logo
The Angry Canadian

The Angry Canadian

Yahoo14-03-2025

Since 2018, Doug Ford has been the unlikely premier of the province of Ontario, a close equivalent to the governor of a U.S. state, if more governors looked like longshoremen and gave out their personal-cellphone number to anyone who asked for it. (I didn't ask Ford for his, but he volunteered it to me anyway when he found out I was a local. 'Text twice if it's important,' he told me. He had 4,616 messages waiting for him.) An old-school retail politician with more than 16 million constituents, Ford is the pugnacious, barrel-shaped leader of a near-trillion-dollar economy at an especially tender time: President Donald Trump has been threatening to bankrupt it, waging a trade war until Ontario and the rest of Canada capitulate and become 'the 51st state.' Many of those 4,616 messages were from Canadians scared out of their mind.
Ford has always found ways to elevate himself with almost insultingly simplistic positions, showing little interest in the more complex issues of governance. In his first campaign for premier, Ford won on a promise of 'buck-a-beer,' vowing to drop the minimum price for a bottle of suds from $1.25 to $1. As a campaign tactic, the ploy worked, but Ford never managed to lower prices.
This time around, he saw a grander opportunity in Trump's then-looming tariff threats and called a snap election for last month, more than a year early. Ford, the leader of Ontario's center-right Progressive Conservatives, took a shot at Trump's red MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hats by wearing a blue one that read CANADA IS NOT FOR SALE. Canadians began ordering the hats by the tens of thousands.
Ford hoped his suddenly patriotic electorate would forget about the province's struggling hospitals and colleges, its bonkers traffic, and the indiscretions that have marked his tenure, including a real-estate scandal that is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. 'It's all about communicating with the people,' Ford told me. His phone buzzed constantly with encouragement—he leaves it on at night but has learned to sleep through its vibrations—and he was elected to his third majority government, an achievement that hasn't been seen in Ontario since 1959. Turnout was low because the conclusion was foregone: When Ontarians looked at the candidates and thought about who they'd want to have with them in a fight against Trump, the choice was obvious.
They picked Doug Ford.
Earlier this week, he seemed set to deliver on his promise to 'protect Ontario,' backed by broad, sometimes vitriolic public support. The province generates enough power to sell its surplus to New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, providing light to about 1.5 million U.S. homes and businesses. On Monday, the price went up.
[Read: Canada is taking Trump seriously and personally]
'We will apply maximum pressure to maximize our leverage,' Ford said at a packed press conference in Toronto, announcing a 25 percent surcharge on America-bound power. 'If necessary, if the United States escalates, I will not hesitate to shut the electricity off completely.'
He'd already ordered American liquor off store shelves and canceled a $100 million Starlink contract, but the electricity surcharge was the start of an especially dramatic, tension-filled week. On Tuesday morning, Trump escalated: He slapped an additional 25 percent tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum in direct response to Ford's electricity surcharge, on top of the 25 percent tariff Trump was already going to impose. Ford countered with another lightning round of the American TV appearances that have seen him become the crimson face of Canadian anger. 'Stay tuned,' he said.
Hours later, Ford blinked. By Tuesday afternoon, he had suspended the electricity surcharge, saying that 'the temperature needs to come down.' Trump, in turn, canceled the additional metals tariff, reverting to his original 25 percent imposition, and then took his predictably ungracious victory lap. 'President Trump has once again used the leverage of the American economy, which is the best and biggest in the world, to deliver a win for the American people,' the White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.
Ford said that a conciliatory call from Howard Lutnick, Trump's commerce secretary, and the promise of an in-person meeting had convinced him to take a step back. 'It's called an olive branch,' Ford said. He was also under pressure from his fellow premiers, who were concerned about his high-stakes freelancing; most of the aluminum that Trump was crushing under his retaliatory tariffs comes from Quebec, not Ontario. 'I only speak for the province of Ontario,' Ford said when announcing his pullback. 'I want to reaffirm that I don't speak for any other premiers.'
Whatever the reasons behind Ford's about-face, it felt like a quick, even humiliating, fold—not just for him, but for every Canadian who agrees with outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Trump represents 'an existential crisis' to their way of life.
