Fact Check: The US has been ripped off with current trade agreements

Fact Check: The US has been ripped off with current trade agreements

Published April 9, 2025
VERDICT
Mostly False

# The Claim: "The US has been ripped off with current trade agreements" ## Introduction The assertion that "the US has been ripped off with current t...

The Claim: "The US has been ripped off with current trade agreements"

Introduction

The assertion that "the US has been ripped off with current trade agreements" suggests a belief that the terms of these agreements are disproportionately unfavorable to the United States. This claim often arises in discussions about trade deficits, the impact of globalization, and the perceived loss of American jobs to foreign markets. However, the validity of this claim requires a careful examination of trade data, policy analyses, and the perspectives of various stakeholders involved in trade agreements.

What We Know

  1. Trade Agreements Overview: The United States has entered into numerous trade agreements aimed at reducing tariffs and fostering trade relations. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides an annual report detailing the operation of these agreements, including their economic impacts and compliance with trade laws 15.

  2. Trade Deficits: The U.S. has consistently run trade deficits, meaning it imports more goods and services than it exports. For example, in December 2023, the U.S. reported a significant decrease in exports and a trade deficit of $427.2 billion in goods and services 8. Critics argue that these deficits indicate unfavorable trade terms.

  3. Biden Administration's Trade Policy: The Biden administration has emphasized a "worker-centered" trade policy, seeking to balance trade benefits with domestic job protection. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has released reports outlining these policies and their intended effects on American workers 210.

  4. Economic Analysis: The USITC's reports analyze the economic implications of trade agreements, including job creation and industry growth. However, the interpretation of these outcomes can vary widely among economists and policymakers 16.

Analysis

The claim that the U.S. is being "ripped off" by its trade agreements can be dissected through various lenses:

  • Source Reliability: The USITC is a reputable, nonpartisan agency that provides data-driven analyses of trade agreements. Its reports are generally considered reliable and are used by policymakers for informed decision-making 1. However, as a government agency, it may also be subject to political pressures that could influence the framing of its findings.

  • Economic Data: The trade deficit figures, while alarming to some, do not inherently indicate that trade agreements are unfavorable. Economists argue that trade deficits can result from various factors, including consumer demand for foreign goods and the strength of the U.S. dollar. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides data that can help contextualize these deficits 89.

  • Policy Perspectives: The USTR's reports reflect the current administration's priorities, which may not align with all economic perspectives. Critics of the Biden administration's trade policies may argue that they do not adequately address the concerns of industries adversely affected by globalization 210.

  • Conflicting Opinions: Some economists and trade experts argue that trade agreements have led to overall economic growth and lower prices for consumers, while others contend that they have harmed specific sectors and contributed to job losses in manufacturing 12. This divergence in opinion highlights the complexity of evaluating trade agreements.

  • Methodological Concerns: Evaluating the impact of trade agreements requires careful consideration of various economic indicators and long-term trends. Additional information, such as sector-specific impacts and regional economic data, would be beneficial to fully understand the effects of trade agreements on different demographics and industries.

Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly False

The claim that "the US has been ripped off with current trade agreements" is assessed as "mostly false" based on the available evidence. While there are legitimate concerns regarding trade deficits and their implications for certain sectors, the assertion oversimplifies a complex issue. Trade agreements have both positive and negative effects, and the interpretation of their impact varies among economists and policymakers.

Key evidence includes the reliable analyses provided by the USITC, which indicate that trade agreements can lead to economic growth and consumer benefits, despite the existence of trade deficits. However, the nuances of these agreements and their varied impacts on different industries complicate the narrative of the U.S. being "ripped off."

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the available evidence, as the economic effects of trade agreements can be influenced by numerous factors, including global market dynamics and domestic economic policies. Moreover, the perspectives on trade agreements are often politically charged, leading to conflicting interpretations of their outcomes.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding trade agreements and consider multiple viewpoints to form a well-rounded understanding of the issue.

Sources

  1. United States International Trade Commission. (2023). The Year in Trade 2023, Operation of the Trade Agreements Program. Retrieved from USITC
  2. United States Trade Representative. (2023). USTR Releases President Biden's 2023 Trade Policy Agenda and 2022 Annual Report. Retrieved from USTR
  3. United States Trade Representative. (2023). 2023 Trade Policy Agenda. Retrieved from USTR
  4. United States Trade Representative. (2024). PDF AND 2023 Annual Report. Retrieved from USTR
  5. United States International Trade Commission. (2024). USITC Releases The Year in Trade 2023. Retrieved from USITC
  6. United States International Trade Commission. (2023). PDF The Year in Trade 2023: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program. Retrieved from USITC
  7. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2024). U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, December and Annual 2023. Retrieved from BEA
  8. International Trade Administration. (2023). Trade Data and Analysis. Retrieved from ITA
  9. United States Trade Representative. (2023). FACT SHEET: USTR Releases 2023 Trade Policy Agenda and 2022 Annual Report. Retrieved from USTR

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

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

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

Fact Check: trump pays off to raped children
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: trump pays off to raped children

