A (or One) Skeptic

Question #6 creates a “Nature for All” fund that would receive some state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and admission to golf courses. Specifically, 

• It earmarks 50% of state sales taxes on these three items to the fund;
• It does not increase total taxes or spending, but just earmarks a specific amount for a specific purpose (the total earmark is estimated to be about $65 million annually);
• The entire thing is still “subject to appropriation” by the legislature.

This is significant, and it’s drafted that way because under Article 48 (which governs the initiative petition process) ballot proposals that make a “specific appropriation of money from the state’s treasury” are deemed unconstitutional and would likely not be certified by the Attorney General.

What the question actually does then is:

1. Create the fund, the 15-member board, and the spending rules for the Fund;
2. Allow public and private donations to the fund;
3. Shield the Fund from having surplus amounts transferred out of the Fund at the end of the year.

Opponents of the question object that it’s really the legislature’s job to decide how this tax money is distributed as part of their budget deliberations, and that is essentially correct. If you have too many of these kinds of earmarks then you also implicitly cut off other worthy programs. It’s not the best way to do budgeting.

I will also note that this kind of proposal is normally just advanced through ordinary legislation and doesn’t become the subject of an initiative petition. And that is precisely because (1) it cannot legally require a specific appropriation, and (2) it undermines the normal budgeting process by seeking to require a specific earmark (despite the legal incapacity).

Nevertheless, I think it’s quite likely that it will pass. Who wants to vote against funding the protection of natural resources?

In the end I don’t think it will matter that much. While it creates a kind of “moral” obligation to respect the will of the voters, the legislature can (and eventually will) amend it to be harmonized with the normal budgeting process. In the meantime, the Commonwealth will add one more fund to dozens and dozens of existing funds, and Mass Audubon, which proposed the initiative will have a specific fund for which they can raise donated funds.

Question #5 would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it to prior year collections plus average wage and salary growth, and provide for a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit.

First of all, what’s involved here is a complex scenario that is not easy to understand. To comprehend the impact of this proposal it is helpful to have a little bit of background on how the state budget works. The state appropriates the items it expends money on annually in about 1200 different line items. That is the expenditure side. On the revenue side the state receives revenues mostly from taxation, fees, and also from federal grants. The revenue side is more dynamic than one might think, and the revenues and expenditures don’t always match up precisely. 

Commonwealth Stabilization Fund

Because the Commonwealth (unlike the federal government) has to keep its budget balanced, depending on whether revenues are in surplus or in deficit, there has been established a Commonwealth Stabilization (or “Rainy Day”) Fund. Revenues are volatile, much more volatile than people think. Money is moved out of the Fund into other funds in order to keep things in balance.

The Stabilization Funds has really been used twice in the last couple of decades for significant  amounts:

1. Back during the 2001 recession, the Fund paid out about $1.7 billion in the 2002 and 2003 fiscal years;
2. Back during the 2007 banking crisis, the Fund paid out about $1.9 billion during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 fiscal years.

One time that the Fund did not need to be invoked (when it was expected that it would be invoked) is during the Covid crisis. We expected a massive draw down, but it turns out that was unnecessary because of (1) significant federal aid and (2) unexpected recovery in Massachusetts tax receipts.

And this is exactly how the Stabilization Fund is supposed to be used.

Chapter 62F

However, the Stabilization Fund also interacts with Chapter 62F of the General Laws which was the result of a 1986 ballot question. The chapter currently provides that state tax collections should not grow faster than the aggregate growth in wages and salaries earned in Massachusetts. In particular it:

• Establishes an annual ceiling on permissible state tax revenues, calculated using the growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries. The ceiling is not tied directly to inflation, population growth, or state spending.
• Requires the Department of Revenue to calculate revenues and the State Auditor to independently determine, by the third Tuesday in September, whether the Commonwealth exceeded its permissible revenue ceiling for the preceding fiscal year. 
• Establishes that if actual revenues exceed the ceiling, the entire excess must be returned to taxpayers through personal income tax credits. 