'Will you really turn out the lights?' I'd asked Ford on Monday.
'Don't think I won't,' he'd said.
At the time, he seemed to mean it. His next move, and Canada's, was much less clear.
Most Canadians recognize that an all-out trade war would devastate their economy. Many have also long felt a low-level antipathy toward the U.S., held back for decades by fear and the desire to be good neighbors. But just as Trump has given permission for other suppressed thoughts to be expressed out loud, he has set loose a wave of Canadian discontent: Now that he's threatening to annex Canada anyway, Canadians don't have much to lose by booing the U.S. anthem at hockey games. They can finally say how they really feel, and for a few weeks at least, Doug Ford became their principal proxy.
[Read: Trump's most inexplicable decision yet]
After he'd announced his short-lived electricity surcharge, Ford returned to his office at Ontario's Legislative Building, which is made of pink sandstone and known colloquially as Queen's Park. He has never spent much time in it. 'His phone is his office,' an aide told me. Room 281 has a single, conspicuous book on its many shelves, titled With Faith and Good Will: 150 Years of Canada-U.S. Friendship. The battleship of a desk is bare except for a lamp that might not be plugged in and a gold plaque that reads FOR THE PEOPLE. Behind it, a tufted leather chair is likewise empty. The premier refuses to sit in it.
'Don't ask me why,' Ford said. 'I didn't do it for a few years, and then it was done.'
We took to a pair of couches instead. Ford is a solid man, 60 years old but robust, and he sat on the edge of his seat, coiled like a spring. I asked him how he'd introduce himself to Americans who haven't caught one of his many appearances on CNN or Fox, the lonely book on Ford's shelf now feeling like a relic from a forgotten age.
'Elbows up,' he said, using a hockey term that has become a Canadian rallying cry. A 'Gordie Howe hat trick' is a goal, an assist, and a fight; Howe once said that swinging an elbow was his favorite method of on-ice retribution. Mike Myers recently mouthed 'Elbows up' when he appeared on Saturday Night Live to mock Elon Musk. Trudeau said it last weekend.
'Elbows up,' Ford said again. 'Everyone's elbows are up.'
Americans tend to think of Canadians as 'nice' and find the idea of angry Canadians funny. They are wrong on both counts. Americans are nicer than Canadians—warmer, friendlier, more gregarious. Canadians are polite. The difference is subtle but important. There is an unwritten civility contract girding every aspect of Canadian society. The Canadian equivalent of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is 'peace, order, and good government,' so enshrined in the constitution since 1867. Most Canadians want uncomplicated lives, a desire for calm that can be misinterpreted by louder people as meekness. This is also a mistake.
The bedrock of Canada's collective tranquility is the knowledge that misbehavior will not be tolerated, and, as in hockey, violations of the code of conduct will be met with hair-trigger aggression. Try cutting a line and see what happens.
Canadians say 'sorry' a lot, not because they've done anything wrong, but because apologies are demanded of them from birth until they learn to live right. Treading gently becomes habit. If I let you into traffic—which I will, because I'm not a child—you need to acknowledge my generosity with a wave, and then we will both go about our day feeling good about ourselves; if you fail to wave, I will get very upset about it, unless you realize your mistake and apologize, in which case we have a good chance of becoming friends. In Canada, conducting yourself honorably after a scrap makes the disagreement disappear. What matters is that you're a stand-up bud.
To a large majority of Canadians, Trump is the opposite of a stand-up bud, and Americans are to blame for electing him. Last week in Calgary, some ominous graffiti showed up on the Centre Street Bridge. 'There is no enemy like a friend betrayed,' it read beside a crossed-out image of an American flag. Two months ago, Canadians sent water bombers to help fight the Los Angeles wildfires. Then Trump ramped up his '51st state' and 'Governor Trudeau' trolling, and now come his tariffs. None of it sounded like a joke to Canadians, because it wasn't a joke. It's the biggest failure to wave back ever, and Canadians know better than to expect an apology.
For many, that takes friendship off the table.