Detailed fact-check analysis of: trump pays off to raped children

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: 1. Market Attraction and Outreach • Are we effectively targeting overnight visitors from Tucson and Phoenix, our two largest markets? How can we improve our outreach and engagement strategies to attract more long-term guests from these key regions? • Are there untapped markets, such as Albuquerque or Houston, that we should pursue more aggressively? What customized marketing or partnerships could help us reach these potential visitors? • Are our online and in-person efforts sufficient to connect with our highest-volume markets? How can we leverage digital marketing, social media, and local partnerships to increase visibility? • Are we telling compelling stories that resonate with potential visitors from places like Denver or Las Vegas? What narratives or unique selling points could better showcase what Cochise County offers? ________________________________________ 2. Understanding Visitor Behavior and Enhancing Stay Duration • Why do visitors from farther away (Dallas, L.A., Las Vegas) tend to stay longer than local Arizonans? What aspects of our offerings appeal to out-of-state visitors, and how can we replicate or enhance those features? • What specific experiences or amenities could we add to encourage longer stays? Are there activities, events, or accommodations that could keep visitors engaged and extend their visits? • How can we foster repeat visitation and encourage visitors to share their experiences with others? What loyalty programs, referral incentives, or community engagement initiatives could support this? ________________________________________ 3. Seasonal Planning and Business Collaboration • Are we prepared to maximize revenue during peak months like March and October? What marketing campaigns, special events, or package deals can we implement to capitalize on these periods? • What strategies can we adopt during slower months (June, July, August) to attract more visitors? Could off-season promotions, themed events, or targeted advertising fill the gap? • How can local businesses collaborate to turn single-night stays into multi-night visits? Are there bundled packages, cross-promotions, or joint events that encourage longer stays? • What small changes or new offerings (events, experiences, packages) could boost tourism during quieter months? How can we creatively leverage local heritage, outdoor activities, or seasonal festivals? ________________________________________ 4. Enhancing Visitor Experience and Community Engagement • How can we better welcome and serve visitors from Tucson and Phoenix, who already love Cochise County? Are there tailored experiences or concierge services that could deepen their connection? • How can our businesses support each other to leave a strong, lasting impression on first-time visitors? Can we develop cross-business collaborations, shared marketing efforts, or community ambassador programs? • How can we celebrate our heritage while offering fresh, innovative experiences to attract new guests? What storytelling, cultural events, or experiential tourism can showcase our unique identity? • Are there stories or local narratives we’re not telling enough, which could attract diverse markets? How can storytelling be integrated into our marketing to highlight authenticity and appeal? ________________________________________ 5. Long-term Community and Economic Sustainability • What does this visitor data suggest about staffing, marketing, and infrastructure planning for the upcoming year? How can we align resources to meet demand during peak times and prepare for slower periods? • How do we ensure that tourism supports and strengthens our community and economy sustainably? What measures can we implement to balance growth with community well-being, environmental preservation, and local culture?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: 1. Market Attraction and Outreach • Are we effectively targeting overnight visitors from Tucson and Phoenix, our two largest markets? How can we improve our outreach and engagement strategies to attract more long-term guests from these key regions? • Are there untapped markets, such as Albuquerque or Houston, that we should pursue more aggressively? What customized marketing or partnerships could help us reach these potential visitors? • Are our online and in-person efforts sufficient to connect with our highest-volume markets? How can we leverage digital marketing, social media, and local partnerships to increase visibility? • Are we telling compelling stories that resonate with potential visitors from places like Denver or Las Vegas? What narratives or unique selling points could better showcase what Cochise County offers? ________________________________________ 2. Understanding Visitor Behavior and Enhancing Stay Duration • Why do visitors from farther away (Dallas, L.A., Las Vegas) tend to stay longer than local Arizonans? What aspects of our offerings appeal to out-of-state visitors, and how can we replicate or enhance those features? • What specific experiences or amenities could we add to encourage longer stays? Are there activities, events, or accommodations that could keep visitors engaged and extend their visits? • How can we foster repeat visitation and encourage visitors to share their experiences with others? What loyalty programs, referral incentives, or community engagement initiatives could support this? ________________________________________ 3. Seasonal Planning and Business Collaboration • Are we prepared to maximize revenue during peak months like March and October? What marketing campaigns, special events, or package deals can we implement to capitalize on these periods? • What strategies can we adopt during slower months (June, July, August) to attract more visitors? Could off-season promotions, themed events, or targeted advertising fill the gap? • How can local businesses collaborate to turn single-night stays into multi-night visits? Are there bundled packages, cross-promotions, or joint events that encourage longer stays? • What small changes or new offerings (events, experiences, packages) could boost tourism during quieter months? How can we creatively leverage local heritage, outdoor activities, or seasonal festivals? ________________________________________ 4. Enhancing Visitor Experience and Community Engagement • How can we better welcome and serve visitors from Tucson and Phoenix, who already love Cochise County? Are there tailored experiences or concierge services that could deepen their connection? • How can our businesses support each other to leave a strong, lasting impression on first-time visitors? Can we develop cross-business collaborations, shared marketing efforts, or community ambassador programs? • How can we celebrate our heritage while offering fresh, innovative experiences to attract new guests? What storytelling, cultural events, or experiential tourism can showcase our unique identity? • Are there stories or local narratives we’re not telling enough, which could attract diverse markets? How can storytelling be integrated into our marketing to highlight authenticity and appeal? ________________________________________ 5. Long-term Community and Economic Sustainability • What does this visitor data suggest about staffing, marketing, and infrastructure planning for the upcoming year? How can we align resources to meet demand during peak times and prepare for slower periods? • How do we ensure that tourism supports and strengthens our community and economy sustainably? What measures can we implement to balance growth with community well-being, environmental preservation, and local culture?

Jul 21, 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 ❤ 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.

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

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 ❤ 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.

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: There is ripped out pages in the Bible about women?
False

Fact Check: There is ripped out pages in the Bible about women?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: There is ripped out pages in the Bible about women?

Mar 12, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is there ripped out pages in the Bible about women?
Needs Research

Fact Check: Is there ripped out pages in the Bible about women?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is there ripped out pages in the Bible about women?

Mar 12, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The US has been ripped off with current trade agreements | TruthOrFake Blog