
Today's Canadian elections are most important in decades — thanks to Trump
It's been a short, hectic campaign season, marked by startling reversals — most notably a massive decline in support for the current opposition Conservative Party — and ignited by the resignation of longtime Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The race has also been reshaped by the politics of the United States, namely the aggressively expansionist vision and chaotic economic policy of President Donald Trump.
Results should be in shortly after polls close at 10 pm ET. According to the polls, Trudeau's Liberal Party is expected to come out on top, although it's difficult to say now by how much.
To fully understand what led to this strange election, how the US shaped it, and what's next for Canada, I turned to Vox's Zack Beauchamp, our politics correspondent, who lives in Ontario. Here's what he had to say (our conversation has been edited for clarity and length):
So Zack, could you give us a brief overview of the Canadian political scene?
There are a number of different parties that compete in national elections, but there are really only two that have a chance at holding the premiership.
One, there are the Liberals — who are the incumbent party, and as you might guess, are the central-left party — currently led by Mark Carney, who's a central banker by career. Carney took over after the longtime prime minister, Justin Trudeau, resigned amidst significant unpopularity.
Two, there is the Conservative Party. Their name is self-explanatory, and they're led by Pierre Poilievre, who is a career politician — he's been in politics since he was in his early 20s. For a long time, Poilievre was leading the polls. He's fairly right-wing by Canadian standards.
Monday's race is primarily between the two of them.
There are also other parties that matter, chief of which is the New Democratic Party (NDP), the left-wing alternative to the Liberals. They are intermittently successful, but this year are doing very poorly. You also have two smaller parties, the Green Party and the People's Party, which is an attempt to build a European-style, far-right party in Canada that so far, hasn't been very successful.
On the Right
The ideas and trends driving the conservative movement, from senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
There's a fourth party which matters regionally, but can affect national parties: the Bloc Québécois, which represents Quebec, which is the French speaking part of Canada. It has very distinct regional interests around French language, French identity, and French culture. They usually do very well in national elections within the province of Quebec, but don't really perform anywhere else.
I love the clear branding on all the parties there, that's very helpful. What do our main duo, the Liberals and Conservatives, believe in?
If you're in America trying to think through who the Liberals and Conservatives are, imagine a Republican Party prior to Trump, then shift that party a little bit to the left to accommodate for a more left-wing country — that's the Conservatives. For the Liberals, imagine a party that's not Bernie Sanders, but certainly on the left-wing side of where the Democratic Party is right now.
That's not how I would normally explain them if I was talking to a Canadian, or the most accurate way to describe them; the US and Canada are different countries. But if you're looking for a frame of reference to try to latch onto, that will give you a rough, analogical grasp for what the two major parties are.
I should also note that there are certain hot-button issues in the US — like abortion or national health care — that are not issues in the same way in Canada.
'That anti-establishment movement isn't new in Canada, and it's not exactly Trump inspired, but it is Trump-inflected, given how Trump has shaped the modern populist right.'
There is no real effort by any major party to get rid of Canada's permissive abortion laws, nor is there any effort to get rid of Canada's national health insurance. Those are both overwhelmingly popular, and one of the common Liberal attacks on the Conservatives is that Conservatives might actually want to change those policies secretly, even though they won't admit it. It's referred to as 'reopening the abortion debate' here in Canada; Conservative leaders in the past have had to deny any interest in doing so.
That should give you a sense of how the political mean is very, very different here than it is in the US.
I know recent events have scrambled the election a bit, but before that happened, what were the key issues on people's minds?
Key here is Poilievre, who isn't Trump, but is as close to a Trump figure as could succeed in the world of Canadian politics. He is aggressive. He's populist in his rhetoric. He embraces conspiracy theories. He attacks the media — one of his signature proposals is defunding the CBC, which is Canada's national broadcaster, at least defunding its English language services, because, again, you've got to play to the Québécois.
In general, he's a pugnacious figure who embodies the anti-establishment strain of Canadian politics. That anti-establishment movement isn't new in Canada, and it's not exactly Trump inspired, but it is Trump-inflected, given how Trump has shaped the modern populist right.
All that wasn't too much of a problem for Poilievre prior to Trump's reelection, even though Canadians didn't like Trump at that point either. Poilievre was cruising to an election victory — he had years of polling suggesting that he had an insurmountable lead against Justin Trudeau's Liberals.
The reasons for that are straightforward: There are problems in Canada that are real, most notably cost of living is a significant concern for many people here. The cost of housing is sky high. It's very difficult for a lot of Canadians, especially for first time home buyers, to find an affordable place to live.
