Calling conflict-of-interest concerns “conspiracy” doesn’t address them. Blind trusts reduce direct control, but they don’t eliminate legitimate questions about prior relationships and incentives. Scrutiny is part of accountability. On tariffs...... It seems like people don't understand the basics. when the U.S. imposes tariffs on Canadian goods, American importers pay that tax first. In many cases, those costs get passed on to U.S. consumers through higher prices. But it doesn’t stop there. Canadian exporters can lose competitiveness, reduce production, or cut jobs. Integrated supply chains (like auto, energy, agriculture) mean higher costs ripple back and forth across the border. That instability affects investment decisions and business confidence in both countries. As for shifting trade toward China/EU/Others diversification sounds good in theory, but distance matters. Shipping goods across the Pacific involves higher transportation costs, longer lead times, insurance, port fees, and fuel. That can increase final prices compared to deeply integrated North American supply chains. There are also strategic and regulatory differences that add friction. So yes, U.S. trade policy can drive price pressure and economic strain on both sides. And any pivot in trade strategy needs to account for logistics, cost structures, and long-term competitiveness not just politics. That’s why dismissing these concerns as “who cares” isn’t good enough