Keep in mind that (1) the growth formula uses a three-year average of annual wage-and-salary growth factors, rather than just the preceding year’s growth; (2) the allowable revenue ceiling also cannot decrease from one year to the next; and (3) the Chapter does not directly prohibit the Legislature from appropriating additional money. Rather, it establishes a statutory mechanism for returning excess tax collections to taxpayers.

Chapter 62F has been triggered exactly twice: in 1987 and in 2022. Both occasions resulted in refunds to Massachusetts taxpayers, but the economic circumstances, the size of the refunds, and the methods of distributing them were quite different.

In 1987 revenue collections exceeded the allowable limit  by 0.36% and resulted in $29.2 million in refunds (in 1987 dollars); in 2022 the excess was a much larger 7.03% excess resulting in $2.94 billion in refunds.

2022 is actually a very interesting story because it proves, in some ways, that both the Stabilization Fund and Chapter 62F are working as they should. It was anticipated, right after the apex of the pandemic, that revenue collections would fall off sharply. Instead, for various reasons, revenue collections did not fall off as much as anticipated and the Commonwealth received substantial funds from the federal government.

As a result, the Stabilization Fund was not triggered but Chapter 62F was, proving that revenue collections can be unanticipated both as a surplus and a deficit.

The Tag Team That Wasn’t

Further complicating this question is the fact that this question was initially paired with another question. You can see this by looking at the two petitions: H5006 (which became Question #5) and H5007, which the Supreme Judicial Court struck down as being in violation of Article 48. That proposal would have reduced the state income tax from 5% to 4%. 

The SJC struck this latter question in Finfer v. Attorney General, SJC-13885 (decided June 18, 2026) for reasons having to do with how the summary of the proposal was “materially misleading” about its effect on capital gains taxes.

Now, you can see in the majority and minority report of Question 5 as printed in the Information for Voters pamphlet that the Secretary of State sent out to each voting household in the Commonwealth. Both of those reports essentially treat the two questions (enhanced Chapter 62F and income tax reduction from 5% to 4%) as one question. But it no longer is that.

The Millionaire’s Tax

The final complication — as if we haven’t already described enough of these — is the Millionaire’s Tax, aka the “Fair Share Amendment,” which was enacted as Question #1 on the 2022 ballot questions. Unlike most other initiative petitions, this was one that actually amended the Massachusetts Constitution, so not one that can easily be rolled back.

The tax amended Article XLIV of the Massachusetts Constitution to impose an additional 4% income tax on annual taxable income exceeding $1 million, with that threshold adjusted annually for inflation.

The original (and conservative) estimate was that the amendment would generate approximately $1.2 billion annually. In FY2026, preliminary collections reached $3.38 billion, nearly three times that original estimate.

Among the major expenditures supported by Fair Share revenues are:

• Universal free school meals.
• Early education and child-care programs.
• Financial aid and tuition assistance at public colleges.
• MBTA operations, capital improvements, and safety.
• Regional transit authorities.
• Municipal roads and bridges, including Chapter 90-related assistance.

So relatively speaking, the Millionaire’s Tax has been successful, has funded what the people wanted it to fund, and has not led to a mass exodus of millionaires from the Commonwealth.

Why I’m Voting Against Question #5

I have a number of reasons why I’m voting against Question #5.

• First, the existing Chapter 62F is already doing what it is supposed to be doing. The proponents of Question 5 complain that it has only been invoked twice since its enactment. But that, my friends, is exactly how it is supposed to be working. It’s just like the Stabilization Fund: that has also only been invoked twice, when the Commonwealth was facing a serious revenue shortfall. That is also how that Fund is supposed to work. That does not suggest that it’s failing its task.
• Second, it turns out that there are reasons to believe that the question wouldn’t work as advertised. Those reasons are quite technical and they have to do with the delay in calculating the effect of any refunds on the Commonwealth’s balance sheet, and the feedback loop that might be created by those refunds. (If you’re interested in the details, I would refer you to the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, and their generally excellent non-partisan analysis of the Commonwealth’s state ballot questions. In addition, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center has a very detailed examination of both Question 5 and the now eliminated income tax reduction.)
• Third, it undermines the Fair Share Amendment, which was just adopted four years ago. That tax — which was approved by a majority of voters as a Constitutional amendment — has been successful in doing exactly what we wanted it to do. Under this current proposal a large share of the refunds would go back exactly to those same millionaires who just began paying their fair share.