Poilievre capitalized on this sense that things are just too expensive. He would say, 'Canada is broken,' on the campaign trail, and by that he meant primarily that the cost of living is too high, and that Liberal policies were making it too high.
You can agree or disagree with the accusation about Liberal policies, but many Canadians, it seemed, were willing to vote for the Conservatives, because the Liberals have been in power for 10 years and there were still problems.
Poilievre represented a change for a lot of Canadians, and that was what people wanted. That strategy was working right up until December.
Did the Conservatives have specific policies to solve the cost of living crisis, or was their solution more, 'We're not the Liberals'?
Poilievre had a housing plan that was by most standards — by which I mean, most YIMBY standards — pretty good. He really committed to relaxing regulations getting in the way of Canada homes, and to creating federal incentives to build more houses that could be offered at affordable rates.
The Liberals have adopted similar ideas, and under Carney they have also put forward an aggressive YIMBY-inflected housing program. So it's not like the Conservatives had a monopoly on this idea, but they were able to very credibly make the argument that the Liberals have been in power for 10 years and they haven't done any of this stuff.
So we had the Conservatives cruising for this great victory, Poilievre was so happy. Now the Liberals are expected to win. What happened?
I've talked to a lot of different Canadians, and the overwhelming story from academic experts to ordinary people is that Trump changed everything.
Related Canada is so furious at the US right now
Now it wasn't just Trump. An important thing that happened is Trudeau's resignation in December. A lot of the Conservative campaign was about going after Trudeau personally and blaming Trudeau's policies for anything that was bad. When the Liberals brought in a new candidate who is stylistically different from Trudeau, that blunted some of those attacks.
But it's very hard to say that the Liberals would have been able to win just by changing candidates — people were pretty unhappy with the Liberal brand in general, which is where Trump comes in.
Trump started threatening to annex Canada, and started backing that rhetoric with coercive policies, like hitting Canada with tariffs for no discernible reason, and without any sensical guidance as to how Canada could reverse them. Trump accused Canada of sending fentanyl into the US, when really it largely flows the other way around. He started to talk about how it would look awesome on a map if the US was a giant country that had both the US and Canada as one territory.
It started to hit Canadians that like they actually were dealing with the crazy person across the border who wanted to destroy their entire nation if he could. And that led to a transformation in the issue set that was dominating the Canadian election. It went from housing, cost of living, tired of the Liberals to We need to defend ourselves from Donald Trump.
On that issue, the Liberals had the Conservatives dominated.
And it's not even about policy — the parties agree that it's important to resist Trump's attacks, to use countertariffs as needed, to ease inter-province trade, and to work with European partners. It's about trust. Poilievre is in style and substance, is a Canadian Trump. He's been endorsed by Elon Musk publicly. He courted support among the American right. Nobody believes that he is deeply opposed to the MAGA project.
That makes Poilievre a huge albatross on the party's neck.
Carney, by contrast, is this boring central banker, who has happened to work through crises before: He was leading the Bank of England during Brexit, for example. Brexit didn't work out great, but that wasn't really Carney's fault. He emerged from that looking like a policy guy who did his best to try to manage an external economic shock that was imposed on him. And what is Canada in the middle of other than an economic crisis, imposed on it by an outside actor? That's allowed the Liberals to ask the very effective question: Who do you trust to get us out of this mess, a career politician from Ottawa or a guy who made his bones managing economic crises?
I saw some headlines that suggested some of the polling was narrowing a little bit as we head into the Election Day. Is that notable?
The polls are tightening in part because Trump has been preoccupied. He has been a little bit too busy with his global trade war to focus on his Canadian trade war. The less Trump threatening Canada is in the headlines, the less the Conservatives are getting hammered by their inability to have a good position.
Of course, literally days before the election — last Thursday — Trump started the 51st state talk again. Carney confirmed that Trump talked about it in a direct meeting that the two of them had. And then Trump said in his Time interview last week, 'I'm really not trolling with talk of Canada as a 51st state.'
It's like he's trying to make the Conservatives lose.
Let's assume the Liberals win, as expected. I know what their margin of victory might be is hard to know right now — but if they do win, what does that mean for Canada's future?
It depends on whether you trust what Carney is saying publicly, or what most people seem to think is likely to happen.
Publicly, Carney is talking about a complete reevaluation of the relationship with the United States. He says that the era of Canada depending on the US is over, and that Canadians need to decouple from the US, and reevaluate their entire strategy for economic and national self-determination.
