By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. intelligence community’s Annual Threat Assessment identifies Mexican cartels as the primary source of fentanyl and other illicit drugs entering the U.S., primarily through the U.S.-Mexico border. The report, presented by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, does not mention Canada as a significant source despite President Trump’s claims. While China and India supply fentanyl precursors, the report focuses on the most extreme threats, deeming Mexico the greatest source of concern. Despite White House assertions to the contrary, data on fentanyl seizures at the northern border does not definitively establish Canadian origins.
Read the original article here
Canada’s conspicuous absence from the United States’ fentanyl crisis threat assessment summary is a glaring oversight, to say the least. The very notion that this omission could be anything but deliberate is frankly naive. This isn’t a simple mistake; it reeks of a calculated move, possibly to avoid acknowledging the complex and intertwined nature of the crisis, which involves both countries.
Ignoring the significant role Canada plays in the North American fentanyl landscape undermines the effectiveness of any meaningful response. The claim that the crisis is solely a problem “south of the border” is demonstrably false. A significant amount of fentanyl flows into Canada, and the reciprocal flow, while arguably smaller, cannot be disregarded. The U.S. focusing solely on its own internal issues while neglecting the cross-border implications severely hampers comprehensive solutions.
Furthermore, the selective use of the “fentanyl crisis” as a justification for tariffs and other economic actions raises serious questions. It appears the “emergency” was less about public health and more about enacting protectionist measures under the guise of national security. The lack of transparency and the inconsistent application of this “national emergency” should alarm anyone concerned about the integrity of such claims.
The sheer volume of drugs and weapons seized at the Canadian border coming from the United States contradicts the narrative used to justify these tariffs. The data speaks for itself: the flow is predominantly southward into Canada. To claim this situation justifies harsh economic penalties on Canada while ignoring the far larger volume of illicit substances entering Canada from the United States is simply illogical.
The suggestion that the fentanyl crisis was a pretext for something larger, possibly an attempt to destabilize the Canadian economy or even an excuse for more aggressive actions, cannot be easily dismissed. There’s an undeniable pattern of using fabricated crises to justify actions that benefit specific political agendas.
The fact that this narrative received any traction at all points to a deeper problem of credibility within the US political system. The casual disregard for facts and the widespread acceptance of demonstrably false information should worry everyone, regardless of nationality.
The entire incident demonstrates a breathtaking level of dishonesty, a cynical manipulation of facts for political gain, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how international cooperation should work in handling shared crises. The long-term damage to US credibility, both domestically and internationally, may be far-reaching and lasting.
Perhaps most worrying is the potential for future escalations based on equally flimsy pretexts. If a fabricated “fentanyl crisis” could justify trade wars and strained diplomatic relations, what other invented emergencies might be used to further a specific political agenda? The lack of checks and balances on the declaration of national emergencies is a significant vulnerability.
It’s clear the initial claim was a fabrication, a calculated maneuver. While the immediate intent might have been to justify tariffs, it’s impossible to dismiss the notion that this was part of a broader strategy. And given the actions and inactions of the current American administration, the notion that this was a deliberate attempt to weaken Canada for more far-reaching ambitions cannot be ruled out.
The irony is palpable. While the US focuses on a supposedly Canadian-caused fentanyl crisis, the actual flow of narcotics and weapons strongly suggests the opposite. The U.S. itself is a significant source of these problems for Canada. This hypocrisy is not lost on anyone, and the lack of any meaningful acknowledgment from the US administration serves only to further damage already fractured trust.
In conclusion, the omission of Canada in the US threat assessment is more than just a mistake; it’s a calculated move, possibly a calculated lie, with wide-ranging implications that go far beyond the immediate issue of fentanyl trafficking. The lack of transparency and the evident disregard for the facts are incredibly damaging to any hope for collaborative solutions to a crisis affecting both countries. The longer-term implications for North American relations are deeply troubling.