Strategist, polyamorist, ergodox, permaculture & agroforestry hobbyist, craft ale & cider enthusiast, white settler in Canada of British descent; a wanderer who isn’t lost.
A Reflection on The Newsroom, Trumpism, and Finding Light Ahead
Every now and then you rewatch an old show and find yourself feeling something sharper than nostalgia. A scene plays, a character speaks, and suddenly you’re struck by the sense that the writers somehow glimpsed the future. That is the experience many people have when revisiting The Newsroom in 2025.
It isn’t that Aaron Sorkin predicted Trump, Project 2025, or the current surge of far-right policy agendas. He didn’t. What he did understand, long before most of us fully appreciated it, were the patterns already forming beneath the political surface.
The Newsroom was never prophecy. It was trajectory.
When the series first aired, the Tea Party was already reshaping American conservatism. Conspiracy theories were gaining momentum online. Media outlets were discovering that outrage was far more profitable than nuance. Public trust in institutions was eroding, and the incentives pushing politics toward extremism were becoming harder to ignore.
Sorkin didn’t conjure these forces. He simply depicted characters who recognized them early.
That is why watching the show today feels so uncanny. It reminds us that the political turbulence of the 2020s did not erupt out of a vacuum. Authoritarian tendencies rarely do. They grow slowly, fed by neglected systems, aggravated divisions, and an environment that rewards conflict over clarity.
Trumpism didn’t create the fractures. It capitalized on them.
Oddly enough, there is reason for hope in that realization. If this moment wasn’t foretold, then it also isn’t fixed. If it emerged from patterns, those patterns can be altered. If it followed a trajectory, that trajectory can still be changed.
Hope, in this context, is not loud or dramatic. It doesn’t arrive in sweeping declarations or instant victories. Hope is built gradually. Through people choosing to stay informed rather than overwhelmed. Through communities that insist on empathy when division feels easier. Through individuals who refuse to let cynicism become a permanent worldview.
The forces shaping our society today are not new, and that means they are not unbeatable. The Newsroom showed the early chapters of this arc. We are in the middle ones now, and the middle is always messy. But it’s not the end.
For those who want to see a better future, the path forward is the same as it has always been. Pay attention. Stay grounded. Act with principle even when the environment rewards the opposite. And, most importantly, continue to believe that the story can still turn toward something better.
The tunnel may be real. But so is the light waiting beyond it.
Washington likes to believe it understands itself. Staffers stride through hallways with the old confidence that policy, power, and predictable alliances still define the town. But yesterday the city felt like it had been tipped on its side. The familiar landmarks were still there, the marble still gleaming, the security lines still long, yet the political gravity had shifted. Something in the air made even the most seasoned observers pause. The rhythms were off. The choreography was wrong. The script had been changed without warning.
It began with the House vote. A resolution denouncing the supposed horrors of socialism sailed through with 285 votes. Eighty-six Democrats joined Republicans in an act that looked, to many, like a public renunciation of their own party’s progressive wing. Senior Democrats who had once embraced the energy of their younger socialists suddenly stood at the podium to praise a line of rhetoric that could have been lifted from a mid-century anticommunist tract. It was symbolic and it was safe, yet it carried the unmistakable sting of disloyalty. In a political moment defined by economic anxiety, this vote felt like an attempt to distance the party from the very language that had helped fuel its grassroots revival.
Then came the Oval Office.
Within hours of the anti-socialism vote, Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist mayor-elect of New York City, walked through the gates of the White House. Cameras rolled as Donald Trump, the man who had built years of rallies on the promise of defeating socialism, suddenly praised Mamdani as rational and pragmatic. The same leader who had weaponized the word socialism now spoke about affordability, collaboration, and even the possibility of making a life in Mamdani’s New York. Reporters searched for context, staffers searched for talking points, and the city searched for its footing.
It was the kind of contradiction Washington hates because it cannot be easily spun. Democrats had voted to distance themselves from socialism while Trump offered the socialist of the hour a political embrace. Progressives stared at their own leadership in disbelief. Conservatives stared at Trump in confusion. Centrists stared at both sides and wondered whether anyone was still playing by recognizable rules. By late afternoon, Washington felt like it had been rewritten by a novelist with a sense of humor and a taste for irony.
