Trump Accuses Canada of Interfering in US Supreme Court with Reagan Free-Trade Ad

Former President Donald Trump escalated his ongoing criticism of Canada on Friday, accusing the country of attempting to sway the United States Supreme Court with what he described as “illegal influence” over a high-stakes case involving his global tariffs. The accusation came after the release of a Canadian advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan praising the principles of free trade — an ad Trump denounced as a direct attempt to pressure the court ahead of its November hearing.

The Reagan Ad and Trump’s Reaction

The controversy centers on a video advertisement released by a Canadian business coalition promoting free trade between the two nations. The ad prominently features archival footage of Ronald Reagan, one of the most revered Republican figures, speaking about the shared economic benefits of open markets and fair trade policies. In the spot, Reagan calls for “friendship and partnership across borders,” describing free trade as a key pillar of North American prosperity.

For most audiences, the message would seem nostalgic and benign — a nod to the history of economic cooperation between the United States and Canada. But Trump interpreted the ad very differently. In a fiery Truth Social post, he accused the Canadian government of crossing a legal and diplomatic line by trying to influence an ongoing judicial matter in the U.S.

“Canada is trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court in one of the most important rulings in the history of our Country,” Trump wrote. “They are using Ronald Reagan to push for free trade and to weaken America’s right to protect its workers and industries.”

The post immediately drew attention and set off a new wave of debate about foreign involvement in domestic political issues. It also reignited long-standing tensions between Trump and Canada’s leadership, particularly over trade and tariffs — issues that defined much of his first term in office.

A Case with Global Implications

At the heart of the dispute is an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that could determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed during his presidency. The tariffs, which covered a range of goods including steel, aluminum, and manufactured products, were justified by Trump under national security grounds. His administration argued that protecting American industry was essential to the nation’s defense and economic independence.

The policy triggered widespread international backlash, leading to retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners — including Canada, the European Union, and China. While the tariffs were popular among segments of the American manufacturing base, critics argued they raised consumer prices, disrupted supply chains, and alienated long-standing allies.

Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on November 5 regarding whether the executive branch overstepped its constitutional authority in implementing such broad trade measures without explicit congressional approval. The outcome of the case could have sweeping implications for presidential power, trade law, and the future of economic policy in the United States.

Canada’s Position and Diplomatic Tensions

Canadian officials have not publicly commented on Trump’s accusation, but analysts say it is unlikely that the Reagan ad was intended to influence the court. Instead, they suggest the ad was aimed at shaping public opinion and reaffirming Canada’s long-standing belief in open markets — particularly at a time when protectionist sentiment is once again rising in the United States.

Still, Trump’s criticism highlights the fragile state of U.S.-Canada relations in recent years. During his presidency, Trump often clashed with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over trade deals and tariffs. He famously described Canada as “very unfair” on trade and accused it of taking advantage of the United States through agricultural and dairy subsidies.

The two leaders had an uneasy partnership even as they negotiated the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the 2020 trade deal that replaced NAFTA. Trump frequently claimed that his tariffs and tough negotiation tactics forced Canada and Mexico to accept terms more favorable to American industries.

For many in Ottawa, however, the new round of accusations feels like déjà vu — a revival of the rhetoric that defined Trump’s trade battles during his first term.

Legal Experts and Analysts Weigh In

Legal scholars say Trump’s claim that Canada is “illegally” attempting to influence the Supreme Court may be difficult to substantiate. Foreign governments often engage in public diplomacy or economic messaging, but such actions rarely meet the legal definition of interference.

“The U.S. Supreme Court is not influenced by foreign advertising campaigns,” said one constitutional law expert. “While the timing of the ad may be politically provocative, it doesn’t amount to an attempt to sway a judicial ruling under U.S. law.”

Others suggest that Trump’s statement is part of a broader political strategy to frame the upcoming case as a matter of national sovereignty and patriotism. By portraying the issue as one of American independence versus foreign manipulation, Trump can rally his base around a familiar theme: defending the U.S. against external pressure.

The Symbolism of Reagan

The use of Ronald Reagan in the ad adds another layer of complexity to the controversy. Reagan remains one of the most iconic figures in modern Republican history, often invoked by conservative politicians — including Trump himself — as a symbol of American strength and leadership. Yet Reagan’s economic philosophy, rooted in free trade and global cooperation, stands in sharp contrast to Trump’s protectionist approach.

For some political observers, the ad was a subtle reminder that the Republican Party once championed open markets as a driver of prosperity, a position that has shifted significantly in recent years. The Reagan clip’s reappearance in a pro-free-trade message was interpreted by some in Trump’s orbit as a pointed critique of his policies, even if it was produced by a foreign entity.

What Comes Next

As the November 5 hearing approaches, both political and economic stakes continue to rise. A ruling against Trump’s tariff policy could limit the ability of future presidents to impose broad trade restrictions without congressional consent. Conversely, a ruling in favor could cement a powerful precedent, granting the executive branch greater latitude in shaping trade and national security policy.

Meanwhile, Trump’s latest accusations against Canada underscore how international relations remain deeply intertwined with domestic political battles. Whether his comments are a genuine expression of concern or a calculated move to energize his supporters, they have once again thrust U.S.-Canada relations into the global spotlight.

‍