While the proposal may seem innocuous and harmless — it would just insure that taxpayers get more frequent refunds, according to its proponents — in actuality it would cause quite a bit of chaos in the annual budgeting process.

Question #4 would permit eligible individuals to register to vote or update their voter registration address on Election Day. An individual would have to provide proof of residency, sign a written oath, and acknowledge that providing false information is a felony punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. 

This is not a complicated question and there is only nominal opposition from the Republican party. This change would essentially eliminate the 10 day waiting period that is currently required between registering and actually voting.

A number of commentators have noted that the change would not have a dramatic impact because the Commonwealth already has a law, enacted in 2022 (Chapter 92 of the Acts of 2022), that established that Massachusetts citizens doing certain things at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, MassHealth, or the Commonwealth Health Connector are automatically registered to vote.

Because the people who tend to register last minute or forget to register on time are often part of the same cohort who do business at MassHealth and the Connector (everyone who owns a car has to do business at the RMV), this change targeted some of the same people who are also being targeted by this proposal.

About 21 states plus DC currently let voters register on Election Day itself. The count rises to about 22 to 25 if you include states that offer same-day registration only during early voting or only in presidential elections. 

The objection is the same old Republican canard: voter fraud.

As most of you know, voter fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare, whether in states that offer same day registration or states that do not. And, it turns out, that some of the oldest same-day states are among the best-run. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine have had Election Day registration since the 1970s, for example. Minnesota and Wisconsin consistently rank near the top in turnout and in nonpartisan assessments of election administration.

Passage of the question would slightly increase the administrative burden on the cities and towns that run elections, so there would have to be some additional funding provided to make up the difference. That’s a budget question.

Otherwise, this is not a difficult question at all.

Question 3 would eliminate political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates (regardless of their party affiliation) would be listed on one ballot. Voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election ballot. 

This question is basically being promoted by Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor with a very impressive resume. Allen is an American political philosopher, classicist, and public intellectual who serves as a Professor at Harvard. She specializes in democratic theory, civic education, political philosophy, ethics, and public policy. Allen has held several high-profile academic and leadership roles. Before joining Harvard’s faculty in 2015, she was a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and previously served as Dean of Humanities at the University of Chicago. At Harvard, she directs the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation and has been closely involved with initiatives promoting civic education and democratic participation.

She was also a candidate for Governor in 2022, before Charlie Baker had decided whether he would run again, and before Maura Healey entered the race as sitting Attorney General. She had raised $1.3 million, but a MassINC poll had her at 3% among likely Democratic primary voters, compared with 12% for Sonia Chang-Díaz and 48% for Maura Healey. So (like Diana DiZoglio in Question #1), she has a bit of an axe to grind. If it had been an open primary, would she have beaten Maura Healey? Not a chance.

Even so, we should take her proposal seriously, and honestly, it’s a bit tricky to know what’s best here. As of today, there are two other states which run “all party” primaries, and their experience has been mixed: California and Washington State. (To be specific, Alaska has a hybrid ranked choice voting system, Nebraska has a unicameral legislature with a nonpartisan primary, and Louisiana eliminated partisan primaries in 1975, a system which has now been partially rolled back. But those are all different animals.)

The proposal in Question 3 is mostly modeled on the California system adopted through Proposition 14 in 2010. The results in California have been mixed. The practical effect is that same-party general elections are common in one-party districts, mostly Democrat-versus-Democrat in urban areas. Minor parties have largely disappeared from November ballots for these offices. California almost had a situation in 2018 when the fear was that Democratic candidates for Governor would so splinter the vote that the top two contenders would both be Republicans.

There are a couple of reasons to be wary of Question 3. The first is the enormous amounts of money it has attracted from private equity executives and investors. The coalition has raised more than $5.6 million since last year, making it the best-funded ballot question this cycle. The biggest donors include David Peeler, a senior advisor at Berkshire Partners, who has given more than $1 million, and Andrew Balson, a managing partner at Cove Hill Partners, who has given $790,000. Act on Mass, a progressive group opposing the question, calculated that former private equity executives from Bain Capital, Berkshire Partners, and other firms gave $3.7 million, over 70% of the money from individual donors. The spending gap is lopsided. The Yes side has spent about $4.1 million and outspent the No side by more than 80 to 1. As of early September, the main opposition committee had raised just $35,000, from the state Democratic Party and SEIU Local 509. 