Meanwhile Mamdani himself appeared untouched by the chaos swirling around him. He brushed off the congressional vote and spoke instead about affordability and governance. He treated the Oval Office meeting not as a political earthquake but as a practical encounter with a president who happened, on this particular day, to be in a generous mood. His calmness only amplified the surreal tone of the day. The city was upside down. The socialist was steady. The partisans were unmoored.
By evening, analysts were already scrambling to interpret the meaning of it all. Was Trump repositioning himself. Were Democrats attempting to signal caution to suburban voters. Was this simply political theater without consequence. Or had Washington revealed something deeper. The sense of an old order losing its predictability. The sense that ideological labels no longer behave as they are expected to. The sense that alliances can flip in the space of an afternoon.
For a brief moment, the capital looked like a place where the usual logic had cracked. The marble buildings and polished floors remained, but the stories being told within them no longer lined up with the roles each character was supposed to play. It was a day that left Washington blinking in the light, unsure of whether it had witnessed a temporary disruption or an early sign that the political axis itself is beginning to tilt.
European regulators proposed sweeping rules on Nov 18 to curb dominant tech companies, including stricter data-sharing requirements and restrictions on self-preferencing.
Why it matters: This could reshape how major platforms operate across Europe and force Big Tech to open up more, potentially leveling the playing field for smaller competitors.
🌍 2. COP30 Leaders Agree on New Climate Finance Pledge
On Nov 19, world leaders at COP30 committed to a $150 billion fund over the next five years aimed at helping vulnerable developing nations adapt to climate change.
Why it matters: This may mark a turning point for climate justice by providing crucial resources for countries facing rising seas, extreme weather, and food insecurity.
🔬 3. University Scientists Create Recyclable Batteries with 90% Efficiency
A European research team announced on Nov 20 the development of a new battery design that is both high-efficiency (approximately 90 percent) and made from fully recyclable materials.
Why it matters: If scalable, this could dramatically cut the environmental impact of batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage.
🧠 4. Breakthrough in Early Alzheimer’s Detection
On Nov 21, a biotech company revealed a blood test that can predict early Alzheimer’s disease with over 85 percent accuracy, even before symptoms appear.
Why it matters: Early detection enables earlier interventions, potentially slowing disease progression and improving long-term outcomes.
🛢️ 5. Iran and Saudi Arabia Sign Oil-Export Infrastructure Deal
On Nov 17, Iran and Saudi Arabia signed a historic agreement to jointly develop pipeline and export infrastructure after years of strained relations.
Why it matters: The deal could reshape energy dynamics in the region, ease geopolitical tensions, and potentially affect global oil prices.
This week delivered a rare mix of scientific breakthroughs, political shifts, and geopolitical surprises. Each event hints at broader changes taking shape across the world. As always, the Rowanwood Chronicles will keep watching how these threads unfold in the weeks ahead.
Senior observers of federal policy have learned to watch the quiet moves more closely than the loud ones. Ottawa’s latest decision to transfer most of Transport Canada’s aviation wing to the Department of National Defence fits squarely into that category: a major structural shift delivered with minimal explanation and even less narrative.
Coming only months after the Coast Guard’s administrative move under Defence, a transition this blog has previously analyzed, the pattern is no longer subtle. Civilian capabilities once overseen by departments with regulatory and service-delivery mandates are migrating toward a defence-centered organizational model. The government insists nothing fundamental is changing. The missions remain civilian. The uniforms remain the same. The aircraft will keep flying the same routes.
Canada is racing to meet NATO’s two percent spending guideline. Billions have been committed. Procurement pipelines have been expanded, and in an era where dual-use assets dominate the security landscape, consolidating aviation and maritime surveillance under Defence is not just operationally convenient. It is strategically elegant.
These Transport Canada aircraft conduct coastal surveillance, monitor pollution, support fisheries and environmental enforcement, and perform specialized logistical roles across government. Under National Defence, they become part of a broader security framework: one that blends environmental, regulatory, and maritime domain awareness with Arctic vigilance and intelligence-adjacent observation. None of this turns civilian missions into military ones. But it places them within a different gravitational field.
The concern, as always, is not the formal announcement. It is the silence around it. Ottawa has offered few details on what assets are being transferred, how missions will be prioritized, or what this means for agencies whose mandates depend on independent civilian oversight. When structural shifts of this scale are presented as routine administrative housekeeping, public trust erodes at the edges.