Trump likes to play make-believe gangster. Doug Ford shouldn't have needed to pretend. 'He's met a different type of cat,' Ford said to me on Monday. 'He's up against the Fords. We've done stuff that no other politician would ever do.'
Canadians like a little crackle in their representatives. In 2012, Trudeau fought and won a charity boxing match against Patrick Brazeau, a Conservative senator, and became prime minister not long after. (Last week, Brazeau challenged Donald Trump Jr. to a fight, an offer that, so far, has gone unaccepted.) In 1996, Jean Chrétien, one of Canada's most popular prime ministers, brought down a protester who got in his way on Flag Day. Chrétien, who hails from Shawinigan, Quebec, saw his choke hold immortalized as 'the Shawinigan handshake' and won a second majority the next year.
Ford, a.k.a. 'DoFo,' has always been his own kind of heavy, a machine seemingly custom-made to take on someone like Trump. His father, Doug Ford Sr., made a fortune with a sticker company that became Deco Labels & Flexible Packaging, purveyors of labels and plastic wraps for groceries. After 60 years, the company is still one of Ontario's largest printers. Ford Sr. and his wife had four children: Kathy, Randy, Doug, and Rob. He also dabbled in provincial politics, serving one term in the 1990s as the Conservative representative for Etobicoke-Humber, in what used to be Toronto's western suburbs. Doug, regarded as the brains behind any Ford operation, helped run his father's campaign.
Doug Ford Jr. dropped out of college after two months but earned his own education at his father's shoulder and, according to a 2013 investigation by The Globe and Mail, as 'a go-to dealer of hash' in the 1980s, when he was in his teens and early 20s. (Ford was never criminally charged for his alleged drug dealing and vehemently denied the suggestion at the time.) Several sources told the newspaper that Ford was both envied and admired for the way he conducted his less legitimate enterprise—that he was savvy, careful, and controlled, an almost cinematic exemplar of the trade.
Another source said that Randy, who today runs the labels company with Doug, had his own drug operation and favored different tactics. (His lawyer called the allegations 'a smear campaign.') According to the Globe, when Randy was 24, he was charged with assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement after a customer fell behind on his credit and spent 10 hours locked in a basement. Kathy, largely invisible, has suffered more serious calamity. In 1998, her lover was shot and killed by her ex-husband; in 2005, she survived a gunshot to the face after a mysterious episode in her parents' house.
Only Rob, the youngest of the Ford siblings, grew up relatively insulated from the family's chaos, although his turn would come. Like Randy and Doug, he was a formidable specimen, a human tank topped with a turret of spiked blond hair. Following an uninspired spell working for his father in sales, he decided to try his hand at local politics. Doug managed each of Rob's campaigns for a seat on Toronto's council, which he first earned in 2000 and defended twice. In 2010, Rob was elected mayor, campaigning in part by randomly sticking magnets with his phone number on parked cars, and Doug took Rob's former council seat, his opening taste of front-room politics and a chance for the brothers to serve their city together.
In many ways, the Fords were proto-Trumps, proving adept at turning private scandal into surprising public popularity. In 2014, I was sent by Esquire to profile Rob Ford, who had become famous, and weirdly celebrated, for getting caught on video smoking crack. Doug remained his brother's keeper. 'We love Americans,' he told me, assuming I was one, and I didn't correct him. From the outside, Rob Ford's story was treated comedically because he was fat and some of the scenes from his tenure were surreal. During one press scrum, after he'd been accused of telling an aide that he wished to perform oral sex on her, the mayor issued an unusual denial: 'I'm happily married,' he said. 'I've got more than enough to eat at home.'
Rob Ford was in fact a tragic figure. He was addicted to drugs and alcohol despite his best efforts to quit them. When I met him, he claimed to have been sober for more than 10 weeks and to have lost nearly 30 pounds. 'I'm never going back,' Rob said. Not long after, a video surfaced of him drunk in a Jamaican restaurant speaking a butchered version of patois. He died two years later, at 46, of pleomorphic liposarcoma, a rare and terrible cancer.
