Trump Warns Of 'Severe' Tariffs On Canadian Fertilizer If Needed

Authored by Jennifer Cowan via The Epoch Times,

U.S. President Donald Trump says he is considering “very severe” tariffs on fertilizer imports from Canada as the United States readies a $12 billion aid package for farmers grappling with the repercussions of the ongoing trade war.

Trump mentioned the increased levy on Canada while responding to reporters’ questions at a Dec. 8 White House roundtable where he announced the tariff relief fund for U.S. farmers, who have been paying more for agricultural products like seed and fertilizer due to Trump’s global trade policies.

“A lot of it does come in from Canada,” Trump said, referring to fertilizer. “And so we’ll end up putting very severe tariffs on that, if we have to, because that’s the way you want to bolster here.”

Trump said high import prices on Canadian fertilizer would encourage the United States to produce its own.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her team is developing a strategy to bring fertilizer production back to the United States, while also instructing fertilizer manufacturers and other industrial entities to reduce their prices.

“The president has been very unequivocal in saying we have to figure out why all these input costs are skyrocketing and all of our farmers are struggling,” Rollins told reporters.

Trump said that it doesn’t make sense for the United States to rely on other countries for the products farmers need.

“All of a sudden, we don’t do it anymore [and] they start charging very high prices from other countries, whether it’s Canada or somebody else,” he told farmers at the roundtable event. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”

The Epoch Times contacted the Prime Minister’s Office for comment on Trump’s remarks but did not immediately hear back.

Many farmers in the United States depend on potash fertilizer from Saskatchewan to increase potassium levels in their soils. Saskatchewan is the only Canadian provider of potash, which is a group of minerals and chemicals that contains potassium. Potassium is an essential nutrient for plants and a key component in fertilizers.

Roughly 95 percent of the fertilizer produced in Canada is exported and the United States is the country’s largest market. It accounts for more than half of all total fertilizer exports each year, according to Fertilizer Canada.

The United States imported approximately 12.1 million tonnes of Saskatchewan potash in 2024, according to S&P Global. It also imported roughly 4.9 million tonnes in the first five months of 2025, representing more than 50 percent of Canada’s total potash exports during that timeframe.

The United States also imports Canadian nitrogen-based fertilizers, including ammonia, ammonium sulphate, urea, and urea ammonium nitrate.

More than 99 percent of Canadian urea and urea ammonium nitrate exports are directed toward its southern neighbour, while 69 percent of Canada’s ammonia and 49 percent of its ammonium sulphate are also sent there, according to 2023 figures from a World Bank platform.

Trump implemented a sweeping 25 percent tariff on Canadian goods this spring as well as sectoral tariffs, but reduced the tariff on fertilizer to 10 percent after receiving negative feedback from U.S. industry groups and Republican legislators in agricultural states. That tariff is applicable solely to fertilizer export quantities that surpass the thresholds established by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on free trade.

Canadian and U.S. farmers have said they are facing higher fertilizer bills because of Trump’s tariffs.

Then-Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said in March that Ottawa could use Canadian exports of fertilizer and other products such as energy or minerals as bargaining chips in negotiations with the United States, but said the country’s premiers would need to be on board.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe had previously spoken out against such a move, saying tariffs applied on either side of the border are “harmful to North America.”

“[We] are not supportive in any way of export tariffs, whether that be electricity coming out of Manitoba, Quebec into the U.S. or whether that be energy or potash products that are coming out of our province or Alberta,” he said at a February news conference.

Saskatchewan potash producer Nutrien recently announced tentative plans to construct a new export facility for global markets in Washington state, instead of British Columbia. The news was criticized by B.C. Premier David Eby who said he believes such a decision would place the fate of Saskatchewan potash “in the hands of Donald Trump.”

Federal Transportation Minister Steve MacKinnon told reporters last month that he was “hoping to persuade the company” to choose a Canadian port over one in the United States.

Farm Aid

The recent emphasis by the Trump administration on agriculture indicates a potential for further trade disruptions. The president said proceeds from tariffs will be allocated to support farmers.

