Incoming Feed Items

With the collapse of 2026 US-Canada trade negotiations in August and the implementation of counter-tariffs by Prime Minister Mark Carney in early September, Canadians are left wondering what happened and what comes next. Perspectives Journal editor Clement Nocos spoke to Daniel Drache, political economist and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at York University, for an explainer on the escalating crisis.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Clement Nocos: Prime Minister Mark Carney promised to deliver a trade deal with the United States with much of his “elbows up” campaign rhetoric, but this has since spiralled as the US escalates its tariffs and Canada imposes retaliatory measures. What stands out about the collapse of interim trade deal negotiations meant to in August 2026 that were meant as a stop gap in place of CUSMA’s renewal?

Twenty-five years ago this morning, 2,977 people were murdered in the space of 102 minutes. Most of them had gone to work. Some had boarded an airplane. Among them were 343 New York City firemen who climbed the stairs of the World Trade Center towers while everyone else came down, knowing what that act meant. Aboard a plane over Pennsylvania, 40 passengers and crew learned by telephone what was happening and took their plane back from the men who had seized it.

We memorialize them, as we should. But a quarter century is long enough that we owe them something more than memory. We owe them an accounting. The honest question on this anniversary is not whether we honored the dead. That we have done. It is whether we have ever understood what had been done to us and why—and whether the American people have been made safer or left exposed in ways their forefathers would have found unthinkable.

In Natural Right and History, the political philosopher Leo Strauss opens by asking whether the United States, having become the world’s most powerful and prosperous nation by adhering to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, still held those truths to be self-evident.

One year ago today, America lost Charlie Kirk.

In some ways, it feels like only yesterday. At other times, it feels like a lifetime ago. Twelve months after that horrifying day, we have only begun to reckon with the scale of the loss for conservatism—and for America.

To someone who ignores politics, it can be hard to explain just why Charlie’s loss was so great. He had a popular podcast—but there are many of those. He did campus debates—but he didn’t have a monopoly on that concept. And of course, however deeply involved in politics he was, Charlie never held office himself.

And yet millions think that Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom leaves a tremendous void on the Right. Why?

What America lost one year ago on that dreadful September 10 was not merely a debater, a pundit, an activist, or even, as many speculated, a future president. What America lost was a true leader, the kind who comes along only a few times in a generation.

The American Way

In one of the most important passages in Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville describes the tremendous capacity for self-organization among America’s citizens, in contrast to the torpor he saw among the people of Europe:

It is hard to believe that a year has passed since Charlie’s assassination.

Paying fitting tribute to his life’s work is daunting, and I have been hesitant to write anything at all—especially when I think of his wife, Erika, and their children. None of us can fathom what they have endured.

But we must keep Charlie’s life and work alive in memory and let them inspire and inform our own.

Prudence is an old word with a venerable tradition in Western thought and politics, though its full meaning has grown obscure in modern times. It is also the virtue I most associate with Charlie—and the one we would do best to learn from as we continue to fight for the country he loved.

Charlie was a principled man, but he was no ideological fanatic and no dogmatist on questions of politics and policy. He was always reading, learning, and talking with Americans from every walk of life: college students, grassroots conservatives, the donor class, and leaders across the country.

tl;dr: "American democracy depends on the census. Trump is undermining it" is my new op-ed at the Guardian. Check it out!

For census geeks, this summer has been one eeeek after another. Planks of the Jenga tower keep getting pulled out. First, the White House announced that the Census Bureau must stop using sophisticated techniques to protect the public's confidentiality; they were told to go back to the 1960s and suppress data or round. The result will be less data, less quality data, and/or less privacy. It's bad all around. We are starting to see the impact: critical data has been delayed.

The American Mind’s podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Political Fallout: Charlie Kirk’s Legacy and “The Flight 93 Election” | The American Mind Podcast

This submission addresses two of the instruments under consultation. On the draft Income Tax Assessment (Method for Apportioning Capital Gains and Capital Losses) Determination 2026, we identify two defects in the prescribed method as it applies to real property — the treatment of capital expenditure incurred after 1 July 2027, and of discontinuous value events […]

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss One Nation’s superannuation proposal, ways the government could provide genuine cost-of-living support, the Reserve Bank’s twisted thinking over inflation and interest rates, and Barnaby Joyce’s run-from-Jesus moment.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 10 September 2026.

More Fool Me: How the gas industry tricked Australia by Richard Denniss, the latest Vantage Point essay from Australia Institute Press, is available now.

Use the code ‘FOOLME’ on a four-edition Vantage Point subscription to receive a free copy of Richard’s book, Econobabble.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

The poll of 1042 voters, conducted by YouGov, found that 93% of Australian voters want online platforms to be legally required to provide a safe online environment and prevent harmful content.

83% of Australians want those spreading dangerous content to be fined, while half (50%) say the executives of offending companies should also be jailed.

Seven in ten voters (72%) believe users who suffer physical or mental harm should be able to seek compensation from the platform, including 62% of One Nation supporters and 69% of Coalition voters.

Key points:

Today’s decision by the Greens to support a new method of carbon offsetting in publicly-owned forests is “fiddling while the forest burns”, according to Dr Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute.

Green’s leader, Senator Larissa Waters, indicated her party would vote with the government this afternoon to allow a new ‘method’ to increase the supply of carbon credits. However, three Greens Senators say they’ll cross the floor to support the disallowance motion.

“The task of stopping Australia’s expansion of coal and gas is going to become a little harder today,” said Dr Denniss.

