ANOTHER Canadian TV Host SLAMS Hoekstra with BRUTAL Questions

You do not come into another country and run political ads against the President of the United States.We don't come into Canada and run political ads against the Prime Minister or a political party in Canada.That's not appropriate behavior.

Is the President coming to Canada saying you could be the 51st state and you probably should?That doesn't seem appropriate either.

For months now, Pete Hoekstra has been one of the loudest voices defending Donald Trump's attacks on Canada.Whether it was Trump's tariffs, the repeated 51st state remarks, or Washington's increasingly confrontational approach toward its closest ally, Pete Hoekstra has spent months trying to justify the unjustifiable to Canadians.But today, the tables turned.Appearing on Canadian television, Pete Hoekstra faced one tough question after another as host Rebecca Zanbergen challenged him on the contradictions, the hypocrisy, and the growing gap between what the Trump administration says and what it actually does.Time after time, he was forced onto the defensive.And by the end of the interview, it felt less like an ambassador promoting his government's position and more like a man struggling to explain it.

If there was ever an interview that exposed just how difficult Washington's message has become in Canada, this was it.Let's take a look.The interview started with a question that immediately put Pete Hoekstra under pressure.Asked whether the breakdown in negotiations was influenced by Trump's reaction to Canada's campaign and political messaging, Hoekstra defended Washington's position.But Rebecca quickly highlighted the contradiction between criticizing Canadian political messaging, while Trump's own comments about Canadacaused widespread concern.

We heard this week that Donald Trump has decided he does not want to extend it, at least right now.That's what we're learning.You know, this past fall, all the sides seem to have come to a pretty close deal.An agreement seemed to be in the works, but it fell apart in, I think, in part because of that Ronald Reagan ad.At least that's why it seemed as though the plug was pulled.Was that the only thing that derailed that particular deal at that time?

I know that that influenced how the U .S.perceived that.You know, foreign countries do not go into other countries and do political ads, advocating for certain candidates, especially during an election season.Canada decided to do that in the United States.As far as I can tell, and I've talked to historians and all of that, it's probably the first time in American history that a foreign country came into the United States of America and tried to influence our politics and our policies through electioneering.

It was very, very surprising and, you know, But it's disappointing.

I mean, Canada would argue that we were in sort of unprecedented times.We felt as though we were bullied.There was talk about a 51st state.

You do not come into another country and run political ads against the president of the United States.We don't come into Canada and run political ads against the prime minister or a political party in Canada.That's not appropriate behavior.

Is the president coming to Canada saying you could be the 51st state and you probably should?That doesn't seem appropriate either.

Well, I think that discussion, as I've talked about the 51st state, if you want to talk about the 51st state from my perspective, that's a discussion between the president and Mark Carney.

And you have said that you think it's a good discussion, that they should have.

I didn't say that should be a good discussion or a bad discussion.That's for the two of them to decide.not for me to weigh in on that.I've got enough to do without worrying about a 51st state.And that's a decision that's made at the top levels of government.

The conversation then shifted to something Pete Huxtra has repeatedly struggled to explain.Why so many Canadians have become frustrated with the United States.Rather than directly answering the question, he largely declined to analyze Canadian sentiment.giving Rebecca another opportunity to press him on the gap between Washington's actions and the reaction they have generated north of the border.

You know, we talked about the 51st state.We talked about the tariffs, sectoral tariffs.You've said you don't understand why Canadians are upset with the U .S., that you just don't you say, you know, we've banned some products where Canadians don't want to travel some to the U .S.

anymore.And you said you don't you don't get why that is.And do you really have no idea why there would be some Canadians who are upset with the American government right now?

I'm not going to try to analyze Canadians anymore, okay?If they want to be mad about the sectoral tariffs, which are totally legitimate under an agreement that Canada agreed to, they can be mad at the United States.If they want to, you know, Be mad about a discussion and a point of view that came out out of a discussion between your previous prime minister and the president of the United States.They can be mad at the United States of America.All I can say is, you know, Americans are we're not mad at Canada.OK, we don't ban Canadian products.

We don't tell Americans don't travel to Canada because Canada is a terrible place and is not treating us well.We don't prohibit American companies from bidding or excuse me, we don't prohibitCanadian companies from bidding on state contracts and those types of things.Americans, by and large, we say we love Canada, and our actions follow that up.

I mean, Americans largely say that, but the President of the United States certainly undercuts some of that messaging when he comes in and suggests that we should be part of the U .S., I would argue.

You can argue that, yeah.You don't believe that, though?I'm not going to get into an argument about the 51st state.Let the prime minister and the president talk about that next week if they think that's the top and the most important thing for them to do.

