Canada Dunked on Trump. Politely

Summary

---

Podcast Episode Summary: "Canada Dunked on Trump. Politely"

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Host: The Bulwark (JVL and Tim Miller)
Date: October 25, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into a recent diplomatic dust-up caused by an ad from the Ontario government, which used archival audio from President Ronald Reagan to criticize protectionist trade policies—policies associated with former President Donald Trump. The hosts, JVL and Tim Miller, explore the American response—particularly from Trump, the Reagan Foundation, and conservative circles—and discuss the ideological and cultural signals at play. The conversation also raises questions about legacy, political opportunism, and the shifting meaning of "Reaganism" in today's GOP.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Scene: The Ontario Ad and the Fallout

• Recap of the Ad: Ontario's government ran a TV ad during a baseball game, using Ronald Reagan's audio denouncing tariffs and protectionist policies, implying criticism toward Trump’s trade approach.

  • Reagan quote in ad (01:00-01:58):

    "High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse [...] the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition." — Ronald Reagan

• Trump’s Reaction:

  • "The President of the United States cut off all trade negotiations with Canada as a result. He didn't like this." (01:58)
  • The hosts note the overreaction, especially since the ad was from the Ontario government, not the federal Canadian government.
  • Tim speculates Trump may not know the difference between Ontario and Ottawa, or simply doesn't care for such specifics.
    • "Ontario kind of sounds like Ottawa, you know...maybe it was actually Canada. I don't think...he probably didn't take the time to really concern himself with the particulars." — Tim Miller [02:26]

2. The Reagan Foundation’s Legal Threat

• Foundation Pushback:

  • The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation issued a statement condemning the use of Reagan's audio, claiming it was "selective" and "misrepresented" (03:00-03:44).
  • The hosts note the loaded language ("selective and misrepresented") and question what exactly was misrepresented.
    • "I read that statement...and I'm still trying to figure out what was the misrepresentation, exactly." — Tim Miller [03:44]

• Implications for Media and Political Ads:

  • The Reagan Foundation's logic implies you cannot excerpt public political statements for ads or editorial use, drawing a tongue-in-cheek comparison to the Trump-era demands that "60 Minutes" air full, unedited interviews if Trump dislikes the edit.
    • "The new standard in the Trump administration now is: I guess, if you're going to use audio or video of something that a politician said, you mustn't use the entirety of that video, or else you might be liable to lawsuit. In particular, if the video is something that Donald Trump doesn't like." — Tim Miller [04:19]

3. The Intra-Conservative Tensions on Reagan’s Legacy

• Reagan vs. Trumpism:

  • The hosts point out the oddity that the Reagan Foundation appears to be protecting Reagan's image in a way that aligns with Trump's preferences, despite Reagan's clear stance against tariffs.
    • "The way to protect Reagan’s legacy is to somehow represent as if Reagan would agree with Trump today." — JVL [06:25]

• Trump's Selective Respect for Reagan:

  • Trump’s hostility toward most recent presidents contrasts with his deference to Reagan, an outlier noted by the hosts.
    • "Ronald Reagan seems to be the only US President that Trump is not comfortable saying is a sucker and a loser." — JVL [07:00]
  • They discuss whether this is unique to Reagan or if Kennedy enjoys some similar immunity.

• The MAGA Movement’s Ideological Dissonance:

  • JVL highlights the contradiction: Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, and MAGA’s broader project are actively anti-Reaganite, pushing "state nationalism" over free-market ideology.

    "His running mate, J.D. Vance, is a critic of zombie Reaganism. The entire idea of MAGA is that we've got to get over it, it's stupid and it's wrong, and we gotta do something different...it doesn't add up." — JVL [07:40]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Reagan Foundation’s statement:

  • "There's a couple words in there that caught my ear: selective and misrepresented...what was the misrepresentation, exactly?" — Tim Miller [03:44]

• On the media implications:

  • "The new standard in the Trump administration...you must use the entirety of that video unless you're liable to lawsuit—in particular, if the video is something that Donald Trump doesn't like or he thinks hurts him." — Tim Miller [04:19]

• On Trump's unique deference to Reagan:

