I suppose — indeed I hope, because if not it means a lot of you are still in thrall to a charlatan — this goes without saying, but Ontario’s Ronald Reagan ad wasn’t a “FAKE,” as Donald Trump insisted on the way to “terminating” trade talks with Canada.

Even if it were (a fake), casting aspersions would be pretty rich coming from a US president who habitually broadcasts literally fake AI videos to American voters on his social media platform which doubles as an official press office for The White House.

And no, it doesn’t matter for the purposes of this discussion what The Ronald Reagan Foundation had to say about the dustup after talking to Trump on the phone (and you know he called them).

It’s with more than a little hesitation that I spend (read: waste) time on this, but just in case it isn’t quickly resolved, I’ll cover it. However begrudgingly.

The Supreme Court’s in the process of weighing the legality of Trump’s tariffs, some (many) of which were questioned by lower courts this year not necessarily on the contention that Trump can’t impose tariffs unilaterally, but rather on the notion that in his rush to implement the levies, he might’ve chosen the “wrong” mechanism.

Canada doesn’t like the tariffs, and would obviously prefer it if a majority of America’s highest-ranking jurists concurred that Trump overstepped his authority in resorting to what critics insist is an arcane end-around to justify the duties. So, Ontario bought a political ad which features clips of Reagan warning on the perils of tariffs in all but specific cases. Here’s the video:

There you have it. Straight from The Gipper’s mouth. Tariffs aren’t a great idea.

As you can imagine, Trump was furious. “CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!” he shrieked. “They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY.”

I’ve seen several attempts on Friday to justify or otherwise explain why Trump’s not just lying, and I’m unimpressed to put it politely. Sure, the ad’s designed to manipulate public opinion in the US. That’s ads for you: They’re manipulative by definition. “Truth in advertising” is almost a contradiction in terms.

That said, Ontario’s ad is as truthful as ads get. Reagan’s words were not altered. Everything in the ad is verbatim from a 1987 Reagan address explaining why he decided to put tariffs on Japan and, more to the point, why “Imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps” that he was “loath to take” (emphasis mine).

Yes, Canada switched the order of Reagan’s words around, but no, that didn’t change the gist of his message. For The Ronald Reagan Foundation to claim Canada “misrepresented” the speech is, dare I say it, insulting to Ronald Reagan. Apparently, the foundation’s going to sue Ontario, or at least attempt to sue them.

This debate is (or seems to me) especially ridiculous considering there’s no ambiguity about what Reagan said in the speech in question. It’s not as if it’s unavailable or somehow lost to posterity. This is a speech delivered in 1987, not 1687. All you have to do to determine who is and isn’t being honest is review it. I’ve included the transcript at the bottom of this article. Read it for yourself and decide.

For his part, Trump accused Ontario of “trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court in one of the most important rulings in the history of our Country.” He needn’t worry: After all, the Court’s in his pocket. The conservative majority’s demonstrated a willingness to prostrate itself before a would-be king if it means reversing what Samuel Alito considers to be heathenism run amok across American society.

I don’t know if Trump will get the decision he wants from the Justices in this particular instance, but all else equal, the odds are in his favor in any case he manages to get in front of the panel. The idea that the majority’s going to be swayed against him by a 63-second Canadian political ad is laughable.

The bottom line is that Reagan was prepared to countenance case-by-case measures aimed at stopping foreign companies from, as he put it, “engaging in unfair trade practices.” That does indeed line up with Trump’s rhetoric, but that’s where the parallels stop. The notion that Reagan would’ve supported Trump’s overall approach to… well, to anything, frankly, save tax cuts and maybe Latin American interventionism, is little short of preposterous by now. And everyone knows it.

Finally, the irony of Trump lambasting a foreign country for trying to influence US legal proceedings is eye-watering. This is a president who not four months ago slapped a 50% tariff on Brazil with the stated intent of compelling the country’s high court to drop a case against Trump’s ally Jair Bolsonaro.

Full April 25, 1987 Ronald Reagan address:

12:06 PM from Camp David, MD.

My fellow Americans:

Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan will be visiting me here at the White House next week. It’s an important visit, because while I expect to take up our relations with our good friend Japan, which overall remain excellent, recent disagreements between our two countries on the issue of trade will also be high on our agenda.

As perhaps you’ve heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan’s inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors. Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take. And in a moment I’ll mention the sound economic reasons for this: that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements. As I’ve often said: Our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade.

But you know, in imposing these tariffs we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war. So, next week I’ll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message: We want to continue to work cooperatively on trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this, because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring.

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada’s leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first, when someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works-but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now, it hasn’t always been easy. There are those in this Congress, just as there were back in the thirties, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who will risk America’s prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than 5 million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports. Well, I’ve never forgotten those jobs. And on trade issues, by and large, we’ve done well. In certain select cases, like the Japanese semiconductors, we’ve taken steps to stop unfair practices against American products, but we’ve still maintained our basic, long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth.

So, with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it’s terribly important not to restrict a President’s options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I’ll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation, because it’s just another form of protectionism and I may need your help to stop it. Remember, America’s jobs and growth are at stake.

Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.