Trump Targeted Carney’s Future Government — Canada’s Response Shocked Washington

Added: 2026-05-16

[00:00:00]Something happened inside the US-Canada relationship this week that most people have not fully understood yet. Not because the information is not out there. It is. It is in the diplomatic cables. It is in the public statements.

[00:00:13]It is being discussed in emergency sessions in Ottawa and Brussels, in every allied capital that has a stake in the stability of the Western democratic order right now as you watch this. The reason most people have not understood it is because no one has explained what it actually means. Not just for tariff negotiations, not just for bilateral trade volumes, but for the sovereignty of a G7 nation, the cohesion of the Western alliance, the stability of a federation that has held together for over 150 years, and the foundational assumption that has governed North American diplomacy since the end of the Second World War. The assumption that the border between the United States and Canada is permanent. That assumption is under the most serious challenge it has faced since 1812. Donald Trump has returned to calling Mark Carney the future governor of Canada. Not once, not as a slip, repeatedly, deliberately, with full awareness of how deeply it cuts inside Ottawa. And paired this time not with casual rhetoric, but with actual policy proposals, actual tariff threats, and actual strategic incentives tied to American defense programs. And in Ottawa, a man who ran the Bank of Canada, who ran the Bank of England, who chaired the Financial Stability Board, who spent his entire career inside the rooms where the most consequential decisions in the global financial system are made, looked the President of the United States directly in the eye in the Oval Office and said there are some places that are never for sale, and that they were sitting in one of them. Let that sit for a moment. Because to understand why that sentence spoken face to face in the most powerful office on Earth is categorically different from every previous episode of diplomatic friction between these two nations, you need to understand what was actually being said, not in diplomatic terms, in precise historically weighted terms. The governor framing is not casual language.

[00:01:59]It is a territorial designation. When the president of one nation calls the leader of another nation a future governor, he is not making a negotiating point or expressing a policy preference in colorful language. He is asserting publicly and repeatedly that the other nation should cease to exist as a sovereign entity and become an administrative subdivision of his own.

[00:02:19]He is doing this about Canada. Canada, the country that has shared the world's longest undefended border with the United States for over a century. The country that fought alongside the United States in the First World War, the Second World War, Korea, and Afghanistan. The country that signed NORAD, the treaty that integrates Canadian and American air defense so completely that the line between the two militaries in certain operational contexts effectively disappears. The country that processes more American trade than any other nation on Earth.

[00:02:50]More than $2 billion crossing that border every single day. More than China and Japan combined. That country, future governor. And the response from Ottawa has not been what previous Canadian governments would have produced. It has not been measured diplomatic concern expressed through back channels. It has not been carefully worded statements about the importance of mutual respect issued by foreign ministry spokespeople.

[00:03:13]It has been elbows up. A phrase borrowed from hockey culture, the sport that is the closest thing Canada has to a national religion that carries a specific meaning that every Canadian understands immediately. It does not mean aggression. It means I am not going to let you take me down. And that phrase has become something that happens rarely in modern politics. It has become a genuine national movement. You hear it in coffee shops in Halifax. You hear it in pubs in Vancouver. You hear it from farmers in Saskatchewan. You see it on small business windows and in athlete interviews and in parliamentary speeches and in kitchen table conversations across a country of 40 million people who have reached a collective conclusion that their sovereignty is not a bargaining chip. Now, this is where it gets serious because to understand why the annexation rhetoric is categorically more dangerous in this second term than it was in the first, you need to understand the specific mechanism through which Trump deploys it. Former United States Ambassador to Canada, David Cohen, a man who served in that role during the Biden administration, a man who spent years building diplomatic bridges between Washington and Ottawa, has stated publicly on the record that Trump knows the rhetoric irritates Canada and uses it precisely because it works as a pressure tool. Read that again. A former American diplomat, not a Canadian official, not an opposition politician, not a media commentator, but the person who most recently held the role of representing American interests in Canada is confirming publicly that the annexation language is deliberate psychological warfare against an allied democratic neighbor. That confirmation tells you something that no Canadian government statement and no diplomatic communique can tell you with the same authority. This is not theater. This is strategy.

[00:04:57]And it is being deployed with precision.