  • "Ronald Reagan seems to be the only US President that Trump is not comfortable saying is a sucker and a loser." — JVL [07:00]

• On the broader ideological tangle:

  • "His running mate, J.D. Vance, is a critic of zombie Reaganism. Right. Like there's a whole move...the entire idea of MAGA is that this zombie Reaganism, we gotta get over it..." — JVL [07:40]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:30 — Introduction and ad context
• 00:57-01:58 — Ontario’s ad playing Reagan's anti-tariff remarks
• 01:58-02:42 — Trump reacts, host analysis of the diplomatic overreaction
• 02:42-05:41 — Reagan Foundation's statement and hosts' parsing of "misrepresentation"
• 05:43-06:26 — Discussion of the logic and ideological positioning of the Reagan Foundation
• 06:26-08:17 — Triangulating Trump, Reagan, and MAGA: ideological and rhetorical tensions

---

Tone & Takeaways

• The episode is sharp, bemused, and laced with a dry sense of irony. The hosts riff on both the legal absurdity and the symbolism of the episode—pointing to deeper identity struggles within modern American conservatism.
• Instead of a coherent ideological defense, they discern opportunism, confusion, and culture-war reflexes dominating each actor's response.

---

Summary for the Uninitiated:
If you missed this episode, you’ll walk away understanding how a 1980s Reagan speech unexpectedly reignited American-Canadian tensions in 2025, exposed fissures in Republican identity, and prompted a surreal series of reactions from Trump and the Reagan Foundation—each more revealing in their confusion than in any substantive argument over tariffs.

---

Transcript

[A]

At Energy Trust of Oregon, we understand that energy isn't just what happens when you flip a switch. It's what happens afterwards. It's a home that can provide both shelter and peace of mind. It's a business that can run more efficiently and keep their dream alive. And it's communities that can thrive today and flourish tomorrow. That's energy. And that's why we partner with local utility companies to help you save energy and lower costs. For cash incentives and resources that can help power your life, visit energytrust.org hey.

[B]

Everyone, it's JVL here with Tim Miller of the Bulwark. And our friends in Canada caused some trouble the other day. They the government of Ontario ran an ad during a baseball game in which they used audio of President Ronald Reagan talking about why tariffs were a bad idea and why fake patriots like to claim that they bring prosperity. But they don't. They actually kill jobs and. And slow down economies. Tim, let's start out by listening to the ad.

[C]

Would love to.

[D]

When someone says let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works, but only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. Throughout the world, there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. America's jobs and growth are at stake.

[B]

So we've had some fallout since then, Tim. First of all, the President of the United States cut off all trade negotiations with Canada as a result. He didn't like this.

[C]

Seems kind of dramatic.

[B]

Doesn't like seeing things on t. Now, keep in mind, it wasn't the government of Canada that ran the ad. It was the government of Ontario. So I guess he thinks the prime minister of Canada should have the power to prevent the head of the Ontario government from running ads that have free.

[C]

I think yes. I think yes, he thinks that or he's not really sure. Ontario kind of sounds like Ottawa, you know, so maybe it was the capital and maybe it was actually Canada. I don't think that he's. My guess is he probably didn't take the time to. To really concern himself with the particulars.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. But what I want to dig into is an intra conservative question here because we then had the Reagan foundation rush out and here's what they said. The Ronald Reagan Presidential foundation and Institute learned that the government of Ontario, Canada created an ad campaign using selective audio and video of President Ronald Reagan delivering his radio address to the nation on free and Fair Trade, dated April 25, 1987. The ad misrepresents the presidential radio address, and the government of Ontario did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks. The Ronald Reagan Presidential foundation and Institute is reviewing its legal options in this matter. So the Reagan Foundation's position seems to be that the government of Ontario can't use words that the Ronald Reagan said.

[C]

In our radio address. That's interesting. There's a couple words in there that caught my ear. Selective and misrepresented. Yes, because they don't. I read that statement and then I read it the second time. Now you just read it to me. So I've heard it three times and I'm still trying to figure out which. Exactly. What was the misrepresentation? Exactly. And I can't quite figure that out. The selective, I guess, is the only answer to that, which is that they chose just a point portion of a longer radio address. And so that to me, just does bring something to mind. Which is the 60 minutes long.

