Trump loses Canadian election in stunning rebuke
April 29, 2025
Let’s start with two encouraging stories on a day that saw more unconstitutional actions by Trump.
Trump loses the 2025 Canadian federal election, a hopeful sign for America in 2026 and 2028
Although Trump was not a candidate in the 2025 Canadian federal election that concluded on April 28, his menacing shadow hovered over the national campaigns of both major Canadian parties.
Trump's tariffs and talk of absorbing Canada as the 51st US state tipped the election in favor of the Liberal Party—which was trailing badly until Trump opened his mouth in support Conservative Party policies. See The Guardian, Mark Carney’s Liberal party projected to win after running on anti-Trump platform.
The Conservative Party candidate tried to distance himself from Trump—to no avail. See The Hill, Canada’s Conservative leader tells Trump to ‘stay out of our election’.
The similarities between Trump and the Conservative populist candidate Pierre Poilievre were too much for the Canadian people. Voting against Poilievre was a vicarious vote against Trump. See The Toronto Star, Carney’s election victory was more about Trump than Poilievre
Per The Star,
Donald Trump went on social media on Canada’s election day to endorse himself as the best leader for this country.
Canadians politely disagreed, handing victory to Mark Carney and the Liberals — a vote for stability amid the chaos Trump keeps wanting to wreak on Canada.
While Canada is not the US, Trump injected himself into Canadian politics. All signs point to a similarly rude reception by the American electorate in 2026.
We can’t take anything for granted, but MAGA Republicans would have touted a win by the conservative candidate as a victory for Trump. So we should be equally loud in proclaiming Mark Carney’s victory as a stunning defeat for Trump--a good sign for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential elections in the US.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker delivers a passionate rebuke of Trump, calls for mass protests to stop Trump agenda
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker delivered a speech in New Hampshire on Sunday that struck a chord with many Democrats. The speech managed to break through the media’s wall of ennui that blocks coverage of politicians who speak the truth about Trump's lawless agenda.
Everyone who cherishes the rule of law should be ecstatic about this development. Mainstream Democratic officials are finally raising the alarm and calling for mass protests to stop Trump's agenda now, rather than waiting for 2026 and 2028.
Pritzker’s remarks can be summarized as follows:
He repeated the points that grassroots activists have been shouting from the rooftops for the last 100 days.
He made the same points that Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cory Booker, Maxwell Frost, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and others have been making in rallies and appearances nationwide for the last 100 days.
Still, the fact that Governor Pritzker made those same points was welcome news for several reasons.
First—and most importantly—it shows that the grassroots message is breaking through to the institutional Democratic Party. That fact alone is cause for celebration. No shade is thrown or disrespect intended by noting that Governor Pritzker is amplifying the message that millions of ordinary citizens have been shouting from roadsides and street corners and in town halls for the last 100 days. We should welcome Governor Pritzker to the cause with open arms and urge him to join us on street corners and roadsides and in town halls daily.
Second, Governor Pritzker’s speech gained traction because he attacked “do nothing Democrats.” Media outlets that cannot rouse themselves to report on the ongoing attempted coup by Trump perked up at the first sign of potential infighting in the Democratic Party. Indeed, fully half of the headlines about Pritzker’s speech focused on his brief criticism of other Democrats rather than his blistering take-down of Donald Trump. See, e.g., NYTimes, Pritzker Thunders Against ‘Do Nothing’ Democrats as He Stokes 2028 Talk.
Third, Pritzker’s comments gained traction because—as noted in the NYTimes headline above—the speech was delivered in New Hampshire, the site of the first-in-the-nation caucuses for the 2028 Democratic nomination.
The third point should not concern us. Any Democratic contender in 2028 should focus their fire on Trump.
But the second point—criticizing other Democrats—is stupid politics. Pritzker’s criticisms of Democrats are consultant-driven, manufactured grievances that seek to assign blame for the 2024 loss by engaging in selective amnesia.
I listened to Pritzker explain to Jen Psaki on Monday evening that Democrats failed to make the $15 minimum wage a centerpiece of their campaigns. Pritzker was apparently out of the country for the 2024 presidential campaign—in which Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both ran on enacting a national $15 minimum wage. See CNN, (10/23/2024), Federal minimum wage: Harris unveils support for $15 minimum after slamming Trump’s McDonald’s visit.