[00:05:00]In March, when tariff negotiations between the two countries were at a critical juncture, the annexation rhetoric suddenly intensified. In May, when the United States was promoting the Golden Dome missile defense system and needed Canadian participation in continental defense architecture, the rhetoric returned with greater force with explicit suggestion that Canada could only access the program's benefits if it surrendered its sovereignty. And now, with Alberta's independence referendum approaching and Kenney's government navigating the most delicate internal political dynamics any Canadian Prime Minister has faced in a generation, the rhetoric has returned again.

[00:05:38]Three moments of peak rhetorical escalation, three moments of maximum Canadian political vulnerability.

[00:05:45]This is not random. This is a tool being applied with specific intent at specific pressure points. But here is what the conventional coverage is not telling you. The pressure is not producing the effect it was designed to produce. And the evidence for that failure is now documented in numbers that are almost impossible to dismiss.

[00:06:03]In April 2026, Mark Carney's Liberal Party won a majority government helped along by five opposition members crossing the floor to join the Liberals.

[00:06:12]The Conservative Party, which had been polling competitively just a year earlier, has been crushed in public opinion. And Carney's approval numbers in Conservative Alberta, historically the most difficult political terrain for any Liberal leader, have reached levels that no previous Liberal Prime Minister has come close to achieving. The annexation rhetoric that was designed to destabilize Carney's political standing has unified Canadian political culture around him in ways that decades of Liberal governing strategy never accomplished. That is not a minor irony.

[00:06:43]That is the central strategic failure of the entire pressure campaign. The tool designed to weaken the Canadian government's political foundation has instead built that foundation to historic strength, but that is not the real problem. The real problem is what is happening beneath the political surface, and this is where the story gets genuinely dangerous because while the annexation rhetoric has unified Canadian public opinion against the pressure, it is also activated something that every serious analyst of Canadian political history has spent decades hoping would never be activated.

[00:07:15]Alberta. The Alberta independence referendum is not a hypothetical. It is a scheduled political event. And the reports that United States Treasury officials have been meeting with Alberta separatist figures are not allegations by political opponents. They are being described in diplomatic monitoring by multiple governments. Think about what those meetings mean in structural terms.

[00:07:37]Alberta has legitimate and long-standing grievances with Ottawa. Disputes over energy policy, federal taxation, regional representation that have generated genuine political frustration for decades, those grievances are real and they deserve to be taken seriously as internal Canadian political questions. But the moment a foreign government, particularly the government of the neighboring superpower that has been publicly asserting territorial claims on Canada, begins engaging with the figures who want to break that country apart, the internal political question becomes an external geopolitical operation. That is a profound shift, and Carney's government is responding to it as such. Ottawa is now operating under the explicit assumption that the Trump administration may be deliberately attempting to destabilize Canadian national unity in order to extract economic and strategic concessions. That is a Canadian Prime Minister publicly suggesting that the President of the United States is conducting an active operation against the territorial integrity of Canada.

[00:08:39]That statement from a G7 leader about the leader of the G7's most powerful member is without precedent in the post-war history of this relationship.

[00:08:47]The diplomatic temperature between Washington and Ottawa has not been this high since before the special relationship was a concept, since before NATO, since before NORAD. In the living memory of anyone currently in government on either side of that border, nothing like this has happened. But to understand how we got here, you need to understand the full arc of the escalation, not just the last few weeks.

[00:09:08]The full sequence that produced this moment. It begins with a premise that the Trump administration brought into its second term as an established conviction, that Canada's economic dependence on the American market was so total and so structurally irreversible that no Canadian government, regardless of its political will, could sustain resistance to American economic pressure for more than a few months.

[00:09:30]The premise was not unreasonable on its face. At the start of 2025, 75% of Canadian exports were heading south.

[00:09:39]The energy infrastructure, the automotive supply chains, the agricultural export markets, the financial system connections, all of it was organized around the assumption that the continental relationship was the foundational structure of Canadian economic life. Apply sufficient tariff pressure and the structure would force the political outcome. The political outcome that the administration wanted was a Canada that aligned its trade policy, its China policy, its defense procurement, and ultimately its strategic orientation with American preferences, not formally annexed, not literally governed from Washington, but functionally deferential. A neighbor whose sovereign decisions reflected American interests because the alternative was economic damage too severe to politically sustain. That was the theory. The theory produced a result that nobody in Washington appears to have fully modeled. Canada did not comply. It diversified. And the diversification has been measurably successful in ways that the investment data makes impossible to dismiss.