Today, the largest piece of art in the premier's mostly unused office is a giant photograph of a triumphant Rob being lifted into the air by a high-school football team he once coached. When Doug Ford looks over his shoulder and sees his lost brother, Rob is forever winning.
'A lot of people over the years have counted us out,' Ford said. He was sometimes known as 'Angry Doug' in his early years in office. He has since trained himself to have only two public expressions. One is flat and vaguely benign, like he's daydreaming while waiting for a bus; the other is a wide smile that doesn't quite reach his eyes, like he's at a party that he wants to leave.
But every now and then, for a flash, his mask slips off and the real Doug Ford shines through.
'The last thing you should ever do is count a Ford out,' he said.
And there he was.
All along, Ford's stated goal was to get everyone to sit down and renegotiate the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the free-trade agreement that Trump himself brokered in his first term and called 'great for all of our countries.' ('I guess he doesn't think it is anymore,' Ford said.) It's possible that Lutnick asked Ford to soothe the president with Tuesday's easy win, that a new free-trade agreement will be negotiated, and that Ford's brief electricity gambit will help Trump understand that it's time to pick on somebody else. (Trump called Ford 'a very strong man from Canada' after Tuesday's back-and-forth.)
But Trump, who by now may well have forgotten Doug Ford's name—Lutnick called him 'some guy in Ontario' on Tuesday—has threatened to tear up other long-standing border and water-sharing agreements with Canada. Appeasement seems impossible. Mutual trust has been replaced with Canadian resignation that the medium-term pain of finding new, more reliable friends (and trading partners) is the best of the bad options. It's going to hurt. Canceled vacations are just the start. 'We will never again put ourselves in the position of being so dependent on the United States,' David Eby, the leftist New Democratic premier of British Columbia, said last week. Someone else will buy Canadian aluminum, and maybe when the U.S. runs out of airplane parts, and the markets continue to tank, Americans will teach Trump the lessons that Doug Ford can't.
A more immediate change is coming to Canada's federal government. On Sunday, Trudeau was replaced as the Liberal Party leader by Mark Carney, an economist and the former governor of the banks of Canada and England who brought the U.K. through the calamity of Brexit. 'We will have to do things that we haven't imagined before, at speeds we didn't think possible,' Carney said after he'd claimed the leadership. He will reportedly rush to call an election to try to secure his mandate as prime minister. If he wins—he's already picked his slogan, 'Canada Strong'—he will take over as the brains of the Canadian operation, in concert with his colleagues in Europe. On Wednesday, the Liberals hit back at Trump with tariffs on more than $20 billion of U.S. goods, including computers and cast iron. Doug Ford, perhaps happily, might soon be reduced to the role of chief muscle.
[Read: Justin Trudeau's performative self-regard]
First, though, Canadians, like Ontarians before them, will have to decide their votes by answering a single question: Who will best defend them from Trump's attacks? Before the president's bullying campaign began, the Liberals looked doomed, bound to suffer a beatdown at the hands of the federal Conservatives, led by a career politician named Pierre Poilievre. But Poilievre, who has often echoed Trump's anti-'woke' rhetoric, was surprisingly slow to react to the national mood. Only this week, Poilievre said Carney was using Trump 'to distract' Canadians from more substantive issues, an accusation that one columnist deemed 'insane.' Now the race is close to a dead heat.
'I couldn't answer that,' Ford said when I asked him why the same crisis that had elevated him, however temporarily, has diminished Poilievre, even though they represent the same party. 'I don't care about political stripes. You'd have to ask him.'
Ford knew the answer, though. In Canada, there's only ever been one.