So, Kudos to Pritzker for tearing into Trump, for calling for mass protests to stop Trump's ongoing coup, and for demanding that all Democrats raise the alarm and act like our democracy is at risk. But he should ditch the consultants and pundits who—like the NYTimes—turn every issue into horse-race politics—a world in which attacking the progressive wing of the party purportedly increases a “moderate’s” chances of winning the Democratic nomination.
If anyone from the Pritzker 2028 campaign is reading this, here is what I would say to the candidate:
Dear JB Pritzker, Welcome to the fight! Democrats are your friends and allies, and Trump is your adversary. Please keep those principles in mind next time you give a speech. Otherwise, keep up the good work!
And don’t get me started on Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin, who is rewarding support from progressive Democrats who helped her win a Senate seat in 2024 by describing them as “weak and woke.” See NYPost, Sen. Elissa Slotkin calls out Democrats for being 'weak and woke', urges colleagues to 'f---ing retake the flag'.
NY Times asks 35 legal scholars to rate Trump's first 100 days
The NY Times published a “guest essay” op-ed in which it summarized commentary from 35 legal scholars on Trump's first 100 days in office. See NYTimes, The ‘Recklessness Itself Sends a Message’: 35 Legal Experts Assess Trump’s Return. (Accessible to all.)
The comprehensive review confirms that the consensus view among legal scholars is that Trump has violated the Constitution and federal statutes in the following areas:
Proclaiming an end to birthright citizenship;
Deporting people without due process;
Targeting law firms;
Targeting universities;
Targeting the press (esp. Associated Press);
Impounding and withholding funds appropriated by Congress;
Imposing tariffs without congressional review;
Firing directors at independent agencies;
Ignoring court orders; and
Politicization of the Justice Department.
The Times crams additional unlawful actions into the above broad categories.
The op-ed is a respectable effort to catalog Trump's unlawful actions, most of which violate the Constitution. And the Times concludes by raising the question of the Big Picture—i.e., is Trump attempting to impose an authoritarian regime in place of our constitutional democracy?
Trump issues three new executive orders
Trump issued three new executive orders, one of which claimed that Trump would withhold federal funds from cities and states that declare themselves to be “sanctuary” cities or states. See The Hill, Trump to sign executive order to target sanctuary cities.
Like Trump's other executive orders, the president has no authority to withhold, delay, or impound funds appropriated by Congress. Such a move violates Article I of the Constitution and the Impoundment Act of 1974. The withholding of funds from sanctuary cities will be challenged in court—and Trump will lose. See, e.g., AP, Judge bars Trump from denying federal funds to ‘sanctuary’ cities that limit immigration cooperation.
A second executive order requires drivers of commercial trucks to speak English. See The Hill, Trump executive order requires truck drivers to speak English.
Per Freightwaves, the order
Requir[es] truck drivers to read, speak and communicate effectively in English. The order authorized federal and state roadside inspectors to once again place drivers out of service if they are unable to meet the English proficiency standards.
Per the US Census Bureau,
Based on the 2019 data, 52% of people who spoke Chinese and 57% of those who spoke Vietnamese at home in the United States spoke English “less than very well,” compared to the other three common languages: Spanish 39%, Tagalog 30%, and Arabic 35%. This may have resulted from a recent increase in immigration from Asia and newcomers who have not had enough time to assimilate and master English yet.
Quick notes.
As I noted several weeks ago, my wife and I will be tending to family matters over the next several weeks as we await the birth of two new grandchildren and assist with childcare thereafter. So, I offer the following stories without commentary for discussion in the Comment section:
See Rolling Stone, Justice Department Guts Voting Rights Unit: Report
NY Times, Trump Recasts Mission of Justice Dept.’s Civil Rights Office, Prompting ‘Exodus’.
Trump issued an executive order that seems to offer police officers accused of misconduct free pro bono defense services from the BigLaw firms that capitulated to Trump. See Bloomberg Law, Trump Wants Law Firms to Defend Cops Facing Misconduct Suits
Associated Press, US dismisses all authors of National Climate Assessment, email says
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has asked Twitter users if the Department of Defense should be renamed the “War Department.”