“This relief will provide much-needed certainty to farmers as they get this year’s harvest to market and look ahead to next year’s crops, and it’ll help them continue their efforts to lower food prices for American families,” Trump told reporters during the Dec. 8 event.

Trump also provided aid to farmers during his first presidency amid trade disputes. He disbursed more than $22 billion in 2019 and nearly $46 billion in 2020, although the latter figure also included support related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rollins said US$11 billion from the new aid package will be allocated to row crop farmers and is expected to be distributed by Feb. 28. She noted that the White House will hold on to the remaining US$1 billion to finalize the funding allocation details for farmers of fruits, vegetables, and other crops.

The money is meant to offer certainty to farmers as they market the current harvest and make plans for next year’s yield, she said.

Soybeans and sorghum were hardest hit by Washington’s trade dispute with Beijing because more than half of those crops are exported each year with the majority going to China.

Trump met Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October, where the president said they made a deal that China would buy at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans by the end of 2025, as well as 25 million metric tons a year in each of the next three years.

China bought more than 2.8 million metric tons of soybeans since Trump announced the agreement at the end of October, but the amount represents only one-fourth of what U.S. officials said the country had committed to purchasing.

Trump signed an executive order on the weekend directing the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to look at “anti-competitive behaviour” in food supply chains —including seed, fertilizer and equipment—and consider taking enforcement actions or developing new regulations.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 18:25

Rich People, Poor Morals: Wealthy Are The Most Likely To Rip Off Self-Checkout Machines

Rich people, poorer morals? A new LendingTree report claims the shoppers most likely to rip off the self-checkout machine aren’t the desperate — they’re the well-off, according to the NY Post.

Americans making over $100,000 a year are twice as likely to steal at self-checkout compared to low-income shoppers. A hefty 40% of six-figure earners admitted they’ve deliberately skipped scanning an item, while just 17% of those making under $30,000 confessed to the same.

The Post writes that middle-income households didn’t look much better: 27% of people earning between $50K and $99K say they’ve helped themselves without paying. And men are the biggest culprits overall, with 38% admitting to theft versus only 16% of women.

Even with AI scanners and weight sensors trying to outsmart sticky fingers, self-checkout theft is still rising.

A chunk of shoppers don’t feel bad about it either. Nearly one-third say big retailers make plenty of money, so swiping something “doesn’t hurt.” Another 35% defend the habit by claiming they’re basically unpaid store workers and grabbing an item or two is “compensation.”

Still, most blame inflation rather than guilt-free shoplifting. Forty-seven percent say rising prices are forcing people to cheat at the register — meaning even wealthy shoppers might be feeling the squeeze, just not enough to pay for everything in their cart.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 16:40

Question Everything

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

The average person in the First World receives far more information than he would if he lived in a Second or Third World country. In many countries of the world, the very idea of twenty-four hour television news coverage would be unthinkable, yet many Westerners feel that, without this constant input, they would be woefully uninformed.

Not surprising, then, that the average First Worlder feels that he understands current events better than those elsewhere in the world. But, as in other things, quality and quantity are not the same.

The average news programme features a commentator who provides “the news,” or at least that portion of events that the network deems worthy to be presented. In addition, it is presented from the political slant of the controllers of the network. But we are reassured that the reporting is “balanced,” in a portion of the programme that features a panel of “experts.”

Customarily, the panel consists of the moderator plus two pundits who share his political slant and a pundit who has an opposing slant. All are paid by the network for their contributions. The moderator will ask a question on a current issue, and an argument will ensue for a few minutes. Generally, no real conclusion is reached—neither side accedes to the other. The moderator then moves on to another question.

So, the network has aired the issues of the day, and we have received a balanced view that may inform our own opinions.

Or have we?

Shortcomings

In actual fact, there are significant shortcomings in this type of presentation:

1. The scope of coverage is extremely narrow. Only select facets of each issue are discussed.

2. Generally, the discussion reveals precious little actual insight and, in fact, only the standard opposing liberal and conservative positions are discussed, implying that the viewer must choose one or the other to adopt as his own opinion.