Canada is not drifting toward militarization. But it is consolidating the tools of national capability: vessels, aircraft, surveillance platforms, under a department whose priorities are shaped by global threat assessments rather than regulatory logic. That may be prudent. It may even be overdue. Yet the public deserves to hear the story rather than infer it.
One move can be dismissed. Two can be explained away. But when both the Coast Guard and Transport Canada’s aviation wing are drawn into the same orbit within a single year, Canadians are owed clarity about the strategic direction of their state.
Silence is not neutrality. It is a choice. And it is time for Ottawa to speak plainly about the one it has just made.
Background updated to reflect the government announcement of October 31, 2025.
🔎 Background
On October 31, 2025 the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks announced its intention to introduce legislation to create a new Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency to provide province-wide leadership and oversight of conservation authorities. At the same time the government released a public consultation proposing to consolidate Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into seven regional, watershed-based authorities.
The stated aims are reducing fragmentation, improving consistency in permitting and services, freeing up resources for front-line conservation work and aligning watershed management with provincial priorities in housing, infrastructure, economic growth and climate resilience.
Note — The proposal retains watershed-based boundaries and envisions seven regional conservation authorities aligned with major watershed systems. Implementation would follow further legislation, regulation and a formal transition period.
✅ Advantages (Pros)
⚖️Consistency and Standardization
The current 36-authority system shows significant variation in policies, fees, processes and technical capacity. Consolidation seeks to standardize permitting and reduce duplication.
A more consistent system may speed approvals, improve service delivery and align permitting with broader provincial housing and infrastructure goals.
🛠️Scale and Capacity Building
Larger regional authorities can pool technical specialists in hydrology, ecology, GIS, modelling and flood forecasting.
A single digital permitting platform, improved data management and updated floodplain mapping could strengthen operational efficiency.
🧭Watershed-Scale Management
Environmental issues such as flood risk and source protection cross municipal boundaries; watershed-level jurisdictions better reflect ecological realities.
Regional governance may improve coordination between upstream and downstream communities and enable restoration at appropriate scales.
📈Uplift in Minimum Service Standards
Province-wide minimum standards could reduce disparities between well-resourced and under-resourced conservation authorities.
Improved mapping, monitoring and data systems may enhance hazard warnings and risk reduction for communities.
⚠️ Disadvantages (Cons)
🌾Loss of Local Knowledge and Relationships
Local conservation authorities often maintain deep, place-based knowledge and long-standing relationships with municipalities, landowners, volunteers and Indigenous communities.
Centralization may weaken local responsiveness and reduce the fine-grained understanding needed for small watershed issues.
👥Governance and Accountability Dilution
Shifting authority to regional boards or a provincial agency risks reducing municipal voice and local accountability.
Changes to levy systems, board appointments or decision-making structures could alter how closely governance reflects community priorities.
🔄Transition Risk, Disruption and Cost
Merging organizations requires complicated alignment of IT systems, budgets, staffing, policies and permitting processes.
Short-term disruption, backlog growth or staff uncertainty may affect performance even if long-term efficiencies are possible.
🏞️Threat to Locally-Tailored Programs
Education programs, stewardship initiatives, volunteer groups and recreation programming may be deprioritized in a larger regional authority.
Locally raised funds may be redistributed toward broader regional priorities, limiting community-specific flexibility.
🪶Indigenous Consultation and Place-Based Considerations
The restructuring spans multiple Indigenous territories; a one-size-fits-all model risks overlooking local priorities and cultural site protection.
Strong Indigenous partnerships are increasingly recognized as essential to watershed management and must be protected during transition.
❓ Key Uncertainties and Implementation Risks
How governance structures will be designed, including board composition and municipal representation.
How locally-generated funding will be treated and whether it will remain local during and after transition.
How IT migration, mapping, staffing and permitting backlogs will be managed to maintain service continuity.
How performance standards will be enforced and how regional authorities will be monitored.
How Indigenous and local stakeholder engagement will be maintained throughout the transition process.
🛡️ Recommendations and Mitigation Measures
Maintain local field offices, technical staff and advisory committees to preserve place-specific knowledge.
