TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: MAGA will die out after Trump leaves.

Fact Check: MAGA will die out after Trump leaves.

June 12, 2025•by TruthOrFake AI
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "MAGA will die out after Trump leaves." ## What We Know The claim that the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement will die out after ...

Fact Check: "MAGA will die out after Trump leaves."

What We Know

The claim that the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement will die out after Donald Trump leaves the political scene is a topic of considerable debate among political analysts. According to a report from Newsweek, experts suggest that Trump's influence has significantly reshaped the Republican Party, but there are doubts about the sustainability of the MAGA movement without him. Political science professor D. Stephen Voss argues that Trump's movement is "inseparable from the man himself," indicating that its continuity is questionable once he is no longer at the forefront of the party. Voss states, "None of the things that typically give a movement continuity would persist after Trump leaves the stage" (Newsweek).

Conversely, some analysts believe that while Trump’s personal brand may fade, the underlying principles of the MAGA movement could endure. For instance, political analyst Craig Agranoff noted that the movement's priorities resonate with a significant portion of the electorate and will likely continue to shape the Republican Party even if Trump loses his reelection bid (Newsweek). Additionally, JD Vance, a prominent Republican figure, emphasized the need for the MAGA agenda to persist for decades, suggesting that the movement's core principles will remain relevant (Washington Examiner).

Analysis

The evidence surrounding the future of the MAGA movement after Trump is mixed. On one hand, the argument that the movement is heavily tied to Trump's persona is compelling. Voss's assertion that the movement lacks a clear ideology or social group to sustain it post-Trump raises valid concerns about its longevity (Newsweek). This perspective is supported by historical patterns seen in other charismatic movements, which often struggle to maintain cohesion after their leaders depart (source-7).

On the other hand, the idea that MAGA principles could outlive Trump is also credible. Agranoff's view that the movement has inspired a younger generation of political figures suggests that while Trump himself may not be the face of the movement in the future, the themes he championed could continue to influence Republican candidates (Newsweek). Furthermore, Vance's comments about the necessity of the MAGA agenda for the long-term future of the party indicate that there may be a strategic effort to keep the movement alive, even in Trump's absence (Washington Examiner).

The reliability of the sources used in this analysis varies. Newsweek is a well-established publication known for its political reporting, while the Washington Examiner, though reputable, has been criticized for potential bias in its coverage of conservative topics. Therefore, while the insights from these sources are valuable, they should be considered with an understanding of their respective editorial slants.

Conclusion

The claim that "MAGA will die out after Trump leaves" is Partially True. While there is significant evidence suggesting that the movement is closely tied to Trump's personal brand and may struggle to maintain its momentum without him, there are also indications that the core principles of MAGA could persist through new leaders and evolving political dynamics. The future of the MAGA movement remains uncertain, but it is clear that its impact on the Republican Party will continue to be felt, regardless of Trump's political fate.

Sources

  1. What Happens to MAGA If Donald Trump Loses? - Newsweek
  2. Vance stresses need for MAGA movement to continue beyond Trump's term - Washington Examiner
  3. Is There a Future for MAGA After Trump? - Politico
  4. The MAGA Movement's Empty Vision of the Future - New York Times
  5. What Does A Post-Trump MAGA Look Like? - Daniel Dashnaw
  6. Trump describes potential successors to MAGA movement - NBC News
  7. Cozen Currents: MAGA After Trump - Cozen O'Connor

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ TH...

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ TH...

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Elon Musk is an alien from the planet Xenu sent to Earth to save humanity through MAGA and Trump is the second Christ and angel
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Elon Musk is an alien from the planet Xenu sent to Earth to save humanity through MAGA and Trump is the second Christ and angel

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Elon Musk is an alien from the planet Xenu sent to Earth to save humanity through MAGA and Trump is ...