3. On a programme that is liberally-oriented, the one conservative pundit on the panel is made to look foolish by the three liberal pundits, ensuring that the liberal viewer’s beliefs are reaffirmed. (The reverse is true on a conservative news programme.)

4. Each issue facet that is addressed is repeated many times in the course of the day, then extended for as many days, weeks, or months as the issue remains current. The “message,” therefore, is repeated virtually as often as an advert for a brand of laundry powder.

So, what is the net effect of such news reportage? Has the viewer become well-informed?

In actual fact, not at all. What he has become is well-indoctrinated.

A liberal will be inclined to regularly watch a liberal news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his liberal views. A conservative will, in turn, regularly watch a conservative news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his conservative views.

Many viewers will agree that this is so, yet not recognise that, essentially, they are being programmed to simply absorb information. Along the way, their inclination to actually question and think for themselves is being eroded.

Alternate Possibilities

The proof of this is that those who have been programmed, tend to react with anger when they encounter a Nigel Farage or a Ron Paul, who might well challenge them to consider a third option—an interpretation beyond the narrow conservative and liberal views of events. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

By contrast, it is not uncommon for people outside the First World to have better instincts when encountering a news item. If they do not receive the BBC, Fox News, or CNN, they are likely, when learning of a political event, to think through, on their own, what the event means to them.

As they are not pre-programmed to follow one narrow line of reasoning or another, they are open to a broad range of possibilities. Each individual, based upon his personal experience, is likely to draw a different conclusion and, thorough discourse with others, is likely to continue to update his opinion each time he receives a new viewpoint.

As a result, it is not uncommon for those who are not “plugged-in” to be not only more open-minded, but more imaginative in their considerations, even when they are less educated and less “informed” than those in the First World.

Whilst those who do not receive the regular barrage that is the norm in the First World are no more intelligent than their European or American counterparts, their views are more often the result of personal objective reasoning and common sense and are often more insightful.

Those in First World countries often point with pride at the advanced technology that allows them a greater volume of news than the rest of the world customarily receives.

Further, they are likely to take pride in their belief that the two opposing views that are presented indicate that they live in a “free” country, where dissent is encouraged.

Unfortunately, what is encouraged is one of two views—either the liberal view or the conservative view. Other views are discouraged.

The liberal view espouses that a powerful liberal government is necessary to control the greed of capitalists, taxing and regulating them as much as possible to limit their ability to victimise the poorer classes.

The conservative view espouses that a powerful conservative government is needed to control the liberals, who threaten to create chaos and moral collapse through such efforts as gay rights, legalised abortion, etc.

What these two dogmatic concepts have in common is that a powerful government is needed.

Each group, therefore, seeks the increase in the power of its group of legislators to overpower the opposing group. This ensures that, regardless of whether the present government is dominated by liberals of conservatives, the one certainty will be that the government will be powerful.

When seen in this light, if the television viewer were to click the remote back and forth regularly from the liberal channel to the conservative channel, he would begin to see a strong similarity between the two.

It’s easy for any viewer to question the opposition group, to consider them disingenuous—the bearers of false information. It is far more difficult to question the pundits who are on our own “team,” to ask ourselves if they, also, are disingenuous.

This is especially difficult when it’s three to one—when three commentators share our political view and all say the same thing to the odd-man-out on the panel. In such a situation, the hardest task is to question our own team, who are clearly succeeding at beating down the odd-man-out.

Evolution of Indoctrination

In bygone eras, the kings of old would tell their minions what to believe and the minions would then either accept or reject the information received. They would rely on their own experience and reasoning powers to inform them.

Later, a better method evolved: the use of media to indoctrinate the populace with government-generated propaganda (think: Josef Goebbels or Uncle Joe Stalin).

Today, a far more effective method exists—one that retains the repetition of the latter method but helps to eliminate the open-ended field of alternate points of view. It does so by providing a choice between “View A” and “View B.”