[00:10:39]Foreign direct investment into Canada is running at a 20-year high, twice the per capita rate of the nearest G7 competitor. 12 trade and security agreements signed on four continents in six months. The European Union is now Canada's second largest global trading partner at 178.6 billion dollars. Canada became the first non-European country ever to join the European Union's safe defense procurement initiative. Canada became the first non-European leader ever to attend the European Political Community Summit. Canadian exports to non-American markets have been rising while the American share has been declining toward the lowest level since the current measurement method was established in 1997.

[00:11:21]Every one of these data points is the documented failure of the pressure theory. And every escalation of the annexation rhetoric since the theory began failing has been the visible evidence of an administration that cannot acknowledge that the theory has failed and cannot identify an alternative approach.

[00:11:38]The Governor framing is what happens when economic pressure does not produce political submission, and the only remaining tool in the toolkit is escalation of the rhetorical attack on the political legitimacy of the leader who is not submitting.

[00:11:51]But here is the specific structural trap that the annexation rhetoric has created because unlike the tariff pressure, which creates economic costs that are real and measurable and that produce legitimate political pressure on the government experiencing them, the annexation rhetoric creates political costs only for the party deploying it.

[00:12:09]Inside Canada, every repetition of the Governor framing solidifies the national unity around Carney that is his strongest political asset.

[00:12:17]Every suggestion that Canada should cease to exist as a sovereign nation drives more voters toward the government that is most visibly defending Canadian sovereignty.

[00:12:27]The rhetoric that was designed to weaken Carney's domestic political position has instead made him the most nationally unified Canadian Prime Minister in modern political history. It has made him popular in Alberta. That alone tells you the magnitude of the strategic miscalculation.

[00:12:42]Now, let us address the international dimension because this story does not stay bilateral. What happens between Washington and Ottawa is being watched and evaluated by every government that has a relationship with the United States and that is trying to determine what the current period of American foreign policy means for the reliability of that relationship. Australia is watching, South Korea is watching, Japan is watching, every European NATO member that has been navigating its own bilateral pressures from the current American administration is watching.

[00:13:11]They are not watching because they are particularly concerned about Canadian sovereignty for its own sake. They are watching because Canada is the stress test, the closest ally, the most deeply integrated partner, the country with the longest and most stable bilateral relationship the United States has ever had. If the United States treats Canada with this level of territorial rhetoric, if it deploys the governor framing and the annexation pressure and the 51st state line against a country that has been its most reliable partner for over a century, what does that tell every other allied government about how the United States will treat them if they ever have a policy disagreement that the administration finds inconvenient? The answer those governments are arriving at is not reassuring. And Mark Carney, who ran the Bank of England, who has his deeper network of personal relationships in European and global institutional leadership as any Canadian Prime Minister in history, is not leaving that calculation to chance. The G7 outreach, the NATO consultations, the European political community appearance, the safe membership, the 12 agreements on four continents, these are not just economic diversification. They are the construction of an international coalition that understands what is happening and that has placed its institutional and diplomatic weight on the side of the principle that sovereign borders are not negotiating chips between allies. European leaders have not been subtle about their reading of the situation. When the language of continental absorption is deployed against a G7 democracy, the statement being made is not just about Canada, it is about whether the post-war framework that has governed relations between democratic nations since 1945 still applies.

[00:14:51]And the answer that the democratic world's institutional infrastructure is giving to that statement is being expressed through the specific mechanisms of diplomatic recognition that the past year has produced. The Yerevan invitation, the safe membership, the investment flows, the trade agreements. These are the language the international institutional order uses when it decides which side of a sovereignty argument it is on, and it has decided. Now, let us talk about the Alberta dimension specifically, because this is where the danger becomes most acute and where the strategic complexity of Kenney's position is most fully visible.