Opportunity for Reader Engagement
For readers in the Los Angeles area:
Join protests at Burbank Airport every Sunday from 4:00 to 6:00 pm to protest Avelo Airlines, which is providing charter services to deport migrants from the US to El Salvador. See Avelo Airlines —Stop the Deportations · May Day Strong.
Concluding Thoughts
Trump is reacting to his horrible polling numbers by ratcheting up the performative cruelty. The cruelty extends beyond immigration. As noted above, Trump is ending federal programs to help victims of hate crimes, sexual abuse, disability discrimination, school violence, and more.
Trump knows only one strategy—attack. That strategy is destroying his support among the American electorate, so “doubling down” on the strategy is self-defeating. Readers sometimes criticize my newsletters in the Comments and private emails by saying that protests are useless because “they won’t change Trump.”
It is true “that protests won’t change Trump,” but that’s not the point. We need to pry loose only four or five Republicans in each chamber of Congress and we can stop the horrific reconciliation package that the House and Senate are working on as I write.
A tipping point exists. As Trump’s favorability ratings continue to plummet, some Republicans will eventually fear losing their seats to a Democrat more than they fear being primaried by a Trump-supported candidate. Sadly, as the damage and pain from Trump’s policies increase each day, we are getting closer to the tipping point.
The elections in Canada serve as a barometer for the pressure in the US —and the mercury is falling fast for Trump, predicting stormy weather for the GOP. Trump’s doubling down on performative cruelty is the opposite message that he should take from his poll numbers. His narcissism will destroy the Republican Party—sooner rather than later.
Daily Dose of Perspective
Recycling an image of the Cave Nebula.
Today there was a major hearing for big law firm Wilmer Hale, against the DOJ targeting. It was a powerful case, expertly argued by chief Wilmer Hale litigator Paul Clement, who deftly framed the entire assault. This was covered extensively by Roger Parloff at Lawfare; I direct you to the full article. Judge Leon was very sympathetic to Wilmer Hale's arguments, at times anticipating the argument to shame the DOJ's vindictive charges. There are some very choice comments, and the whole hearing is worthwhile reading.
The two main takeaways noted by the Judge against the DOJ were: 1) broad and clear retaliation; 2) discrimination of viewpoint. This is such a major case, with so many important issues at stake, that the Judge said his final decision will not take days -- it will take weeks (which I interpret as a potential nation-wide ruling on behalf of law firms against DOJ extortion).
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/our-reporter-s-notes-on-the-april-23-wilmerhale-hearing
My second link refers back to a lovely discussion we had here a few weeks ago re: the power of music and the arts as nourishment through dark political times (maybe it was Bea's report of an opera). I read this weekend about Pope Francis's love of the arts, culture, literature and music. This really surprised me -- I don't know much about the Papacy or the Catholic Church, but this struck me as a welcome attribute for a modern Pope. There was a fabulous visual-media article this weekend about the Pope's favorite painting in Rome, by Caravaggio. Here is a gift link to that NYT article, "Piercing the Shadows of the Pope’s Favorite Painting":
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/24/arts/pope-francis-caravaggio.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ck8.-o2P.z5JaUssIt0jn&smid=url-share&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR5zbcs5nJh1XpLsfXe8edJte7oQFfHUloly6nGcxAnk4iIHSfDNDcLmXTvoYQ_aem__x5M34YgaFfMiX6ivjEHyA
Update: Wow — Paul Clement (above) has just joined as representation for the Judge Dugan arrest case in Milwaukee. Details here: https://bsky.app/profile/bradheath.bsky.social/post/3lnxnypvnwk2y
Robert: You are seeing and telling it like it is , regarding Trump's attitude and behavior. He is in full, non-stop self defeatist mode. This is who he is, and in a paradoxical way, those of us who are seeking relief, a return to some semblance of normalcy should be glad this miscreant is acting the way he is. I wouldn't be surprised to see the administration, and their ilk politically implode sooner rather than later!
Edward Cherlin