In a democracy, there is always an “A” and a “B.” This illusion of choice is infinitely more effective in helping the populace to believe that they have been able to choose their leaders and their points of view.

In the modern method, when voting, regardless of what choice the individual makes, he is voting for an all-powerful government. (Whether it calls itself a conservative one or a liberal one is incidental.)

Likewise, through the modern media, when the viewer absorbs what is presented as discourse, regardless of whether he chooses View A or View B, he is endorsing an all-powerful government.

Two Solutions

One solution to avoid being brainwashed by the dogmatic messaging of the media is to simply avoid watching the news. But this is difficult to do, as our associates and neighbours are watching it every day and will want to discuss with us what they have been taught.

The other choice is to question everything.

To consider that the event that is being discussed may not only be being falsely reported, but that the message being provided by the pundits may be consciously planned for our consumption.

This is difficult to do at first but can eventually become habit. If so, the likelihood of being led down the garden path by the powers-that-be may be greatly diminished. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

Developing your own view may, in the coming years, be vital to your well-being.

*  *  *

In times when the mainstream narrative grows louder, the rarest and most valuable act is to think independently. True understanding comes not from passively absorbing information, but from questioning every assumption handed to us. If you’re ready to explore what’s really unfolding behind the headlines—and how to protect yourself from the consequences of mass deception—see Doug Casey’s urgent new special dispatch: “The US and the World are Heading for a Serious Crisis.” Click here to see it now. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 16:20

Adam Schiff Laments Trump Wasn't Jailed Sooner As DOJ Turns On Him

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., lamented that the Biden administration did not move more quickly to incarcerate President Donald Trump, suggesting that even more aggressive action could have thwarted his 2024 electoral prospects. 

Schiff, who himself is facing a federal investigation into allegations of mortgage fraud, claimed in an interview with the New Yorker Radio Hour that had former Attorney General Merrick Garland acted sooner, “we might be in a very different place today.” 

Schiff’s remarks came after podcast host David Remnick asked, “Do you feel that Merrick Garland moved too slowly, too cautiously?” 

The senator replied, “I absolutely do. Yeah.” 

Remnick then asked why Garland acted “so slowly,” adding, “What about his character or tactics or strategy led him to behave that way?” 

Schiff then misleadingly claimed that Garland had been brought in to correct what Schiff viewed as partisanship in the first Trump administration. 

These comments appear at odds with newly declassified documents that showed that the Biden-led DOJ and FBI undertook sweeping investigations targeting Trump and his allies after he left office in 2021. 

The New York Times even reported that former President Joe Biden actively supported Garland taking action against Trump. 

The Biden-led probe triggered 197 subpoenas against 430 Republican organizations and individuals. The subpoenas included phone records of at least 11 Republican lawmakers. 

These records were later transferred to Special Counsel Jack Smith, whom Garland appointed to pursue the Trump investigation under the guise of independence. 

Despite this, Schiff framed Garland’s actions as part of an attempt to restore credibility. 

“The Justice Department in the first Trump was abused and made partisan, and he wished to restore the Department’s reputation for independence,” Schiff claimed.

 “Now, what they did in the first Trump Justice Department is peanuts compared to today.” 

Schiff continued, “But nevertheless, Merrick Garland wanted to restore the reputation of the Department for strict non-partisanship. And that made him very reluctant to pursue an investigation of the president, too reluctant.” 

In conclusion, Schiff claimed that Garland’s reluctance allowed the Supreme Court time to issue a decision on presidential immunity. 

“Ultimately that gave the Supreme Court the time it needed to drag things out further and make the case against Trump go away completely when it could have been brought to fruition. And we might be in a very different place today,” he stated. 

Watch the remarks below:

Adam Schiff laments that Trump wasn’t prosecuted fast enough to be put in prison. He blames Garland for being just too darned non-partisan:

“He wanted to restore the reputation of the department for strict non-partisanship. And that made him very reluctant. Too reluctant." pic.twitter.com/jpmVZMLnBj

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) December 8, 2025

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 15:20

Goldman Reminds Clients Where Travel & Leisure Cracked First Ahead Of 2008 Crisis

Goldman analysts led by Lizzie Dove examined how different segments within travel and leisure reacted to, and ultimately recovered from, the 2008-09 recession. Her analysis offers a valuable framework for identifying where consumer stress tends to appear first inside the travel space and whether today's warning signs in a K-shaped, bifurcated consumer landscape warrant closer scrutiny.