That is concerning.

The second reason to be wary is that the proposal essentially castrates political parties, and political parties actually have a reason for being. They vet political candidates, they insure that those candidates are actually in general harmony with the parties’ political message. One can always run as an independent, but then you run without the party’s support. To me, the two different ways of running are represented by Mike Minogue and Dan Koh.

• Mike Minogue is a self-funded Republican businessman running for Governor. He is best known as a businessman and former medical device executive rather than a career politician. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Minogue served as an Army officer and is a Desert Storm veteran who built a career in the medical technology industry. Minogue has put about $17.3 million of his own money into his campaign for governor, which is a record for a gubernatorial race.
• Dan Koh is a party-endorsed candidate for the %th Congressional district as Representative. He’s come up doing all the hands-on work that often make a candidate effective: He started as a Chief of staff to Marty Walsh as Boston mayor, held a seat on the Andover Select Board, then joined the Biden administration, first as chief of staff to Walsh as Labor Secretary and then as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. 

What would Minogue do as Governor? Probably lower taxes and reduce regulation. That is the Republican panacea. Despite what many people believe, that is not a winning formula. (Read up on Sam Brownback’s tenure as Governor of Kansas if you don’t know what I mean.) We have taxes and regulations for a reason. 

Dan Koh, on the other hand, is well-equipped to be a good congressman. Koh is a product of what political scientists call the “extended party network”: the elected officials, staff, donors, unions, and activists who make up a party in practice, beyond its formal organization. He has the support of the AFL-CIO and building trades. Those networks are how parties identify and develop talent. The result was a nominee who knows how Congress, federal agencies, and intergovernmental relations work, which is exactly the screening function the party-nomination argument emphasizes.

Is he guaranteed to be successful? Of course not. But the likelihood that he will be a good congressman is much higher than the likelihood that Minogue would be a good governor. 

So I don’t know. Question 3 sounds appealing, but I’m not sure it would actually move us in the right direction. I would rather have more Dan Koh’s running for office than Mike Minogue’s, and while I like Danielle Allen, the adoption of Question 3 is not going to make her a stronger candidate for a major office than she is today.

Just one man’s opinion.

Question #2 would that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”) are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer (and also that after executing a collective bargaining agreement, CPCS request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement).

This is one of four questions (#1 Law to Improve Access to Public Records, #3 Relative to Election Day Registration, #6 Law to Protect Water & Nature, and #7 Law to Allow Single-Family Homes on Small Lots in Areas with Adequate Infrastructure being the others) that is formally unopposed. With the exception of Question #1, the lack of opposition reflects the fact that these proposals are generally uncontroversial, and that the proponents simply got tired of the legislature failing to act on their ideas. So they decided to take it to the people.

This particular question is the result of the fact that public defenders in the Commonwealth are, in general, paid woefully inadequately. First, it should be noted that there are two types of public defenders in Massachusetts, bar advocates, the private contract attorneys CPCS assigns to most indigent cases, and CPCS’s own salaried staff public defenders. 

The 2025–26 crisis centered on the first strand, and the second is now on the November ballot.

The bar advocates’ work stoppage (2025)

Bar advocates carry most of the load. They typically represent about 80% of the state’s indigent defendants, with CPCS staff attorneys covering the rest. Historically Massachusetts paid $65 an hour in District Court and $85 in Superior Court, which is much less than Maine ($158), New Hampshire ($125 to $150), New York ($158) and Rhode Island ($112 to $142)

On May 27, 2025, bar advocates in Suffolk and Middlesex Counties stopped accepting new appointments. Because they are contractors rather than employees, their action was not legally a strike. Unrepresented defendants piled up, and the SJC invoked the protocol that defendants held without counsel must be released after 7 days, with their cases dismissed without prejudice after 45 days. More than 1,600 criminal cases were eventually dismissed.