[00:15:27]Alberta's independence movement is not a fabrication or a Washington creation. It is a genuine expression of long-standing regional frustration with the federal government in Ottawa that has deep roots in Canadian political history, energy policy disagreements, equalization payment disputes, the sense that the federal government in Ottawa does not adequately represent Western Canadian interests. These are legitimate political grievances that Canadians disagree about and that Canadian democracy is equipped to address. What changes the nature of the Alberta situation is the external element. When a foreign government that has been publicly asserting territorial claims on the country in which the independence movement is occurring begins engaging with that movement's leadership, the movement is no longer purely an internal Canadian political question. It becomes a potential instrument of external pressure and the Kenney government's response to that transformation has been precisely calibrated. Not to dismiss the Alberta grievances as illegitimate, not to suggest that Albertans who support the independence movement are acting as agents of foreign interests, but to make absolutely clear that the territorial integrity of Canada is not a subject that is open to external influence, regardless of which government is attempting to exercise that influence, and regardless of which internal political tensions it is attempting to exploit. The elbows up posture on the Alberta question is the same posture as the elbows up posture on the annexation rhetoric. It is the position of a government that recognizes external pressure, names it accurately, and refuses to allow it to define the terms of the domestic political response. But here is the specific risk that makes the Alberta situation genuinely dangerous in ways that require honest acknowledgement. The referendum, regardless of its outcome, will reshape the political landscape in ways that create new vulnerabilities and new opportunities in the bilateral confrontation. If the independence movement loses decisively, Carney's negotiating hand strengthens considerably. The demonstration that Canadian national unity can withstand external pressure of this kind at this intensity over this sustained period is itself a form of strategic leverage. It proves that the destabilization strategy has failed on its own terms, and it removes the uncertainty premium that the separatist threat was adding to the bilateral calculation. If the result is closer than expected, or if the move gains momentum in the aftermath, the situation becomes significantly more complex. Not because the external pressure would have succeeded in its intended goal, but because a closer result would require Carney to spend political capital on internal federation management that he would prefer to deploy in the external bilateral confrontation. The administration in Washington knows this, and the timing of the rhetorical escalations, consistently arriving at moments of maximum Canadian internal political vulnerability, reflects that knowledge. Now, let us address what Canada is actually doing in response, because the elbows-up posture is not just a political brand. It is an operationally specific strategy with three simultaneous tracks, and each track deserves a detailed examination.

[00:18:31]The first track is economic resilience.

[00:18:34]Canada has been accelerating trade diversification at a speed that has no precedent in its modern history. The 12 agreements in 6 months number is not rhetorical. It is documented in government records and trade filings, and the diversification is not aspirational. It is already producing measurable results in the investment flows and the export composition data and the foreign direct investment numbers that professional analysts are tracking. The strategy on this track is simple in concept and enormously difficult in execution. Reduce the degree to which the American tariff threat represents an existential economic risk rather than a manageable if painful disruption. Every percentage point of exports redirected to non-American markets is a unit of tariff leverage reduced. Every new bilateral agreement signed is an option created.

[00:19:20]Every foreign direct investment dollar arriving from a non-American source is evidence of the alternative architectures credibility. The strategy is working. But it is working at a pace that creates a specific window of vulnerability. The diversification is real enough to give Carney the political standing to resist the pressure. It is not yet deep enough to make the pressure economically painless. The period between those two thresholds is where the confrontation is currently being conducted. The second track is diplomatic coalition building. Canada is not attempting to fight this confrontation as a bilateral dispute between Ottawa and Washington. It is deliberately framing it as a question about the principles that govern relations between allied democratic nations. And it is seeking institutional validation of that framing from every multilateral body and every allied government that will provide it. The G7 outreach, the NATO consultations, the European political community appearance, the safe membership. Each of these is a piece of the coalition that transforms what could be presented as a bilateral trade dispute into a global question about whether the territorial rhetoric deployed by the world's most powerful democracy against its closest ally is compatible with the principles of the post-war international order. The coalition is not formal. It does not have a name or a charter or a founding document. But it is real in the sense that matters most in international politics. It is real in the private conversations that happen between leaders at multilateral forums. In the investment decisions of institutional capital that is choosing to put its money in Canada rather than in the American economy that is applying the pressure. In the public statements of European leaders who have declined to defend the annexation language and who have instead made their institutional support for Canadian sovereignty visible through the specific diplomatic mechanisms the past year has produced.

[00:21:12]The third track is domestic unity, and this is the track that has most surprised outside observers because it has produced an outcome that the pressure campaign was designed to prevent. The elbows up movement has unified Canadian political culture in ways that the conventional wisdom about Canadian political divisions did not predict. The phrase has crossed party lines. It has crossed regional boundaries. It has crossed the Alberta divide that was supposed to be the pressure campaign's most effective lever. When the conservative province that has been the most resistant to liberal federal governments for a generation begins showing approval numbers for a liberal prime minister that no previous liberal has achieved there, something has changed in the Canadian political culture that is not going to reverse when the external pressure eventually lifts, and that cultural change is the most durable consequence of the entire confrontation, more durable than any trade agreement, more durable than any investment number, more durable than any diplomatic communique, because cultures that have been challenged at the level of their basic identity, that have collectively decided how they respond to that challenge, carry that decision forward as a foundational element of their self-understanding.