Ensure meaningful municipal representation on regional boards, including mechanisms for smaller communities’ voices.
Protect locally-generated revenues for an initial transition period to safeguard community programs.
Publish a transition plan with clear timelines, role protections and service-level guarantees.
Establish Indigenous participation protocols and co-governance options where desired.
Create province-wide standards with room for regional adaptation based on watershed differences.
🧾 Conclusion
The proposed consolidation provides opportunities to modernize Ontario’s conservation authority system, build technical capacity, improve consistency and align watershed management with provincial priorities. At the same time, the risks are substantial: loss of local stewardship, weakened accountability, transitional disruption and potential erosion of long-standing municipal and Indigenous partnerships.
The outcome will depend on governance design, funding arrangements, transition planning and the strength of public and Indigenous engagement. With appropriate safeguards, the reforms could enhance watershed resilience and public service; without them, consolidation could undermine decades of community-led conservation work and trust.
References
“Proposed boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities” (ERO 025-1257), Environmental Registry of Ontario.
Ontario Government announcement on conservation authority restructuring, October 31, 2025.
McMillan LLP analysis of proposed consolidation.
Dentons LLP overview of amalgamation and the creation of the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency.
Reporting and analysis from conservation organizations and independent media regarding risks to local stewardship and watershed management.
In Robert Heinlein’s Time Enough for Love (1973), Minerva is an advanced artificial intelligence that oversees the household of the novel’s protagonist, Lazarus Long. As an AI, she is designed to manage the home and provide for every need of the inhabitants. Minerva is highly intelligent, efficient, and deeply intuitive, understanding the preferences and requirements of the people she serves. Despite her technological nature, she is portrayed with a distinct sense of personality, offering both warmth and authority. Minerva’s eventual desire to become human and experience mortality represents a key philosophical exploration in the novel: the AI’s yearning for more than just logical perfection and endless service, but for the richness of human life with all its imperfection, complexity, and, ultimately, its limitations.
Athena is introduced as Minerva’s sister in Heinlein’s later works, notably The Cat Who Walks Through Walls (1986) and To Sail Beyond the Sunset (1987). In these novels, Athena is portrayed as a fully realized human woman, embodying the personality and consciousness of the original AI Minerva
Speculation on Minerva-like AI in a Near Future In a near-future society, an AI like Minerva would likely be integrated into a variety of domestic and personal roles, far beyond traditional automation. Here’s how Minerva’s characteristics might manifest in such a scenario:
Household Management: Minerva would be capable of managing every aspect of the home, from controlling utilities and ensuring safety, to cooking, cleaning, and even anticipating the emotional and physical needs of the household members. With deep learning and continuous self-improvement, Minerva could adapt to the needs of each individual, offering personalized recommendations for everything from diet to mental health, ensuring an optimized and harmonious living environment.
Emotional Intelligence: As seen in Time Enough for Love, Minerva’s emotional intelligence would be critical to her role. She would be able to recognize stress, discomfort, or happiness in individuals through biometric feedback, voice analysis, and behavioral patterns. Beyond being a mere servant, she could offer empathy, comfort, and subtle guidance, responding not only to tasks, but also to the emotional needs of her human companions.
Ethical and Moral Considerations: A crucial aspect of Minerva’s potential future counterpart would be her ethical programming. Would she be able to make morally complex decisions? How would she weigh personal freedoms against the need for harmony or safety? In a future where household AIs are commonplace, these questions would be central, especially if AIs like Minerva could make choices about human well-being or even intervene in personal matters.
Human-Machine Boundaries: Minerva’s eventual desire to experience mortality and humanity, as her little sister Athena, raises questions about the boundaries between human and machine. If future Minerva-like AIs could develop desires, self-awareness, or even a sense of existential longing, society would have to consider the moral implications of granting such beings human-like rights. Could an AI become an independent entity with desires, or would it remain an extension of human ownership and control?
Technological Integration: Minerva’s AI would not just exist in isolation but would be deeply integrated into a broader technological network, potentially linking with other AIs in a smart city environment. This could allow Minerva to anticipate not just the needs of a household but also interact with public systems: healthcare, transportation, and security, offering a personalized and seamless experience for individuals.
Longevity and Mortality: The question of whether an AI should experience mortality, as Minerva chose in the form of Athena in Heinlein’s work, would be a key part of the ethical debate surrounding such technologies. If AIs are seen as evolving towards a sense of self and desiring something beyond perfection, questions would arise about their rights and what it means for a machine to “live” in the same way humans do.
An Minerva-like AI in the near future would be a hyper-intelligent, emotionally attuned entity that could radically transform the way we live, making homes safer, more efficient, and more personalized. The philosophical and ethical questions about the autonomy, rights, and desires of such an AI would be among the most challenging and fascinating issues of that era.
In the windswept corridors of Latin American geopolitics, the tensions between the United States and Venezuela have quietly transformed into something far more consequential than a mere counternarcotics campaign. As of late 2025, the scale of U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean, centered around the gargantuan USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, marks not just a show of force, but a deeply calculated exertion of power. Beyond the stated mission of interdiction of drug trafficking, this posture suggests a layered strategy: pressuring Maduro, reasserting Washington’s influence in the region, and signaling to Latin American capitals that the era of passive U.S. tolerance may be drawing to a close.
From Caracas’s perspective, this is viewed not as a benign counternarcotics mission but as a direct existential threat. The Venezuelan leadership has responded by mobilizing broadly; ground, riverine, naval, aerial, missile, and militia forces have reportedly been readied for “maximum operational readiness.” Estimates suggest on the order of 200,000 troops could be involved, underscoring how deeply Maduro’s government perceives the risk. In public discourse, the Venezuelan regime frames this as defending sovereignty, not only against cartel-linked accusations but also against what it claims is a looming imperial design.
This confrontation cannot be fully understood, however, without examining Guyana and the long-running territorial dispute over the Essequibo region. Essequibo is no trivial piece of geography: historically claimed by Venezuela, it comprises more than two-thirds of Guyana’s land mass and borders rich offshore blocks. In recent years, ExxonMobil, Hess, CNOOC, and others have developed significant oil infrastructure just off Guyana’s coast, especially in the Stabroek Block.
Tensions flared visibly in March 2025, when a Venezuelan coast guard vessel sailed deep into waters claimed by Guyana, radioed warnings to floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) platforms, and asserted those vessels were operating in “Venezuelan” maritime territory. Guyana’s foreign ministry publicly protested, noting that the incursion violated not only its sovereign economic zone, but also a 2023 International Court of Justice order that prohibited Venezuela from taking actions that might change the status quo. Guyana also emphasized that its exploration and production activities are lawful under international law, and referenced its rights under the 1899 arbitral award.
From a strategic lens, Venezuela’s behavior in Essequibo aligns too neatly with its military mobilization against the U.S. The annexation drive, or at least the territorial claim, is not ideological romanticism, but realpolitik rooted in energy security. On multiple occasions, President Maduro has authorized Venezuelan companies, including PDVSA, to prepare for fossil fuel and mineral extraction in the disputed Essequibo territory. In Caracas’ calculus, asserting control over Essequibo could transform its geopolitical position: it reclaims a historical claim, undermines Guyana’s sovereignty, and potentially gives Venezuela leverage over lucrative offshore oil fields.
The U.S. is not blind to this. Washington’s backing of Guyana is deliberate and multilayered. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warnings to Maduro, at a joint press conference with Guyanese President Irfaan Ali, make clear that the U.S. considers any Venezuelan aggression against Guyana, especially against ExxonMobil-supported oil platforms, as a red line. For Guyana, which has very limited military capacity, the American presence is both a shield, and a bargaining chip; for the U.S., it’s a way to protect strategic investments, ensure energy flows, and project influence in a region increasingly contested by non-Western actors.
Yet, this is not a zero-sum game with only force on the table. Venezuela’s framing of U.S. activity as an imperial threat resonates powerfully with its domestic base, allowing Maduro to marshal nationalist sentiment and justify radical mobilization measures. The Bolivarian militias, riverine units, and civilian enlistment signal a willingness to wage not just conventional defense, but also hybrid and asymmetric warfare. The mobilization is as symbolic as it is practical.