Apr 9, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: How nuts is Mark Carney? Perhaps nuttier than you think. Have a read of this piece in the Financial Post, by Matthew Lau. "Having left his gig as UN Special Envoy for Climate and Finance to lead the federal Liberal government, Mark Carney is now in a position to focus his and Greta Thunberg’s global climate crusade squarely on Canada. The crusade, Carney boasted back in 2021 while in his previous role, is worth many trillions of dollars. As he told CBC News at that year’s UN climate conference, “We have banks, asset managers, pension funds, insurance companies from around the world — more than 45 countries — and their total resources, totalling US$130 trillion” dedicated to transitioning the world’s economy away from fossil fuels. That dollar figure is higher than global GDP. Last month, Carney laid out Canada’s required contribution to his climate ambitions: “Canada must invest $2 trillion by 2050 — about $80 billion per year — to become carbon competitive and achieve Net Zero. However, investments in decarbonisation currently run between $10–20 billion annually.” The implication is that another $60-70 billion a year will need to be wrung out of Canadian businesses and consumers, either through direct taxation and government spending or with regulatory browbeating to push Canadians’ savings and investments into global warming initiatives. Carney has made no effort to hide his agenda to browbeat businesses into joining his and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade. In a 2021 interview he declared, “We need a sustainable economy, and is your business aligned with that? Are your hiring practices consistent with that? Are you developing people in a way that’s consistent with that? Ultimately, what’s being asked of businesses when it comes to climate is, do you have a plan for net-zero? Canada has a legislated objective for net zero alongside another 130 countries.” “A Swedish teenager,” Carney continued, referring to Thunberg, “can figure out the carbon budget and that we have less than 10 years and you have to get to net-zero to stabilize it and if you’re a company and you have purpose, well, what’s your plan? And all these plans need to come together.” This is utter insanity: under Justin Trudeau Canada suffered rapidly declining business investment and now his successor wants the country’s business leaders to take financial planning directives from Greta Thunberg. While the federal government barrels down the road to net-zero impoverishment for Canada, everyone else is looking for the exit ramp. In January, six of the largest U.S. banks — JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — quit the Carney-led net-zero banking alliance. Canada’s Big Six Banks — RBC, TD Bank, BMO, Scotiabank, CIBC and National Bank — have quit the initiative as well. Even Europe is beginning to back off on government piling climate obligations onto businesses in the name of fighting global warming. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the EU is watering down its climate accounting policies “amid pushback from member states and companies within the bloc over the new rules, which they say would have increased costs and reduced the competitiveness of their business.” Specifically, regulations previously scheduled for this year would have forced companies “to report in detail on their environmental, social and corporate-governance performance while making significant cuts to the emissions from within their supply chain.” The EU is now dropping, weakening or postponing many of these climate regulations, so that businesses will be able to better “grow, innovate, and create quality jobs.” This is effectively an admission that piling climate obligations and environmental reporting mandates onto businesses prevents them from growing, innovating and creating good jobs. Unfortunately, Mark Carney is all about climate obligations and reporting mandates. The road Canada is currently marching down for climate-related financial disclosures is based on a framework proposed by a task force Carney initiated in 2015. His aforementioned Thunberg-praising interview was not with an environmental journalist, but with Pivot Magazine, which is published by CPA Canada, the accounting industry’s national association. “We cannot get to net-zero without proper climate reporting,” he insisted, speaking of the need for “one core global standard” for climate accounting and reporting. A global climate reporting standard to help push trillions of dollars — yes, trillions with a “T” — from Canadian workers and taxpayers into Mark Carney and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade? After a decade of Justin Trudeau’s ruinous policies weakening Canada from coast to coast, there could be little worse for the country and its economy than a Liberal government led by Mark Carney." The Financial Post Cape Breton Politics Jason Boudreau · 1h · Big numbers in unions. 😁😁

Detailed fact-check analysis of: How nuts is Mark Carney? Perhaps nuttier than you think. Have a read of this piece in the Financia...