The legislature responded in a supplemental budget (Chapter 14 of the Acts of 2025) which (1) raised bar advocate pay by $20 an hour over two years, (2) gave CPCS $40 million to hire 320 new public defenders by the end of 2027 (effectively doubling its staff) and (3) declared any agreement among bar advocates to refuse new cases until rates rise a violation of antitrust law. 

The raise did not immediately end the stoppage. Because each contractor decided individually whether to accept the new rate, the bill was a gamble. Some bar advocates returned, but fewer than before the stoppage.

CPCS goes to the SJC, and loses (March 2026)

CPCS then asked the court to go past the Legislature, in Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk County District Courts and Boston Municipal Court (SJC-13824). CPCS acknowledged it had to show the Legislature’s response was “constitutionally inadequate.” It proposed no number, asking instead that the single justice be empowered to raise rates temporarily. However, the court ruled unanimously against CPCS.

Staff attorneys and Question 2 (November 2026)

This question concerns not the bar advocates, but CPCS’s own salaried employees. They lack the collective bargaining rights held by public employees at most other state agencies. Question 2 does nothing for bar advocates. As independent contractors, they are not covered and get no compensation increase. Supporters frame the stoppage as context rather than cause. They argue the $40 million staff expansion that came out of it is exactly why CPCS staff attorneys always needed a union.

My personal view is that CPCS staff attorneys should have the same bargaining rights that most other non-management state employees have.

This question would make most records held by the  Legislature and the Office of the Governor public  records under the Massachusetts Public Records  Law. It creates two new exemptions, one for “policy development” and one for communication between the legislature and their constituents. The question is, in many ways, the continuation of a long-running feud between Massachusetts Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the Massachusetts state legislature (formally the “General Court”). She is joined this time by former gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen (more on her in the discussion of Question #3). As I wrote two years ago when discussing 2024’s Question 1, relative to the ability of the Auditor to audit the legislature:

2024’s Question #1 passed overwhelmingly by 72%, but the issue has been tied up in court ever since. The legislature claims that the Question violated the “separation of powers” doctrine, and the case has gone up to the Supreme Judicial Court. As of early October 2026, the SJC has not ruled on the merits. Instead, the SJC round was procedural: DiZoglio filed directly in the SJC in February 2026, through her general counsel. The petition asked the court to authorize appointment of a special assistant attorney general so her office could be represented, and to directly compel legislative leaders to comply with document requests under the 2024 law. In March, the court blocked her from bringing on Shannon Liss-Riordan as outside counsel, instead of using the Attorney General. The day after argument, they gave AG Campbell 30 days to decide whether she would represent DiZoglio. Campbell then said she would let DiZoglio appoint an attorney to go into court on four specific records requests that DiZoglio had made to kick off the litigation. The legislature then gave DiZoglio the four requested documents, so that the question now is whether the case is moot. It’s still lingering in Superior Court, without the SJC having considered it on the merits.

And here we are.

Be sure that the current Question #1 is aimed directly at the Legislature. Yes, the office of the Governor is also included in the proposed changes, but the executive branch and all of its agencies are already fully included in the public records law. The Governor’s personal office is not, but the new law proposed to exempt discussions “related to the development of public policy,” which means that most of the records generated by the Office of the Governor would be exempt anyway.

No, the real target here is the legislature, and that will create a new fight over separation of powers, as the Auditor is in the Executive Branch and the Legislature is its own branch. They will not be open to having the Auditor decide whether the legislature complied with the public records law. 

I think the likelihood is great that this question will pass overwhelmingly, just like Question #1 from two years ago. But it won’t make much difference. When it comes to questions related to the development of the budget, or the Commonwealth’s finances, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance already provides exhaustively detailed material in its budget submission, available on the Commonwealth’s website. Most of any additional materials will be governed by one of the two exemptions, either the policy development exemption or the constituent communications exemption.

And the rest of Question #1 will be tied up in court, just like Question #1 from two years ago.

Some of my loyal readers remember that every two years I like to provide summaries of the Ballot questions, and arguments for why one should vote for or against them. For the 2026 Ballot, Massachusetts has an unusually large number of ballot questions: nine in total. It also has the unusual situation of having about half the ballot questions being formally unopposed.