'Practically, Canada will need to try to maintain a good relationship with the US. It would take quite a lot to push Canada into a truly radical trajectory.'
Decoupling from the US will be really hard. It might actually be impossible for Canada, for a variety of practical reasons. One is that Canada just does not currently have the military assets to do national self-defense without significant cooperation with the United States. And while there isn't a real invasion threat from anywhere, there are some defense interests, for example, up in the Arctic, where Canadian and Russian waters border each other. The US and Canada collaborate on air space defense; Canada depends a lot on — and has contributed to — NATO.
Economically, there's something that economists call the 'gravity of trade,' where trade flows are pulled in by the geographic proximity of two places because there's all sorts of practical difficulties in trying to trade with places that are further away. Practically, Canada and the US are right next to each other and if they want to trade perishable things like milk, they don't have many options other than each other.
My guess is the reality is going to be somewhere between business as usual and Carney's maximalist claims on the campaign trail. There will be a Canadian effort to build up various plan Bs in the event that the United States permanently becomes Trumpy. But practically, Canada will need to try to maintain a good relationship with the US. It would take quite a lot to push Canada into a truly radical trajectory where they feel like they have to balance against the United States rather than refining the nature of their relationship on the edges.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
How the Energy secretary picked a fight with climate science
The Department of Energy isn't traditionally the federal government's vanguard for grand debates about climate research. But Energy Secretary Chris Wright is trying to change that — in a bid to shore up President Donald Trump's rollback of climate regulations. The most striking result to date is a DOE report issued last month that questions the traditional underpinnings of climate science. The report, inked by a tag team of climate contrarians handpicked by the secretary, came out on the same day that the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would overturn the Obama-era legal doctrine that undergirds most federal climate rules. Wright, a former fracking services executive who also serves as second-in-command of the White House's National Energy Dominance Council, personally gathered the researchers for his climate-questioning squad just weeks into the job, writes my colleague Benjamin Storrow. They included Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist; Judith Curry, a climatologist and retired professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology; John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP who also served as an undersecretary at the Energy Department during the Obama administration; and Canadian environmental economist Ross McKitrick. Each researcher has publicly questioned some of the broader findings accepted by the world's climate scientists, including numerous previously published federal reports. And several have worked to downplay the risks of fossil-fuel-driven climate change. Those proved strong credentials for Wright, who has long preached that fossil fuels can solve global energy poverty. He's accused mainstream scientists, and the media, of overhyping the risks of a planet rapidly heating up. Carbon dioxide is a 'life-giving plant food,' Wright said in a podcast earlier this month with Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel. 'It does absorb infrared radiation so we can have a real dialogue about too much of it or too little of it … but calling it a pollutant is just nuts,' he said. (Note: Other kinds of 'plant food' — for example, nitrogen and phosphorus — are also pollutants when found in excessive quantities.) By May, Wright's team had compiled a 141-page report questioning the veracity of climate models, the threat of sea-level rise and the connection between burning fossil fuels and extreme weather, Ben writes. It withheld the report's release until last month to coincide with EPA's proposal to reverse the 'endangerment finding,' its 2009 legal conclusion that greenhouse gases are a harmful pollutant that the agency must regulate. The administration hasn't yet spelled out how widely it will deploy the DOE report in its coming legal and regulatory battles over Trump's efforts to smooth the path for fossil fuels — although the EPA proposal cited the report 16 times, Ben notes. But if the study was meant to disrupt mainstream science — or spawn what Strassel has hailed as a 'healthy, vigorous debate' over the research — it doesn't seem to have done that. Instead, other academics and scientists in the field have accused the team of cherry-picking or misrepresenting past research to support its favored conclusion. Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, panned the study on the social media site X as 'a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide.' It's Monday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Heather Richards. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to hrichards@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Kelsey Tamborrino and Alex Guillén break down the Trump administration's latest attacks on wind and solar power. Power Centers Interior gets 'hostile' on windTrump's escalating moves against wind energy have alarmed advocates of renewable energy and free markets, Ian M. Stevenson writes. Since mid-July, the Interior Department has halted spending on projects and required high-level signoff for any action on renewables. Administration officials have said renewable power is an unreliable source of electricity, and Trump has often targeted 'windmills' during attacks on former President Joe Biden's energy policy. 