Elbows up.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump supporters, this is what you're cheering as his deportation scheme unfolds
Trump supporters, this is what you're cheering as his deportation scheme unfolds

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump supporters, this is what you're cheering as his deportation scheme unfolds

For the past several days, Los Angeles has been alive with protests over President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. These largely peaceful demonstrations are vital to democracy. They're also infuriating Trump and Republicans. They've upset the president so much, in fact, that he deployed the National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to the city against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. On the campaign trail for reelection, Trump threatened the 'largest deportation operation in American history.' Whether he's actually achieving that doesn't really matter; the terror he's instilling in immigrant communities is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. In the wake of these protests, it is important to remember why people are upset in the first place. Protesters are angry that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is indiscriminately targeting people, and these people, who are being arrested and deported, have no access to due process. They are angry, and they are allowed to voice their frustrations. While nearly half the country voted for this terrifying regime, half the country wanted anything but this. It's deeper than what's happening in Los Angeles. It's what this administration is doing all over the country. For those who still support Trump's plan, here is what you are supporting. What's particularly alarming about what's happening in Los Angeles is that it flies in the face of the Republican fight for states' rights. Apparently, it's fine when abortion is left to the states, but protests must be managed by the federal government. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem once called out former President Joe Biden for even thinking about federalizing the National Guard in Texas in 2024. Now, she's cheering on Trump's actions in California. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Opinion: Trump is so busy wasting $134 million on LA invasion he forgot to lower prices I am glad people are protesting Trump's horrific immigration policies. I am glad folks are standing up for their neighbors, because whether you like it or not, undocumented people are contributing members of your community. But the truth is that if you're excited about the federal government invading California, then you stopped caring about states' rights. Since Trump was inaugurated for his second term, ICE has arrested more than 100,000 undocumented migrants. The vast majority of the people being detained in ICE facilities have no criminal convictions. People reporting for their immigration hearings – as they have been instructed to do by the U.S. government – have been arrested. So were people at a Los Angeles Home Depot looking for work. To Trump and the people within his administration, every undocumented immigrant is a criminal. It's not just undocumented immigrants who are being taken in. Take Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident who was wrongly deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador and only recently returned to the United States to face federal criminal charges. There are also student protesters, like Mahmoud Khalil, who have been detained by immigration officials because they dared to speak out against what's happening in Gaza. Republicans are now afraid of words. Opinion: After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment – only MAGA can protest These arrests have become too much for a select few Trump supporters who still have a conscience. Florida Sen. Ileana Garcia, one of the founders of 'Latinas for Trump,' recently called out the inhumane actions of Trump and White House adviser Stephen Miller. 'This is not what we voted for,' Garcia wrote. 'I have always supported Trump, @realDonaldTrump, through thick and thin. However, this is unacceptable and inhumane. I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings ‒ in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims ‒ all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I hate to break it to Garcia, but this is exactly what she and others voted for. This is what America's 'largest deportation operation' was always going to look like – it was never going to just be the 'worst of the worst.' But her latest reaction is a sign that supporting Trump now means something different. It now means supporting rounding up people following the legal process just to make yourself feel better with a fake sense of "securing the border." Under Trump, immigration officials have essentially done away with due process in the interest of meeting deportation goals. They've made it clear they want no part of following the law or the process for deporting people. That's too much work. They'd rather defy the courts, then play the victim when the courts rule against them. Opinion: Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? That's what happens when you arrest people on their way to immigration hearings. That's what happens when you deport people to jurisdictions outside of the United States. It is what happens when you circumvent the rules to achieve a goal, and it should terrify everyone. Regardless of what Trump and Republicans think, the right to due process for everyone is enshrined in the Constitution. If the president can take away the rights of a vulnerable group of people, who's to stop him from infringing on the rights of U.S. citizens in the future? Again, Republicans, you still want this? You want people to be stripped of their rights? You want a federal government imposing itself on states? You want people deported indiscriminately? Congratulations, then. You're doing it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump lied. ICE nabs law-abiding immigrants, not criminals | Opinion