Mar 25, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: How nuts is Mark Carney? Perhaps nuttier than you think. Have a read of this piece in the Financial Post, by Matthew Lau. "Having left his gig as UN Special Envoy for Climate and Finance to lead the federal Liberal government, Mark Carney is now in a position to focus his and Greta Thunberg’s global climate crusade squarely on Canada. The crusade, Carney boasted back in 2021 while in his previous role, is worth many trillions of dollars. As he told CBC News at that year’s UN climate conference, “We have banks, asset managers, pension funds, insurance companies from around the world — more than 45 countries — and their total resources, totalling US$130 trillion” dedicated to transitioning the world’s economy away from fossil fuels. That dollar figure is higher than global GDP. Last month, Carney laid out Canada’s required contribution to his climate ambitions: “Canada must invest $2 trillion by 2050 — about $80 billion per year — to become carbon competitive and achieve Net Zero. However, investments in decarbonisation currently run between $10–20 billion annually.” The implication is that another $60-70 billion a year will need to be wrung out of Canadian businesses and consumers, either through direct taxation and government spending or with regulatory browbeating to push Canadians’ savings and investments into global warming initiatives. Carney has made no effort to hide his agenda to browbeat businesses into joining his and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade. In a 2021 interview he declared, “We need a sustainable economy, and is your business aligned with that? Are your hiring practices consistent with that? Are you developing people in a way that’s consistent with that? Ultimately, what’s being asked of businesses when it comes to climate is, do you have a plan for net-zero? Canada has a legislated objective for net zero alongside another 130 countries.” “A Swedish teenager,” Carney continued, referring to Thunberg, “can figure out the carbon budget and that we have less than 10 years and you have to get to net-zero to stabilize it and if you’re a company and you have purpose, well, what’s your plan? And all these plans need to come together.” This is utter insanity: under Justin Trudeau Canada suffered rapidly declining business investment and now his successor wants the country’s business leaders to take financial planning directives from Greta Thunberg. While the federal government barrels down the road to net-zero impoverishment for Canada, everyone else is looking for the exit ramp. In January, six of the largest U.S. banks — JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — quit the Carney-led net-zero banking alliance. Canada’s Big Six Banks — RBC, TD Bank, BMO, Scotiabank, CIBC and National Bank — have quit the initiative as well. Even Europe is beginning to back off on government piling climate obligations onto businesses in the name of fighting global warming. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the EU is watering down its climate accounting policies “amid pushback from member states and companies within the bloc over the new rules, which they say would have increased costs and reduced the competitiveness of their business.” Specifically, regulations previously scheduled for this year would have forced companies “to report in detail on their environmental, social and corporate-governance performance while making significant cuts to the emissions from within their supply chain.” The EU is now dropping, weakening or postponing many of these climate regulations, so that businesses will be able to better “grow, innovate, and create quality jobs.” This is effectively an admission that piling climate obligations and environmental reporting mandates onto businesses prevents them from growing, innovating and creating good jobs. Unfortunately, Mark Carney is all about climate obligations and reporting mandates. The road Canada is currently marching down for climate-related financial disclosures is based on a framework proposed by a task force Carney initiated in 2015. His aforementioned Thunberg-praising interview was not with an environmental journalist, but with Pivot Magazine, which is published by CPA Canada, the accounting industry’s national association. “We cannot get to net-zero without proper climate reporting,” he insisted, speaking of the need for “one core global standard” for climate accounting and reporting. A global climate reporting standard to help push trillions of dollars — yes, trillions with a “T” — from Canadian workers and taxpayers into Mark Carney and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade? After a decade of Justin Trudeau’s ruinous policies weakening Canada from coast to coast, there could be little worse for the country and its economy than a Liberal government led by Mark Carney." The Financial Post Cape Breton Politics Jason Boudreau · 1h · Big numbers in unions. 😁😁

Detailed fact-check analysis of: How nuts is Mark Carney? Perhaps nuttier than you think. Have a read of this piece in the Financia...