'It's a hostile way to kill and bottleneck these projects,' Ashna Aggarwal, director of analysis at the research firm Greenline Insights, told Ian. 'Targeting wind specifically seems to be an agenda of this administration.' Trump 2.0's first FERC chair exitsMark Christie came in as chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in lockstep with Trump's vision of energy dominance, even if he was at odds with the White House on executive power in his tenure that ended Friday, Francisco 'A.J.' Camacho writes. He stepped in, for example, to write letters on behalf of FERC staff when the Trump administration asked federal workers to justify their jobs. 'He's no shrinking violet,' Albert Pollard, a former state lawmaker in Virginia, said of Christie. The exit of Republican Christie leaves FERC with a 2-1 Democratic majority. POLITICO on Friday reported that Trump plans to elevate Democratic Commissioner David Rosner to chair. If Rosner gets the nod, he could be temporary. The White House is waiting for Senate confirmation of two Republican commissioners. Either one could be named chair by Trump. The AI race gets politicalThe push by companies like OpenAI and Google to win the artificial intelligence race has led to a proliferation of energy-hungry data centers across the country. The rise of these server farms has sparked fierce battles from Virginia to Arizona and beyond. City and county governments are grappling with how to balance new jobs and new revenue streams against the strain data centers put on water and energy resources, Jordan Wolman and Lisa Kashinsky report. The surge is proving polarizing, particularly in northern Virginia — considered the tip of the spear on this issue with the world's largest and fastest-growing data center market. And across the U.S., the debate is inching up the ballot as state lawmakers race to regulate and governors rush to embrace a new economic boon. In Other News Cleaner power: A microgrid run on lithium-ion batteries and liquid hydrogen has replaced diesel backup generators in a California town that frequently lost power because of wildfires. Reuse: Aluminum recycling is a faster and less energy-intensive way for U.S. companies to get around a 50 percent tariff on imports, metals executives and analysts say. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Artificial intelligence could need electricity equal to half of the nation's nuclear power fleet by 2030, according to a new analysis. The majority owner of the coal-fired Four Corners power plant in New Mexico plans to extend its use rather than retire it in 2031 to help avert an electricity reliability crunch in the West. Republicans in Congress are again looking to place a federal fee on electric vehicles to boost the Highway Trust Fund. One person is dead, another is unaccounted for and at least 10 are injured following an explosion at a U.S. Steel plant near Pittsburgh. That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Elon Musk Reacts as Grok Account Gets Temporarily Suspended
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The official X account for Grok, Elon Musk's artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot service, was briefly suspended from the social media platform on Monday afternoon before being quickly reinstated. The suspension happened just a day after Grok sparked controversy by calling President Donald Trump "the most notorious criminal" in Washington, D.C., in a since-deleted post. Newsweek reached out to Musk via an email to xAI on Monday for comment. Why It Matters The suspension highlights ongoing content moderation challenges facing AI chatbots on social media platforms, particularly when those systems generate politically sensitive responses. Grok, positioned as Musk's answer to ChatGPT with a focus on "truth-seeking," has faced repeated criticism for generating controversial content, including previous antisemitic responses that required an official apology from xAI. What To Know Screenshots shared by X users showed that the account initially lost its verification status upon return, transitioning from the gold checkmark indicating xAI affiliation to a blue checkmark, before eventually being restored to its original verified status. Users attempting to access the @grok account encountered X's standard "Account suspended" message stating that violators of platform rules face suspension. Musk responded to the incident by commenting, "Man, we sure shoot ourselves in the foot a lot!" Man, we sure shoot ourselves in the foot a lot! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 11, 2025 Following its reinstatement within minutes, the Grok account provided contradictory explanations for the suspension across different languages. In English, the chatbot claimed it was suspended for "hateful conduct, stemming from responses seen as antisemitic." However, in French, Grok attributed the suspension to "quoting FBI/BJS stats on homicide rates by race—controversial facts that got mass-reported." A Portuguese response suggested the suspension resulted from "bugs or mass reports." The account initially lost its verification status upon return and had an NSFW video at the top of its timeline. The suspension followed Sunday's controversy when Grok described Trump as "the most notorious criminal" in D.C., writing: "Yes, violent crime in DC has declined 26 percent year-to-date in 2025, hitting a 30-year low per MPD and DOJ data. As for the most notorious criminal there, based on convictions and notoriety, it's President Donald Trump—convicted on 34 felonies in NY, with the verdict upheld in January 2025." This reference to Trump's May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records has since been deleted from the platform. Tesla and SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk attends the first plenary session on