In what may be remembered as one of the most consequential political advertisements in North American history, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s decision to air a 30-second spot featuring Ronald Reagan’s words has triggered a diplomatic crisis with reverberations extending far beyond Canada’s borders—including to Singapore’s shores.
The Advertisement That Changed Everything
The commercial itself was deceptively simple: excerpts from a 1987 radio address in which former President Ronald Reagan articulated his opposition to tariffs, explaining why he used them only as a last resort against Japan. Ontario’s government ran the advertisement on major US networks, carefully vetted by an American law firm, with a clear message to American viewers: tariffs hurt everyone.
The initial reaction from President Donald Trump appeared measured. On October 28, he commented that he would air the same commercial if he were running Canada—a response that suggested the message had landed without causing offense.
Then everything changed.
Two days later, citing a complaint from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, Trump terminated all trade talks with Canada, branding the advertisement as “fake” and “fraudulent.” The foundation claimed Ontario had misrepresented Reagan’s position, while Trump went further, suggesting—without evidence—that artificial intelligence had been used to doctor Reagan’s comments.
The Calculated Risk
Premier Ford’s response has been unapologetic, even defiant. “We have achieved our goal, to make sure that conversation starts with the American people, and with their elected officials, and my goodness, it’s started all right,” he told reporters at Queen’s Park, Ontario’s legislature. “The best ad that ever ran, I’ll tell you.”
This confidence stems from an unexpected outcome: the advertisement, budgeted at C$75 million and scheduled to run into early 2026, has already generated an estimated 11.4 billion impressions—more than eleven times the expected 1 billion views. The irony is palpable: Trump’s furious reaction transformed a regional campaign into a global news story, giving Ontario’s message exponentially greater reach at a fraction of the intended cost.
Yet this viral success came at an immediate price. After Ford paused the advertisement following a conversation with Prime Minister Mark Carney—but only after running it during the high-profile World Series games on October 24 and 25—Trump announced a 10 percent tariff increase on Canadian goods. His justification: the advertisement was an attempt to influence the US Supreme Court’s deliberations on the legality of his tariff regime.
The Stakes for Ontario
Ontario is not simply another Canadian province. It represents nearly 40 percent of Canada’s population and is the country’s largest provincial economy. More critically, it is the heart of Canada’s automotive manufacturing sector, with motor vehicles and parts constituting the province’s largest export category at C$73 billion in 2023.
Ford’s frustration with the trade negotiations becomes clearer in this context. He claims the automotive sector—Ontario’s economic lifeblood—was being neglected in discussions with Washington. “There’s no mention of auto anywhere,” he stated, noting that major carmakers have already delayed new investments in Ontario due to Trump’s tariff threats.
The premier’s strategy appears to rest on a psychological calculation about Trump himself. “My intention was never to poke the president in the eye,” Ford explained. “My intention was to inform the American people this is serious and it’s going to cost you jobs if we don’t have a fair trade deal with your closest friend and ally.” He added that Trump “respects strength,” implying that “rolling over” would be a strategic mistake.
The Reagan Foundation’s Role
The involvement of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation adds a layer of complexity to this dispute. The foundation’s complaint provided Trump with the justification he needed to escalate the situation, but it also raises questions about the intersection of historical legacy and contemporary politics.
Former Vice President Mike Pence’s intervention on October 26 was telling. He shared an opinion column on X (formerly Twitter) with the comment that Reagan “was a free trader, no matter what the current president says.” This suggests divisions within Republican ranks about Trump’s protectionist approach, with Reagan’s free-trade legacy serving as a rallying point for critics.
Ford has dismissed the foundation’s legal threats with characteristic bluntness: “They can do whatever they want. They’re not going to win.”
The Broader Diplomatic Fallout
The advertisement controversy has poisoned relations at the highest levels. Trump stated on October 27 that he does not want to meet with Prime Minister Carney “for a while,” despite both leaders attending the same international summit in Asia this week. This represents a dramatic deterioration in relations between two countries that share the world’s longest international border and deeply integrated economies.
The question now is whether Ford’s gambit—characterized by supporters as bold and by critics as reckless—will ultimately benefit or harm Ontario and Canada. The premier insists the advertisement was merely an “excuse” Trump used to end talks that were already going badly for Canadian interests.
Singapore’s Exposure: The Ripple Effects
While this drama unfolds thousands of kilometers away, Singapore has compelling reasons to watch closely. The island nation’s economy is acutely vulnerable to disruptions in global trade flows, and the escalating US-Canada trade war carries several distinct risks:
1. The Erosion of the Rules-Based Trading System
Singapore has long been a champion of multilateral trade frameworks and the rules-based international order. The country’s prosperity depends on predictable, transparent trade rules that allow a small nation to compete on equal footing with larger powers.