[00:22:22]Canada has decided how it responds to territorial pressure. Elbows up. That decision is now part of the national story in a way that will outlast both Carney and Trump and will shape how every future Canadian government approaches every future bilateral confrontation.

[00:22:38]But here is what every honest assessment of Canada's position has to acknowledge because strategic analysis is not useful if it only validates the side you are rooting for.

[00:22:49]Canada's limitations in this confrontation are real. The 71.7% of Canadian merchandise exports still going to the American market is a number that has not changed fast enough to eliminate the economic cost of the tariffs. Steel workers, aluminum workers, automotive workers, lumber communities, these are the Canadians who are paying the real cost of the elbows up strategy in the form of reduced wages, reduced hours, and in some cases lost jobs. The diversification strategy is producing measurably positive results at the macro level.

[00:23:20]At the community level, in the specific industrial towns and manufacturing corridors that have been most heavily hit by the tariff campaign, the gap between the macroeconomic success narrative and the lived daily reality of reduced economic opportunity is real.

[00:23:34]And it creates the political vulnerability that the pressure campaign is designed to exploit. The tariffs hurt. They are supposed to hurt. And the question that the Carney government has to answer every quarter is whether the long-term strategic benefits of maintaining sovereignty and building alternative economic architecture are worth the near-term costs being paid by specific workers in specific communities. The polling says Canadians believe the answer is yes. But polling is not the same as the kitchen table conversation in a steel town where the plant has cut shifts and the family budget is getting tighter and the abstract concept of sovereignty feels less immediate than the concrete reality of a smaller paycheck.

[00:24:15]That tension is the genuine human cost of this confrontation.

[00:24:19]And any analysis that does not acknowledge it is not doing justice to the people who are actually paying the price of the geopolitical chess match.

[00:24:29]Now, let us address the three paths forward because they are real and the choice between them will define North American relationships for a generation.

[00:24:37]The first path is de-escalation before the USMCA review deadline. A negotiated framework that provides Canada with tariff relief in exchange for specific commitments on border security and supply chain transparency without requiring Canada to abandon its European partnerships or its China relationships or its sovereign defense procurement decisions. In this path, the confrontation produces a new bilateral framework that is more explicit about Canadian sovereignty than the previous arrangement was, because the previous arrangements implicit assumptions have been publicly demonstrated to be unreliable. Canada emerges with a more diversified economic architecture than it entered with, and a more clearly articulated understanding of the conditions under which continental integration operates. The Alberta situation stabilizes because the primary external pressure that has been intensifying the separatist energy is reduced.

[00:25:34]The elbows up movement does not disappear because cultural movements of that depth do not disappear when their immediate trigger is removed, but it evolves from active resistance into settled national confidence. The second path is continued confrontation through and beyond the USMCA deadline. The trade agreement enters its annual review framework. The tariffs continue. The annexation rhetoric continues. The Alberta situation escalates toward the referendum, and the Canadian response continues to demonstrate that the pressure is not producing submission.

[00:26:06]In this path, the diversification accelerates because the urgency of the hedge intensifies.

[00:26:12]The European integration deepens because every quarter of American unpredictability makes the European alternative more attractive to Canadian businesses making long-term capital decisions. The international coalition around Canadian sovereignty grows because the sustained duration of the confrontation makes it impossible for allied governments to frame it as a temporary anomaly rather than a structural change in American foreign policy.

[00:26:36]This is the most economically costly path for Canada in the near term, and the path most likely to produce the durable structural independence that makes future American economic pressure less effective. The third path is the one that requires the most honest assessment of political probability, and that is therefore the hardest to discuss publicly.

[00:26:56]It is the path of significant miscalculation by one or both sides.

[00:27:00]The Alberta referendum produces a result that triggers a constitutional crisis in Canada simultaneously with an escalation of the bilateral confrontation that removes the diplomatic space needed to manage either situation well, or the bilateral confrontation produces a market event, a shock to the integrated continental supply chains of sufficient severity that creates political pressure in both countries for an immediate resolution that neither side has fully prepared for.