Zelenskyy says he regrets that Oval Office blowup, but he's still pushing Trump
Zelenskyy says he regrets that Oval Office blowup, but he's still pushing Trump

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Zelenskyy says he regrets that Oval Office blowup, but he's still pushing Trump

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he regrets that his Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump in late February spun out of control, but explained that it was his impatience to reach "concrete decisions" during wartime that led to the blowup. 'We simply don't have that much time in our lives. I wanted concrete decisions,' Zelenskyy said on Wednesday in an interview in Odessa with the Axel Springer Global Reporters network, which includes POLITICO. 'We were unable to make certain decisions, extremely important decisions. I don't know whether America was ready to address these issues or not. I have to resolve this issue of war. You see, time is very precious. Not my personal time, but the time of my country.' Zelenskyy also said he liked his one-on-one meeting with Trump, held two months later on the sidelines of Pope Francis' funeral at The Vatican, much 'better' than his ill-fated visit to the White House. 'We were able to discuss much more than at the other meeting, which felt like it lasted a lifetime,' Zelenskyy said, describing Trump as 'friendly.' Ukraine's embattled president, whose assertiveness and persistent requests for additional aid also privately irked President Joe Biden and his top aides, has worked assiduously to improve his relationship with Trump since that fateful February encounter. And the two countries did eventually sign the economic agreement to jointly develop Ukraine's rare earth minerals once the war is over, a pact that was temporarily tabled when the White House visit went sideways. Yet he also suggested in the interview that even his war-torn country may be able to turn the war into a new phase. 'Relations between our countries are not entirely balanced, but that was in the past,' Zelenskyy said. 'And today we must do everything we can to ensure that the next meeting in the Oval Office is successful for both countries. The lives of many people depend on it. And peace depends on it. Many countries in Europe depend on whether there will be security and peace in Ukraine. The security and stability of many countries in Europe depend on it.' After months of trying to browbeat Ukraine into negotiating a peace deal that would have required them to permanently cede occupied territory to Russia, Trump is showing a new willingness to allow the war to continue. That's seemingly a response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's refusal to seriously engage in peace talks. With Trump possibly rethinking his approach, Zelenskyy pushed the White House to maintain a sense of urgency and increase its pressure on Moscow. 'It's important to impose sanctions. We shouldn't... play by Putin's rules. It is important to impose sanctions and force Putin to agree to a ceasefire so that we can talk about ending the war,' Zelenskyy said. He will have a chance to make another direct appeal to Trump next week when he is scheduled to attend the G-7 leader's summit in the Canadian Rockies. Trump, during a meeting last week with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, expressed hesitation about giving the Senate a green light to advance widely supported legislation to impose additional sanctions on Russia. Describing the proposal in its original form as 'very harsh' on Russia, the president has been privately skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions and, for months, has believed taking a harder stance toward Putin would backfire. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. But with the Russian leader unwilling to make any substantive concessions toward a ceasefire while stepping up his bombings of Ukrainian cities, Trump appears to be shifting course away from his push for peace and tempering his hopes for a fast rapprochement with Putin. In Wednesday's interview, Zelenskyy said Trump remains the key figure who can bring the war to an end and urged the president to allow the sanctions bill to move forward. 'The strength of the sanctions, how strong the sanctions package will be, depends on him,' Zelenskyy said. 'The speed with which decisions are made depends on him; we don't see any resistance from the senators, for example. On the contrary, the majority is in favor.' Trump, during the meeting with Merz, said the timeline for when he'll have to toughen up with Putin is 'in my head' — a statement that Zelenskyy said gave him hope that the stronger pressure he's asking for from the U.S. will eventually come. 'I very much hope that President Trump will stick to it,' Zelenskyy said. 'It's not even about the fact that he promised during the election campaign that he would end the war. That's not the point. It's more that he is a certain person — and let's also consider his age — and I think it's important for him, I hope it's important for him to end the war. He has spoken about it very often, he has repeated many times that he will end the killing.' Zelenskyy also spoke about Operation Spider Web, the clandestine and ultimately successful endeavor to sneak drones into Russia that earlier this month succeeded in taking out roughly a third of Putin's long-range bomber fleet. Trump, whose aides said he did not get a heads up about the attack, expressed only mild frustration over the attack and stated that Putin, in a call last week, told him that he planned to retaliate soon. The attack, Zelenskyy said, ushered the war into 'a new phase,' suggesting that Kyiv is also capable of escalation if the fledgling peace talks run aground. 'I think that both in the U.S. and everywhere else, we must do everything we can to end this war so that we do not have further phases in this war.'

‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts

Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media," falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store