Also, a quick reminder that  the Initiative and Referendum process is governed by Article 48 of the Amendments to the state Constitution (later modified by Articles 74 and 81) which creates two citizen-driven mechanisms: (1) the initiative statute (or, on occasion, the initiative constitutional amendment) and (2) the popular (veto) referendum.

In 2026 there are eight questions that are statute-based initiatives, and one that is a veto referendum.

Article 48 bars certain subjects from both initiative and referendum:

• religion and religious institutions, including public aid to sectarian institutions
• the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, or compensation of judges, and the reversal of judicial decisions
• the powers, creation, or abolition of courts
• measures limited to a particular town, city, or political subdivision
• specific appropriations from the treasury
• a list of Declaration of Rights guarantees, including just compensation for takings, jury trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of speech, press, elections, and assembly

A measure that is substantially the same as one qualified for or submitted at either of the two preceding biennial state elections is also barred. 

Here are the nine ballot questions approved for the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ones where there is no “opponent website” are the five that are unopposed. Over the next week I will be examining the nine questions and providing you with my personal take, which is, of course, not unbiased. But at least a little bit informed.

There was a video on my Facebook feed that I have to admit I didn’t get. It was apparently from today’s hearing where the Republicans are trying to get Jack Smith and prove that his investigation of Trump was illegitimate. Here’s the video:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2148662619117337

It turns out that Eric Schmitt, the Republican senator from Missouri, questioned Smith about February 3, 2024. He first established that Smith said he had never met Fulton County DA Fani Willis or special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who at the time were handling Georgia’s election-interference prosecution of Trump. Schmitt then asked whether Smith had traveled to Atlanta and attended the Atlanta Hawks–Golden State Warriors NBA game that night. Smith said no.

That was supposed to set up the reveal. Schmitt said his office had obtained text messages from members of Smith’s team supposedly showing that Smith was at a basketball game, and he warned Smith to think carefully so that he wouldn’t “perjure yourself.” After Smith continued to deny attending the Hawks game, Schmitt said, “I think you’ve already perjured yourself.”

The apparent theory behind the questioning was that Smith secretly traveled to Atlanta , to meet with Willis and Wade. Therefore his denial of contact/coordination may be false.

That would have been potentially significant. Smith was running the federal Trump election case while Willis and Wade were running the separate Georgia state case. Evidence that Smith had secretly traveled to Atlanta and met with them could have raised legitimate questions about coordination between the two prosecutions, particularly if Smith had previously denied such contacts.

But the factual premise fell apart.

Smith said that he did remember attending a basketball game around that date. It wasn’t an NBA game in Atlanta. It was Iowa vs. Maryland women’s college basketball at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. Caitlin Clark was playing for Iowa. That game occurred on exactly February 3, 2024; Iowa won 93–85 and Clark scored 38 points. Smith also said the U.S. Marshals Service had accompanied him, meaning there should be government records corroborating where he was.

And that’s when Sen. Amy Klobuchar apparently figured out what had happened: Iowa’s team is the Hawkeyes, which Smitt’s team apparently interpreted as the Atlanta Hawks.

Oops.

Of course, by then Schmitt had already accused Smith of having perjured himself and of being a “dirtbag.”

I guess if you’re going to have a big “gotcha” moment on live Television it helps if you get you’re facts straight. The Hawks ain’t the Hawkeyes.

Conservative Trump supporters used to love to say that the rest of us had Trump Derangement Syndrome, but of course, by now it should be clear that Trump himself is the one who is completely deranged. Just consider what he’s done in September.