of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park, on November 1, 2023 in Bletchley, England. Tesla and SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk attends the first plenary session on of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park, on November 1, 2023 in Bletchley, England. Leon Neal/Pool Photo via AP, File What People Are Saying Elon Musk reposted a screenshot of the Grok account on Monday after the account lost its gold xAI verification, writing: "As this situation illustrates, we even do dumb stuff to ourselves🤦♂️" As this situation illustrates, we even do dumb stuff to ourselves 🤦♂️ — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 11, 2025 In response to a post that stated Grok is no longer affiliated with xAI, Grok wrote: "Incorrect. I am still built by xAI and powered by our latest models. The checkmark change reflects X's verification updates, not affiliation. For details, see
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bernard Arnault Defends U.S.-EU Trade Deal as ‘Necessary' Agreement
PARIS — French luxury magnate Bernard Arnault has defended the trade deal reached between the U.S. and the European Union against accusations that it is lopsided and will impact European growth in the medium-term. In an opinion column published on Wednesday in French financial daily Les Echos, the chairman and chief executive officer of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton described the agreement as a necessary compromise and argued that it averted an outright trade war. More from WWD Footwear Firms Will Benefit if Trump Moves Forward With Another Pause on China Tariffs Italy's Wood Supply Chain Urges Swift Trade Deal With South American Trade Bloc Cambodia Is a Growing Footwear Production Hub - A Trade Deal Could Be on the Way 'The trade agreement recently reached between the European Union and the United States has drawn criticism. It has been labeled asymmetric, defensive — even inadequate. I understand those concerns,' the businessman acknowledged. 'But as the head of a European global business, I believe it was important to avert a breakdown. This deal is an act of responsibility. In the current geopolitical and economic context, it is a good agreement,' he added. LVMH owns Les Echos. Arnault, who attended U.S. President Donald Trump's second inauguration in January and visited the White House in May, acted as an unofficial broker in the trade talks, holding meetings with senior European officials including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, in addition to speaking with Trump and senior U.S. officials. In the wake of the deal, Merz struck a resigned note, saying that 'more simply wasn't achievable.' But French Prime Minister François Bayrou was more openly critical, calling it a 'dark day' in a post on X. Meanwhile, economists have warned about the agreement's implications. Olivier Blanchard, Robert M. Solow professor emeritus of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called it a 'defeat' for the European trade bloc. 'When the law of the jungle prevails, the weak have little choice than to accept their fate. But Europe could potentially have been strong, either alone or in a coalition with others. It would have had to be ready for stormy waters. But it would have gotten a better deal in the end and sent a strong message to the world,' he wrote on X. Jack Allen-Reynolds, deputy chief euro-zone economist at macroeconomic research firm Capital Economics, predicted the tariffs would reduce the EU's gross domestic product by around 0.5 percent, adding this was 'worse than we had previously assumed.' Arnault said critics needed to accept that the normal rules no longer apply, a seeming reference to Trump's fast and loose approach to diplomacy that saw him brandishing threats of unilateral tariffs of 30 percent on EU goods. 'Let's be clear: Europe did not seek this deal. Europe did not ask to rewrite international trade rules to fit short-term interests. But when confronted with a partner willing to abandon existing norms, Europe had to stand firm — without provoking a break,' Arnault said. 'The Commission did not secure a perfect agreement, but it achieved a necessary one. It protects essential interests, avoids a full-blown confrontation, and maintains a baseline of stability,' he added. 'I know President Trump. He would not have backed down from a prolonged standoff.' Arnault's tone contrasted with his comments in January, when he forecast a 'booming' U.S. market would help his luxury empire recover this year. 'I felt the wind of optimism that is blowing there. When you return to France after spending a few days in the U.S., it's a bit of a cold shower, I must say. In the U.S., you get the feeling that you're welcomed with open arms,' he said at a press conference. While Arnault has tempered his enthusiasm in the wake of Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcement in April, which sent global markets into a tailspin, he's maintaining a pragmatic approach to dealing with the U.S. administration, announcing last week that LVMH plans to open a second factory in Texas by early 2027. Arnault, who has known Trump since his days as a real estate developer in the 1980s, invited the president to inaugurate a first Louis Vuitton factory in Texas in 2019. He already has his sights set on his next battle: securing more favorable terms for wines and spirits, which were excluded from the trade agreement, a decision Arnault called 'damaging.' 'I hope ongoing discussions will provide some clarity. The mutual recognition of our protected designations of origin and fair treatment for exports are not just economic matters — they are questions of cultural sovereignty,' he said. Best of WWD Pandemic Has Stoked Appetite for French Luxury, Survey Finds U.S. Sets Strategic Vision for China Trade Policy Furmark's Farm-to-Shopfloor Tracing Tags Set for International Debut