Buried in the middle of Dove's note on the cruise industry is an infographic showing that the downturn in the cruise industry tends to be late-cycle, whereas pullbacks in gambling, airlines, and hotels typically materialize much earlier - and right before the cycle begins to turn down.

Dove pointed back to the GFC crisis, where early in the downturn Vegas and airlines cracked first:

• Vegas gambling revenue starts falling as early as Feb–Mar 2008

• Airlines (enplanements) show declines by mid-2008

Then hotel demand dried up in mid-cycle:

• US RevPAR drops mid- to late-2008

Followed by the late-cycle downturn in the cruise industry:

• Cruise net yields don't hit peak decline until mid-2009

• They don't return to growth until mid-2010

So there was a full 18 to 24 months lag versus the late-cycle cruise downturn and the early-cycle pullback in Vegas and airlines.

Why highlight this consumer behavior right now?

Because the current K-shaped recovery and bifurcated spending environment are flashing early warning signs. Las Vegas trends are already pointing lower, yet airlines are still holding up, and baby boomers continue booking Caribbean cruise-line trips.

Track these consumer trends through early 2026 to see whether weakness spreads more broadly across the travel industry. If airline demand begins to fall, it will provide a much clearer indication that economic softness is widening. And if that's the case, Powell better be open to more rate cuts.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already communicated that tailwinds for working-class consumers will begin to materialize sometime in the first quarter.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 15:00

Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Trump's Order Halting Wind Energy Projects

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Dec. 8 vacated President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order that halted federal permitting and leasing for wind energy projects, saying it violated U.S. law.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris of the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of a coalition of state attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia, which argued that federal efforts to halt authorization for wind energy projects violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agencies failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions.

Trump’s order directs federal agencies to halt approvals and leasing for all new offshore wind power projects pending a comprehensive review.

In a 47-page ruling, Saris stated that the order’s indefinite suspension of wind energy project authorizations violates a statutory requirement that agencies proceed to conclude matters “within a reasonable time.”

“No permits have [been] issued since the wind order was promulgated, and the agency defendants acknowledge that they will not issue any permits at least until they complete the comprehensive assessment, for which there is no timeline,” the judge stated. “That action is contrary to law.”

The judge also noted that federal agencies failed to provide “a reasoned explanation” for halting wind project authorizations, even as they were carrying out the president’s directive.

“Given that the wind order constitutes a change of course from decades of agencies’ issuing (or denying) permits related to wind energy projects, the agency defendants were required, at minimum, to ‘provide a reasoned explanation for the change’ and to ‘display awareness that (they were) changing position.’ They failed to do so,” Saris stated.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, part of the coalition in the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a “critical victory” for the states.

“Massachusetts has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into offshore wind, and today, we successfully protected those important investments from the Trump Administration’s unlawful order,” Campbell said in a statement.

New York Attorney General Letitia James welcomed the ruling and said there is a need to develop more energy sources, including wind energy, amid rising costs.

“I am grateful the court stepped in to block the administration’s reckless and unlawful crusade against clean energy,” she added.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers defended Trump’s directive, saying that offshore wind projects were given “unfair, preferential treatment” under the Biden administration while other energy sources faced burdensome regulations.

“President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security,” Rogers said in a statement.

Trump has pushed to increase U.S. use of fuel and coal energy sources in a move to reduce reliance on foreign supply. On July 7, Trump signed an executive order to end federal subsidies for wind and solar energy projects, citing their unreliability and dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains.

The order states that such renewable energy sources are expensive, compromise the nation’s electric grid, and threaten national security. It instructs the Interior Department to review and eliminate regulations that give preferential treatment to wind and solar projects.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 14:40