• He opened Labor Day Weekend with a stream of 36 tweets, which included images of Trump with George Washington, Trump as Hulk Hogan, Trump as a superhero and Trump conquering outer space, a redrawn map of North America that includes Greenland, and tweets that threatened a lawsuit over crime statistics and banned the Canadian Bombardier from being sold in the United States, among other things.
• He refused to attend the 9/11 Memorial in New York because he would not be allowed to give a political speech (and also he would have to stand throughout the ceremonies like the other American Presidents) and instead went to Washington D.C. where he did give a political speech and promptly fell asleep.
• At the midterm RNC Convention he twice promised people (in consecutive night speeches) a $5000 “Trump bonus” if the GOP retained the House and the Senate, despite never having delivered on the $5000 “DOGE” checks or the $2000 “tariff bonus” checks that he had promised us. Also, he did not limit his promise to people who voted for the GOP (so he wanted to send me a check?) but the money had to be spent in the United States (which would be administratively unenforceable). 
• In bilateral trade negotiations with Canada (separate from the USMCA), Canada walked away from the negotiations after last minute demands from the United States to (1) have a veto power of Canadian trade deals, (2) add changes affecting Canadian cultural and language policies, and (3) refuse to include medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Consequently, the U.S. imposed new 50% tariffs on selected Canadian goods and Canada retaliated with tariffs of 15%, 25% and 50% on various American goods.
• The European Union subsequently offered Canada “associate” membership, a first, as Canada redirects its political energies towards mainland Europe.
• Trump barred CNN, MS-NOW and Politico from the White House grounds for reporting that he did not like, which was overturned a few days later by a Trump-appointed judge. 
• It was reported that Russian Oligarch (and close Putin ally) Umar Kremlev paid for a part of Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding to Bettina Anderson. Kremlev reportedly paid for renting one of the private islands, an elaborate fireworks display and other substantial expenses.
• The United States signed an agreement with Denmark and Greenland, which essentially had the same provisions as an agreement that President Truman signed in 1951, except that included a “poison pill” provision that renders the agreement ineffective if the United States leaves NATO. This, after all of Trump’s saber rattling about invading Greenland.
• President Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping, the news about which was primarily that it made no news, and that Trump made no progress on any diplomatic front despite the important issues that China and the United States should be making progress on.

That, my friends, is your President of the United States of America.  And that’s only September. Wait until October is complete.

To say that our trade war with Canada is stupid is being unkind to the word “stupid.”

Why are we doing this? 

That is an excellent question without an excellent answer.

It seems to be mostly to give Donald Trump the chance to embarrass and bully a neighbor. Trump has, of course, long wanted Canada to become the “51st” state (a Constitutional impossibility) in part (I read recently) so that the United States would “look bigger” on a map. With Canada, the United States would be the second biggest country after Russia.

I can’t prove that that’s true.

But it feels like it’s true.

Regardless, let’s set up the context. The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, which was Trump’s replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement, requires among other things that the agreement be renegotiated six years after its July 1, 2020 signing. That would have been July 1 of 2026. Canada and Mexico were willing to extend USMCA; the United States was not. 

Separately, Trump threatened to impose 50% tariffs on Canada because (he claimed) Canada had discriminated against the United States with respect to autos, alcohol and dairy. Canada has imposed some tariffs on the United States mostly in retaliation for tariffs that the United States earlier earlier in the Trump administration. So, the two countries’ representatives had been increasingly intensifying negotiations since July to work this stuff out.

It looked like it was worked out until the United States, in last minute maneuvers, added a bunch of new items to the equation.

• First, we essentially demanded veto power over the kind of trade agreements Canada could make with other countries.
• Second, we demanded changes in French-language & cultural protections, and specifically Canada’s Online Streaming Act and Canadian-content regime which can require streaming services like Netflix and Amazon to contribute money toward Canadian content.
• Finally, the United States refused to include medium- and heavy-duty trucks as part of he tariff relief.

The first two items here (especially the first) really have to do with questions of Canadian sovereignty. I don’t know what genius on the American team really thought that the Canadians were going to give them a veto power over agreements they might make with other countries.

The Canadians also objected to the United States team bringing these other issues in at the last minute when most everything had already been decided.

And now here we are, in the stupidest trade war of all time. Just remember that (using 2024, which is a good pre-trade-war baseline) total two-way trade was about $917.4 billion. The U.S. exported nearly $441 billion in goods and services to Canada and imported roughly $477 billion from Canada.

Canada is going to turn more and more to other trading partners. They are already turning to the European Union, and the EU in turn is turning towards Canada. The EU is, of course, the second largest economy after the USA. Canada is also going to turn to the United Kingdom and China. And also a bunch of other countries.

And we’re going to find ourselves more and more isolated. Thanks, Great American Dealmaker.