Mar 25, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: How nuts is Mark Carney? Perhaps nuttier than you think. Have a read of this piece in the Financial Post, by Matthew Lau. "Having left his gig as UN Special Envoy for Climate and Finance to lead the federal Liberal government, Mark Carney is now in a position to focus his and Greta Thunberg’s global climate crusade squarely on Canada. The crusade, Carney boasted back in 2021 while in his previous role, is worth many trillions of dollars. As he told CBC News at that year’s UN climate conference, “We have banks, asset managers, pension funds, insurance companies from around the world — more than 45 countries — and their total resources, totalling US$130 trillion” dedicated to transitioning the world’s economy away from fossil fuels. That dollar figure is higher than global GDP. Last month, Carney laid out Canada’s required contribution to his climate ambitions: “Canada must invest $2 trillion by 2050 — about $80 billion per year — to become carbon competitive and achieve Net Zero. However, investments in decarbonisation currently run between $10–20 billion annually.” The implication is that another $60-70 billion a year will need to be wrung out of Canadian businesses and consumers, either through direct taxation and government spending or with regulatory browbeating to push Canadians’ savings and investments into global warming initiatives. Carney has made no effort to hide his agenda to browbeat businesses into joining his and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade. In a 2021 interview he declared, “We need a sustainable economy, and is your business aligned with that? Are your hiring practices consistent with that? Are you developing people in a way that’s consistent with that? Ultimately, what’s being asked of businesses when it comes to climate is, do you have a plan for net-zero? Canada has a legislated objective for net zero alongside another 130 countries.” “A Swedish teenager,” Carney continued, referring to Thunberg, “can figure out the carbon budget and that we have less than 10 years and you have to get to net-zero to stabilize it and if you’re a company and you have purpose, well, what’s your plan? And all these plans need to come together.” This is utter insanity: under Justin Trudeau Canada suffered rapidly declining business investment and now his successor wants the country’s business leaders to take financial planning directives from Greta Thunberg. While the federal government barrels down the road to net-zero impoverishment for Canada, everyone else is looking for the exit ramp. In January, six of the largest U.S. banks — JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — quit the Carney-led net-zero banking alliance. Canada’s Big Six Banks — RBC, TD Bank, BMO, Scotiabank, CIBC and National Bank — have quit the initiative as well. Even Europe is beginning to back off on government piling climate obligations onto businesses in the name of fighting global warming. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the EU is watering down its climate accounting policies “amid pushback from member states and companies within the bloc over the new rules, which they say would have increased costs and reduced the competitiveness of their business.” Specifically, regulations previously scheduled for this year would have forced companies “to report in detail on their environmental, social and corporate-governance performance while making significant cuts to the emissions from within their supply chain.” The EU is now dropping, weakening or postponing many of these climate regulations, so that businesses will be able to better “grow, innovate, and create quality jobs.” This is effectively an admission that piling climate obligations and environmental reporting mandates onto businesses prevents them from growing, innovating and creating good jobs. Unfortunately, Mark Carney is all about climate obligations and reporting mandates. The road Canada is currently marching down for climate-related financial disclosures is based on a framework proposed by a task force Carney initiated in 2015. His aforementioned Thunberg-praising interview was not with an environmental journalist, but with Pivot Magazine, which is published by CPA Canada, the accounting industry’s national association. “We cannot get to net-zero without proper climate reporting,” he insisted, speaking of the need for “one core global standard” for climate accounting and reporting. A global climate reporting standard to help push trillions of dollars — yes, trillions with a “T” — from Canadian workers and taxpayers into Mark Carney and Greta Thunberg’s climate crusade? After a decade of Justin Trudeau’s ruinous policies weakening Canada from coast to coast, there could be little worse for the country and its economy than a Liberal government led by Mark Carney." The Financial Post

Detailed fact-check analysis of: How nuts is Mark Carney? Perhaps nuttier than you think. Have a read of this piece in the Financia...

Mar 23, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks