhile, he couldn’t even deliver to Canada. So I’m thinking that, because trade talks were not going the way he wanted, he needed to find a way to exit with his head held high—to make it look like he was leaving from a position of strength, slamming the door on his way out. This ad gave him the excuse to do it.
It’s so petty and ridiculous—it’s very Trumpian—but I do think there’s a practical reason for it: to escape while he could, and then have an excuse for why he didn’t deliver anything at all. “Oh, well, the Canadians made me do it. They did this terrible thing.” Somebody else is to blame. The people he’s been attacking and claiming he wants to dominate are, somehow, to blame for his own childish reaction to an ad that was entirely truthful and accurate to begin with.
The other issue, of course, is likely his own ego. He felt insulted that Reagan was being compared favorably to him. Trump has been trying to corrupt and hijack Reagan’s legacy in every way, and he was being called out for it. His bluff was called, and I think he had to make himself scarce before it got any further.
Jacobsen: Now to what is basically Carney—or Mr. Carney—following up on his statement that made him famous: “The 80-year relationship is over—economic, intelligence ties, everything.” This is punctuation on that former state. So this is the arc we’re seeing for this relationship. He’s visiting Asia, looking for new alliances and trying to reduce dependence on the United States—at least on the U.S. under President Trump. He’s looking at diversification in the Philippines, Malaysia, naturally South Korea and Japan. Carney, May, Li Qiang, Xi Jinping, Theresa—Canada–China relations. I suspect that how that goes — whether they meet or not — will depend on whether Trump and Xi meet, because trade and other things are intertwined.
Tsukerman: Trump had an opportunity with Carney to put significant pressure on him to fix the issues the U.S. is unhappy with in Canada—weakness on terrorism, border security concerns, fentanyl, and so on—all these things the U.S. could have used as leverage. Instead, now Carney has an excuse not to do anything about any of those things. Trump could have used this to push Canada away from China, even Carney. Politically, it was a mistake for Trump to alienate his own conservative counterpart. And even with Carney in office, he could still have leveraged that relationship meaningfully. Instead, he’s essentially given it up completely.
So all the things that Trump does not like about Canada are about to get much worse precisely because there is now no one to stop Carney from doing whatever he wants, in whatever way he wants. And China is certainly not going to stop him. China will be encouraging these moves because what is bad for the U.S. is good for China. Beijing will likely push Carney’s worst instincts and exacerbate all the existing issues in exchange for the perception of independence from the U.S., populist and nationalist talking points vis-à-vis the U.S., and, of course, the economic advantage and stability that Trump is undermining with his tariff policies. If Trump wanted to hand Beijing a gift, he is serving it on a silver platter right now.
At the cost, too, of whatever claims MAGA makes about security, the Monroe Doctrine, the Western Hemisphere, and North America. All of that is falling flat because, instead of using what leverage he has to accomplish meaningful results, he is simply giving up.
Jacobsen: There is speculation among prominent news writers that this meeting, if it happens with President Xi Jinping, could be seen as a reset for Canada–China relations. I will opine here a little—it seems sentimental and idealistic to me. It looks more like a repair process, part one, if anything.
Tsukerman: Well, for a reset, there needs to be something to reset from. I am not aware of any significant policy change since Trudeau’s days. In fact, while Trudeau complained about Chinese interference, he also catered to China both directly and indirectly. Carney has not done anything dramatic to move away from that. There has been a kind of quiet lull of non-development, essentially maintaining the status quo. Maybe Carney will try to be more active in managing the relationship, but that sort of reawakening is not a reset—it is simply doubling down and pursuing a more active, involved policy.
So far, the current line in Canada has been very pro-China, both in direct foreign policy, favouring China, and indirectly, by creating an environment that allows China to expand its influence more than it probably should. Whether through fentanyl smuggling into the U.S., political interference, espionage, or simply undercutting relations with the U.S. and redrawing internal political lines, these issues are ongoing. They have not changed. They may even increase. But that is not a reset—that is an escalation.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 