Trump’s willingness to terminate trade negotiations over a television advertisement—and to impose tariffs based on claims of Supreme Court interference—represents exactly the kind of arbitrary, personality-driven trade policy that Singapore fears. If the United States can abruptly end talks with its closest ally over a perceived slight, what protection do Singapore’s trade agreements offer?
The precedent is alarming. Singapore has a free trade agreement with the United States dating back to 2004, but the current administration’s approach suggests such agreements may offer less security than previously assumed.
2. North American Manufacturing Disruption
Singapore’s electronics and pharmaceutical companies have significant operations in North America, particularly in medical technology, semiconductors, and precision engineering. These supply chains are carefully calibrated to take advantage of North American free trade arrangements.
Ontario’s automotive sector crisis directly affects Singapore-based companies and their subsidiaries operating in the region. Flex Ltd., a Singapore-listed company with substantial North American manufacturing presence, faces uncertainty as automotive supply chains adjust to new tariff realities. Similarly, Singapore’s pharmaceutical manufacturers with Canadian operations must recalculate the viability of their North American footprint.
The C$73 billion automotive export sector that Ford is fighting to protect includes numerous Asian suppliers, some with Singapore headquarters or significant Singaporean investment. Tariffs that make Canadian manufacturing less competitive could force painful restructuring decisions.
3. The Asean Summit Timing
The timing is particularly awkward. Trump’s refusal to meet with Prime Minister Carney comes as both leaders attend an international summit in Asia this week—identified in the article as the 47th Asean Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Singapore, as a key Asean member, finds itself hosting major powers whose bilateral relationship has descended into acrimony.
This creates diplomatic complexity for Singapore and other Asean nations attempting to deepen trade ties with both North America and strengthen regional cooperation. How does Asean navigate between an unpredictable United States and a Canada now engaged in open economic warfare with Washington?
The article notes that “Asean leaders push for stronger trade ties among RCEP members and other partners,” but the US-Canada dispute demonstrates the fragility of even the most established trade relationships. If the United States and Canada—with their integrated economies, shared border, and military alliance—can descend into trade war over a television advertisement, what confidence can Asean nations have in their own arrangements?
4. The Weaponization of Historical Narratives
Trump’s claim that Ontario used artificial intelligence to manipulate Reagan’s words—made without evidence—represents a new dimension of trade conflict: the weaponization of historical narratives and the deployment of disinformation claims in trade disputes.
For Singapore, a nation that relies heavily on its reputation for transparency, rule of law, and factual accuracy in international dealings, this trend is deeply concerning. If unsubstantiated claims about “fake” and “fraudulent” content can be used to justify tariff increases and terminate trade negotiations, Singapore’s careful diplomatic approach may prove insufficient protection.
5. Supply Chain Recalculation
The broader trend the Ontario crisis represents—increasing protectionism, the willingness to sacrifice trade relationships for political messaging, and the use of tariffs as punishment rather than economic tools—forces Singapore companies to reconsider their global supply chain strategies.
Singapore’s transport and logistics sector, which has positioned the island as a regional hub, faces questions about the reliability of North American routes. If Canadian goods face escalating US tariffs, what happens to Singapore’s role in facilitating trade between Asia and North America?
The pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors are particularly exposed. Singapore has emerged as a significant hub for medical device manufacturing and pharmaceutical production, with many companies using Singapore as a platform to serve both Asian and North American markets. Disruption to North American trade relationships complicates these strategies.
6. The Precedent for Small Nations
Perhaps most troubling for Singapore is the precedent this sets for how small, trade-dependent nations can protect their interests when larger powers engage in erratic behavior.
Ontario’s strategy—public appeals directly to American citizens, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels—represents a kind of economic populism that may or may not work. Ford’s claim that Trump “respects strength” and that Ontario should not “roll over” reflects a confrontational approach that seems deeply foreign to Singapore’s diplomatic tradition.
Yet the alternative—quiet negotiations that were apparently yielding nothing for Ontario’s automotive sector—proved equally futile. If traditional diplomacy fails and public confrontation triggers retaliation, what options remain for small nations seeking fair treatment in trade disputes?
The Economic Reality Check
The numbers underlying this dispute are staggering. Ontario’s C$73 billion automotive export sector represents just one province of one country. Canada’s total exports to the United States exceeded C$592 billion in 2023. A 10 percent tariff increase, as Trump has threatened, would represent tens of billions in additional costs, potentially triggering recession in Canada and significant disruption for US industries dependent on Canadian inputs.
For Singapore, these figures matter because they represent the scale of economic disruption that can result from deteriorating trade relationships. Singapore’s total goods trade exceeded S$1 trillion in 2024, with significant exposure to both North American and global supply chain disruptions.
The Political Calculus
Ford’s bet is that Trump’s tariffs will hurt American consumers and businesses enough that domestic pressure will force a rethink. The premier believes the advertisement’s viral success—those 11.4 billion impressions—has educated Americans about the economic interdependence that tariffs threaten to disrupt.