[00:27:29]In that scenario, the terms of resolution are determined not by deliberate strategic choice, but by the pressure of events on a timeline that nobody controls. This path is less likely than the other two, but it is less unlikely than it should be because both sides of this confrontation are operating in conditions of elevated stress with domestic political pressures that constrain their flexibility in an information environment where miscalculation is harder to prevent and harder to reverse than it would be in calmer conditions.

[00:28:00]Three things to watch as the story develops. Watch the Alberta referendum with specific attention to the margin, not just which way it goes, but by how much. A decisive result in either direction provides political clarity that allows both the internal Canadian situation and the external bilateral confrontation to be managed with greater stability. A close result or an ambiguous outcome creates the worst possible conditions for managing both simultaneously. Watch the USMCA negotiation timeline with specific attention to whether the American position acknowledges Canadian sovereign authority over its non-American relationships. The difference between a framework that treats Canadian sovereignty as a constraint the American side must work within, and a framework that treats it as a The the Canadian side must earn, is the difference between a genuine bilateral settlement and a postponed confrontation. And watch the international coalition specifically whether European governments move from expressing concern about the annexation rhetoric to taking institutional steps that make their support for Canadian sovereignty structurally consequential rather than merely rhetorical.

[00:29:10]When allied governments begin making specific defense procurement and investment decisions that reflect a judgment about the relative reliability of American and Canadian commitments, the coalition is crossed from expression to action. The deepest question this moment raises is the one that no official source is willing to ask directly because asking it requires acknowledging a possibility that the entire postwar diplomatic framework was built to make unthinkable.

[00:29:36]At what point does a sustained rhetorical assault on the sovereignty of an allied democratic nation by the most powerful member of the Western alliance constitute a threat to the foundational principles on which that alliance is based? The answer to that question is being worked out in real time, not in any diplomatic document or official communique, in the daily decisions of 40 million Canadians who are deciding what elbows up means as a lived political practice, in the investment decisions of international capital that is choosing where to put its money in a world where the answer to the sovereignty question is still being determined, in the quiet conversations happening in foreign ministries from Brussels to Tokyo where allied governments are updating their assessments of American reliability based on the observable evidence of the past year, and in the Oval Office and in the Parliament in Ottawa where two leaders, each convinced of the rightness of their position, and each constrained by political realities that limit their flexibility, are conducting a confrontation whose trajectory neither of them fully controls. Mark Carney said there are some places that are never for sale. He said it to the President of the United States in the Oval Office face-to-face on camera. It was not an act of diplomatic courage in the theatrical sense. It was the calm, settled statement of a man who had done the analysis and reached a conclusion and was not interested in performing uncertainty he did not feel.

[00:30:57]The places that are never for sale are not for sale because no price has been offered. They are not for sale because the concept of selling them is a category error. A sovereign nation is not a real estate transaction. It is not a negotiating position. It is not a chip in a bilateral deal. It is the accumulated decision of a people about how they will organize their collective life and who will make the decisions that affect it. Canada has made that decision. It made it before 1767 and it has reaffirmed it in every generation since. The elbows up movement is not a new decision. It is the reaffirmation of an old one under new pressure. And the 40 million people who have adopted the phrase as a statement of their political identity are not making a claim about the superiority of Canadian culture or the inadequacy of American culture. They are making a much simpler and more fundamental claim. We decide, not you. We decide. That is the answer to the governor framing. That is the response to the 51st state line.

[00:31:58]That is what happens in the Oval Office when the Prime Minister of Canada looks the President of the United States in the eye and says there are some places that are never for sale. And that more than any tariff rate or trade agreement or investment number or diplomatic communique is the story of this confrontation. Two different answers to the same fundamental question. Who decides what Canada is? And for the first time in the history of this relationship, that question is being asked loudly enough that the entire world can hear it. The answer Canada is giving is not loud. It does not need to be. It is 12 agreements on four continents and a 20-year investment high and an elbows up movement that reaches into conservative Alberta and a seat at the European political community table that no non-European leader has ever held and a former central banker in the Oval Office who looked the most powerful man on Earth in the eye and did not blink. That is the answer. The And the world is taking note of it. Hello.

[00:33:03]Hello.

[00:33:11]Hello.

[00:33:24]>> [music] [music] [music]