“In voting with Labor, the Greens have shown they now support putting publicly-owned forests into the ‘carbon marketplace’, and have tied the protection of trees and koalas to the expansion of gas and coal.

“Native forests are one of nature’s best carbon storage units – they truly are the lungs of the planet. The climate science makes clear that we need to protect these forests and stop expanding fossil fuels. Allowing fossil fuel pollution to increase because a forest wasn’t logged might take pressure off politicians but it wont take pressure off our climate.

“If Australia only saves forests so that polluters can increase their fossil fuel use, the science says there is no benefit to our planet.

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

The images created by socialist and antiwar political cartoonists during the period around World War I were powerful tools for countering the elite’s propaganda of the time. The Russian Revolution had just occurred, and in response to extreme wealth inequality, a militant working class was on the rise in the United States. The ruling class was afraid and responded to the growing dissent with severe measures – a massive propaganda campaign, laws that limited free expression, deportations, violence and imprisonment. It was an era that echoes the repression – ICE raids, the designation of Leftists as “terrorists” and restrictions of academic freedom - that is occurring today.

Gloria Steinem, a popularizer of feminist dogmas, died last week at the age of 92. She promoted many of the false doctrines of women’s liberation beginning in the 1960s through her persona, writings, publications, and speeches. As she passes from the scene, few of the original so-called second-wave feminists remain. Yet the overwhelming victories the movement has achieved in the decades since have largely obscured the radicalism at its center.

As I researched my second book, The Recovery of Family Life: Exposing the Limits of Modern Ideologies, I read Steinem’s influential 1970 Time essay, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” to understand what the fully realized feminist project would look like. What emerged from my survey of her work was the idea of an unfinished and unfinishable Rolling Feminist Revolution.

For fun, I like to read Golden Age mysteries, and so recently picked up The Wrong Murder Mystery (Charles Barry) which was published in 1933.

Originally posted on LinkedIn I love coming home to visit. Clean air and water, bird song that makes me weak to my knees. News headlines so delightfully provincial, they’re as likely to make you smile as make you cry. Coming home during an election period is even more satisfying, because the political debates are so […]

The Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the pernicious impact of non-compete clauses and the federal government’s new legislation seeking to ban them for 9-in-10 workers.

This episode was recorded on Tuesday 8 September.

More Fool Me: How the gas industry tricked Australia by Richard Denniss, the latest edition in the Vantage Point series, is available now.

Use the code ‘FOOLME’ on a four-edition Vantage Point subscription to receive a free copy of Richard’s book, Econobabble.

Guest: Andrew Leigh, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury and Federal Member for Fenner // @aleighmp

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Reform to non-compete clauses and other restraints – draft legislation, Department of Treasury Consultation Hub

September 9, 2026 — Equality Australia has welcomed landmark recommendations to tackle anti-LGBTIQ+ hate crime in Victoria, calling on state and federal governments to act on the inquiry’s findings and address the scale and devastating impact of hate.

The report, tabled on Tuesday, makes 41 findings and 35 recommendations to strengthen Victoria’s response to the alarming rise in hate.

They include stronger policing and justice responses, a whole-of-government prevention strategy, a restorative justice pilot, hate crime diversion programs and consideration of aggravated hate-based offences.

The inquiry also made recommendations related to the federal government, including strengthening national data collection, stronger safety measures on dating apps and ensuring anti-terrorism preparedness accounts for threats against LGBTIQA+ communities.

“This report is a stark acknowledgement of the scale and impact of anti-LGBTIQ+ hate in Victoria,” said Equality Australia Legal Director Heather Corkhill.

“LGBTIQ+ people are being deliberately targeted because of who they are, including through increasingly serious and violent attacks. We cannot dismiss this as isolated incidents or fringe behaviour.

“This is targeted hate, and it demands an immediate and serious response.”

Summary of recommendations  Prosper Australia supports the NSW Government’s decision to replace the insurance-based Emergency Services Levy with a broader property-based levy. Removing the ESL from insurance premiums would improve insurance affordability, reduce incentives for underinsurance and place emergency services funding on a more efficient and sustainable base.  However, Prosper considers that the Government should […]

With tensions in Iran still boiling and our national debt hitting $40 trillion, it’s time to take a hard look at the military’s budget. We should preserve what the military needs to be capable and prepared—and cut the waste. One little-known program has not only failed its mission but also driven excess government spending. The good news is that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has already announced a review. The bad news? This program is so fundamentally defective that it should be abolished outright.

In the summer of 2024, a “socially disadvantaged” small business won two Defense Logistics Agency contracts worth more than $34 million. The firm then handed 95% of one contract’s value to Lockheed Martin and 94% of the other to a subsidiary of Leonardo DRS, two of the world’s largest defense contractors. The disadvantaged firm did little more than sign the paperwork and collect a fee.

The arrangement broke no law. It followed the standard business model of the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program, the federal government’s oldest identity-based contracting scheme—and one of Washington’s most durable corporate welfare rackets.

It finds the centrepiece – a pledge to save $22 billion from a public service hiring freeze – simply does not withstand scrutiny.

To deliver the promised savings, the analysis finds the Victorian Liberals would need to halve the public service, which would have substantial flow-on consequences.

Opposition Leader Jess Wilson claims the $22 billion could come from a hiring freeze on back office roles. The analysis describes this as implausible.

The  analysis also finds that the Coalition’s vague plans to cut payroll tax, expand stamp duty exemptions and provide land tax relief would be expensive and benefit high income households much more than ordinary Victorians.

Key points:

This article was read by Eunice Wong. You can find her work at www.eunicewong.actor.

Text originally published June 19, 2026.