This strategy assumes rational economic calculation will ultimately prevail over political symbolism. But Trump’s response to the advertisement suggests exactly the opposite: that perceived slights and political messaging can override economic considerations.
For Singapore’s policymakers, this offers a sobering lesson. The city-state’s approach to international relations has traditionally emphasized pragmatism, quiet diplomacy, and emphasis on mutual economic benefit. The Ontario crisis suggests these tools may be insufficient when dealing with leaders for whom political theater and personal grievance outweigh economic optimization.
The Question of Sovereignty
Underlying this entire dispute is a fundamental question about sovereignty and communication. Does Ontario—or any subnational government or sovereign nation—have the right to communicate directly with citizens of another country about trade policy that affects them?
Ford’s advertisement was not addressed to the US government but to the American people. It sought to bypass official channels and appeal directly to democratic accountability: if American voters understand that tariffs cost them jobs and raise their costs, they might pressure their representatives to oppose protectionist policies.
Trump’s reaction—treating this public communication as a hostile act warranting termination of trade talks and tariff increases—suggests a very different view: that attempts to influence American public opinion constitute interference deserving of punishment.
For Singapore, this raises uncomfortable questions. The city-state regularly engages in public diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and educational initiatives designed to foster understanding and support in other countries. Would such activities be viewed as “interference” by a hostile administration? Could Singapore’s careful relationship-building be reframed as improper influence?
Looking Ahead: Three Scenarios
Scenario 1: De-escalation Through Backchannel Diplomacy
Despite the public acrimony, Canada and the United States may find a way to resume talks through informal channels. The economic stakes are too high for sustained conflict, and both sides may recognize that escalation serves neither’s interests. In this scenario, Ford’s advertisement becomes a footnote—a temporary disruption that ultimately forced serious negotiation on issues Ontario cares about, particularly automotive trade.
For Singapore, this would be the best outcome: a demonstration that even significant trade disputes between allied nations can be resolved, and that the rules-based system retains some resilience.
Scenario 2: Sustained Trade War
Alternatively, the US-Canada relationship may enter a period of sustained trade conflict, with escalating tariffs, retaliatory measures, and economic decoupling. Trump’s tariffs stick, Canada responds with its own restrictions, and North American economic integration—built over decades—begins to unwind.
This scenario would be deeply concerning for Singapore. It would signal that even the most integrated trade relationships are vulnerable to rapid deterioration, and that small nations must radically reduce their dependence on predictable trade rules.
Scenario 3: The New Normal
Most troubling would be if this represents the new baseline: trade relationships characterized by sudden disruptions, tariffs imposed as political punishment, and negotiations that can be terminated over perceived slights. In this world, no trade agreement offers genuine security, and economic policy is subordinated to political theater.
For Singapore, this would require fundamental reconsideration of its economic model and global engagement strategy.
Implications for Singapore’s Trade Policy
The Ontario crisis should prompt several considerations in Singapore’s trade policy:
Diversification of Trade Partners: Singapore’s already diverse trade portfolio may need further broadening to reduce exposure to any single volatile relationship.
Supply Chain Resilience: Companies based in or operating through Singapore should develop contingency plans for sudden trade disruptions, even between seemingly stable partners.
Diplomatic Innovation: Traditional quiet diplomacy may need supplementing with new approaches to managing relationships with unpredictable counterparts, though Singapore’s options differ from Ontario’s given its sovereign status and diplomatic constraints.
Regional Integration: The reliability of regional trade frameworks like RCEP becomes even more critical when global trade relationships prove unstable.
Scenario Planning: Singapore’s government and businesses must plan for a range of scenarios, including ones that would have seemed implausible in earlier eras of trade policy.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale
Doug Ford’s Reagan advertisement gambit—whether ultimately judged as bold leadership or reckless brinksmanship—offers a case study in 21st-century trade conflict. It demonstrates how quickly relationships can deteriorate, how political symbolism can override economic logic, and how public communication strategies can backfire spectacularly or succeed beyond expectations, depending on one’s metric.
For Singapore, thousands of kilometers from Toronto and Washington, the lessons are nonetheless direct and urgent. The city-state’s prosperity rests on the assumption that trade relationships, once established, provide stable foundations for long-term planning. The Ontario crisis challenges that assumption fundamentally.
As Premier Ford told reporters, “My intention was never to poke the president in the eye.” Yet eyes have been poked, trade talks terminated, and tariffs imposed. Intentions, it turns out, matter less than perceptions in the current trade environment.
Singapore must watch carefully and learn accordingly. The next trade war triggered by a television advertisement—or a tweet, or a perceived slight—might involve the island nation itself. In that scenario, Ontario’s experience offers both warning and, perhaps, a roadmap for how small economies can fight back when traditional diplomacy fails.
The question is whether fighting back is wisdom or folly. As tariffs rise and trade talks collapse, that answer remains unclear.