[B]

Yes, right. Yeah.

[D]

Right.

[C]

Which is that like now. Yeah. The new standard on the in the Trump administration now is, I guess if you're going to use audio or video of something that a politician said, you mustn't use the entirety of that video or else you might be liable to lawsuit. And you must use the entirety of that video unless you reliable to lawsuit. In particular, if the video is something that Donald Trump doesn't like or he thinks hurts him. Right.

[B]

Only if not.

[C]

Yeah, only. Right. So 60 Minutes, you know, had to use the entirety of the Kamala Harris interview because Donald Trump was under the impression it was bad. And so her, you know, it's kind of convoluted still why Barry L's new boss settled with him. But like, I guess that, you know, in some way that he felt damaged by that in this case, who's the.

[B]

Old boss that settled the old.

[C]

Right. Yeah. Oh, well, I guess still there. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess that is true. There's some overlap outside. Come in. There hasn't been. We all know why renunciation. We all know why it happened. Yeah. Okay, good. Good flag, though. We want to be accurate. And, and so that is, I guess, true here where the Ronald Reagan library wanted Ontario. And you're only allowed to do 60 second ads on TV.

[B]

Yeah, well, I mean, that's a problem, isn't it?

[C]

And so I guess they want them there, the entire radio address, something like that.

[B]

So here's what's interesting. If you go and listen to the. The actual full address, there's nothing misleading. It turns out that Ronald Reagan was against tariffs and he thought that's pretty well known. They did create economic harm. But here's what's interesting to me there. There are, there are three dynamics happening here. The first is that the Reagan Presidential foundation intuits that they must. The way to protect Reagan's legacy is to somehow represent as if Reagan would agree with Trump today.

[C]

Right?

[B]

Correct.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

Okay. And you say intuits. I just want to throw out there possibly that it was asked also possible because it was a pretty quick, in pretty quick succession, the Reagan Institute, which whatever this put out the statement and then Trump put out the bleed.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

So that could have been a coincidence, but there also could have been. The game could have been worked behind the scenes. But yes, either way, they either intuited it or told that they should make sure to ensure that Reagan's legacy was in line with whatever Trump would want today.

[B]

All right, so interesting aspect number two. Ronald Reagan seems to be the only US President that Trump is not comfortable saying is a sucker and a loser. Because if this had been a clip of George W. Bush talking about tariffs or Barack Obama or George H.W. bush, I imagine Trump would have said, yeah, that's right. That's what those suckers and losers thought and they were wrong.

[C]

That's a good observation. Yeah. I do wonder Kennedy, maybe he has a Kennedy thing a little bit, maybe.

[B]

But he feels the need to genuflect before Reagan.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Which is interesting. Which brings us to the third part, which is that his running mate, J.D. vance is, is a critic of zombie Reaganism. Right. Like there's a whole move. The entire idea of MAGA is that this zombie Reaganism, we got to get over it. It's stupid and it's wrong and we got to do something different. We got to do command state nationalism. And so you see like the weird like triangle of tension here. Like, it, it doesn't add up and I don't understand it, but I do think they probably understand something about their base and their voters here.

[C]

Maybe they do. It's interesting. As usual, you're making me think about this a little differently. So I'm kind of doing this live fire gvl, but I am again falling back on. I think this is an op. And I think that it's like the thing that comes to mind for me is that the most likely scenario here is not that there is that they're thinking that deeply. And I guess there's like this instinctive question of why does he care about Ronald Reagan? Like that is something that we should maybe get back to. But to me, I think maybe this is not really part of an ideological project or the intern. I seen Republican feuds and what's most likely is that Trump saw the ad or that somebody saw the ad. Right. Like Doug Ford pushed back and said that they're watching it, they're going to re air it tonight on the baseball playoffs. I'm sure just like our friends Longwell and the Republican Accountability Project and Lincoln Project and others have done the thing where they run the ads and you know, on the golf network at Mar a Lago. So like maybe it's that like Trump saw the ad and he just doesn't like and he and it's more of like it's less about Reagan, more about Canada. He's like these fucking.