Next came perhaps the most revealing exchange of the interview.Rebecca pointed out the contradiction between saying America doesn't need Canada While simultaneously presenting a long list of things Washington wants from Canada, Pete Hoekstra acknowledged the United States has needs in areas like automobiles, aluminum, and critical minerals, but argued those needs don't have to be met by Canada specifically.That answer is likely to spark debate, given the deep economic integration between the two countries.

But there is a laundry list of things that the U .S.wants from Canada if we were to reach a deal with the U .S.between the U .S.

, Canada and Mexico.And that laundry list includes a lot of different things.In the past, though, we have heard President Trump say that he doesn't need Canada.But again, why would you submit a list of things you want if you don't need Canada?So how do we come to terms with both of those things said at the same time?

Well, need is one thing.We have needs for lots of things.We have needs for critical minerals.We have needs for automobiles.We have needs for aluminum and those types of things.It's another thing to say that those needs have to be filled by a particular

okay, that it has to be filled by Canada.We think on a lot of those things.Cars.Canada's a natural partner for us on automobiles, all right?We've got an integrated automobiles supply chain and those types of things.We, you know, and so I think Canada could make a compelling case that for additional cars coming into the United States of America, Canada is the ideal supplier.

It's better, you know, they could make the case that it's maybe better than Mexico, maybe a better place to get cars from than Japan or South Korea.So sure, we have those needs, but it doesn't come down to say we need those particular items from a particular country.

Rebecca then turned to Canada's decision to diversify its trading relationships.Pete Hoekstra defended the United States as a predictable partner and argued many of the trade measures were permitted under existing agreements.Rebecca countered by pointing to the impact those measures have had on Canadian industries and why Canada has sought greater stability through new markets.It was another exchange that underscored the differing perspectives on the current trade relationship.

And I mean, Canada, for its part, is doing the same thing, looking to diversify markets because it says, in part, that the U .S.is not the predictable trading partner that it once was.And to ensure that we have some predictability in our investments, that's what we're doing.So you're shaking your head.

I sometimes laugh at the predictable thing, okay?For the last 14 months, Canada has continued, predictably, to have 85 % of its trade with the United States come across the border terror -free.Predictably, the United States has carried the burden on defense of North America.As your Prime Minister says, not as a minister,says, but your Prime Minister says since the fall of the Berlin Wall.predictability, that's 37 years.

Right.But tell the aluminum industry, the steel industry...

And the steps that we're taking under aluminum and steel and these types of things are allowable provisions, predictable actions if we believe there are unfair trade practices under USMCA KUSMA.Those are lawful, within the framework of the agreement, steps that somebody who believes they are being aggrieved through the process, those are steps that are outlined that a country can take.Canada could take those steps.Mexico could take those steps.In this case, the United States has.

Regardless of whether or not they're legal, they have made our sectors a little bit less stable than they had been in the past, and therefore we look for other means to make them more stable.

That's fine.Canada has the right to do that.

The interview closed by broadening the discussion beyond Canada with questions about U .S.foreign policy and recent international actions.Rebecca continued to challenge Pete Hoekstra's assessment, illustrating the same interview style that had defined the entire conversation.Direct questions, requests for clarification, and persistent follow -up whenever answers left important issues unresolved.

You did mention that there are decisions that the U .S.has taken that not everyone will like.Difficult decisions because you are leaders, you said.What did you mean by that?

Well, I mean, especially on national security, you can take a look at the last number of months.We took a leadership position in the Western Hemisphere with our actions in Venezuela.We've taken some leadership positionsin the Middle East in regards to Iran achieving a nuclear weapon.Some of our allies were with us on some of those, on those two missions and some were not.

And do you think that mission so far has, would you still characterize it as successful at this point?

I think Venezuela has been very, very successful.I think Iran has been successful.Remember what our objective was to make sure that Iran did not get a nuclear weapon.And I think we've made significant progress in making sure that that does not happen.

Some of that progress had already been made, and now we have the Strait of Hormuz in a sort of critical unknown.And so why are we in a better spot now than before all of this, would you say?

Because we've clearly pushed Iran much further away from ever achieving a nuclear weapon and being a destabilizing force.We confronted a threat in the Middle East, and effectively, we've eliminated that threat.

OK, I think there are people who would disagree with you, but I want to put a pin in that for now because I want to move on to the Canada -U .S.

-Mexico agreement.Whether you agreed with every answer or not, one thing stood out throughout this interview.The toughest moments weren't created by dramatic exchanges.They came from simple follow -up questions that repeatedly tested whether Washington's messaging matched its actions.For Canadians trying to understand where the relationship with the United States is heading, those are exactly the kinds of questions many viewers have been asking for months.Now it's your turn.

Do you think Pete Hoekstra answered those questions convincingly, or did today's interview leave even more unanswered?Let us know in the comments below.And if you enjoy in -depthof Canadian politics, Canada -US relations, and the stories shaping Canada's future, don't forget to subscribe to Canada Today, leave a like, and we'll see you in the next video.