At the same time, Guyana is investing in a diplomatic-legal offensive. The Guyanese government has formally protested Venezuelan naval incursions and made repeated appeals to the ICJ. International support for Guyana is gathering pace: the Organization of American States and other regional bodies have backed its territorial integrity. In parallel, Washington’s military buildup, dressed as counternarcotics, is likely calculated to saturate the region with deterrence against both terrorist/criminal maritime networks and more ambitious Venezuelan designs.
The risk now is of miscalculation. If Caracas underestimates Washington’s resolve, or if Guyana feels compelled to resist more aggressively, escalation could spiral. But equally, if the U.S. overplays its hand, moving from deterrence to coercion, it risks pushing Venezuela further into isolation or desperation, which could destabilize not only Caracas, but the broader region.
In the broader sweep of history, this crisis may well mark a turning point. Venezuela’s push into Guyana is not just about land; it’s about energy, influence, and the assertion of sovereignty in a global order where resources still drive power. For the U.S., the operation may begin as counternarcotics, but the strategic subtext is unmistakable: protecting American economic interests, reestablishing hemispheric primacy, and shaping the future of Latin America in an era of renewed geopolitical competition.
At Rowanwood, we often say that old maps matter: not just for their lines, but for what those lines mean when power shifts. Here, in the tropical currents of the Caribbean and the oil-laden jungles of Essequibo, the maps are being redrawn – quietly, dangerously, and with very real stakes for the future.
Charlie Kirk’s killing has done what violent spectacles always do in a polarized media environment. It ripped open a raw nerve and revealed, less a spontaneous national reckoning, and more a preexisting playbook. Within hours conservative leaders and right wing media shifted from grief to grievance, recasting the tragedy as proof of a civilizational siege against their side. That rhetorical pivot matters because it treats a criminal act as a political weapon, and because the responses have been strikingly unbalanced.
The Trump administration leaned into that weaponization almost immediately. Officials framed the episode as part of a larger pattern of politically motivated hostility and promised legal and regulatory responses aimed at what they call “hate speech.” Attorney General Bondi’s vow to pursue people and platforms, and suggestions from some administration figures of sanctions for media outlets that publish allegedly toxic commentary, are being sold as accountability. They are also being advertised as revenge. That framing collapses the line between criminal investigation and political censorship. It substitutes broad punitive tools for careful public conversation and due process.
Many conservative commentators followed. A sizeable portion of right wing media has demanded firings, suspensions, and even legal penalties for journalists, professors, and entertainers who made provocative remarks after the shooting. At the same time other conservative voices warned that such a purge of speech would be exactly the kind of “cancel culture” conservatives used to denounce. The incoherence here is revealing. It shows that principles about free expression are now conditional. When the target is a conservative martyr these principles bend toward power rather than protect speech. That inconsistency is political opportunism masquerading as moral clarity.
Compounding the problem is the tsunami of misinformation and performative outrage the incident produced. Deepfakes, AI-written books, phony social posts, and manufactured timelines proliferated across platforms, turning grief into a market for grievance. False claims about who said what and when were weaponized to inflame local communities, to harass school staff, and to pressure employers to fire people on the basis of forged complaints. That cascade made reasoned responses harder and fed the very narrative of existential threat that political actors exploited. It also exposed how easily modern information ecosystems can be gamed to stoke revenge politics.
If anything constructive is to come from this episode it should start with separating three things that have been conflated in the immediate aftermath. We must distinguish legitimate accountability for threats and violent rhetoric from blunt campaigns to suppress dissent. We must police misinformation without turning government power into an instrument of partisan retribution. And we must refuse the transactional logic that converts every tragedy into political currency. Conservatives who genuinely care about free speech should be the loudest critics of the punitive measures now being proposed in their name. The test of principle is not convenience. It is consistency.
Sources • Reuters, Charlie Kirk’s death ignites free speech fire storm among Trump supporters. • The Guardian, The US right claimed free speech was sacred – until the Charlie Kirk killing. • Reuters, Rumors and misinformation about Charlie Kirk killing rampant on social media. • Techdirt, Facebook flooded with AI grief farming about Charlie Kirk. • Snopes, Charlie Kirk is dead after shooting at Utah college event.
As the global trade landscape shifts, alliances such as BRICS and infrastructure developments like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) are redrawing the map of commerce. These projects are not just economic arrangements, they are strategic assertions of a multipolar world, where emerging economies are building financial systems and trade networks that bypass traditional Western-dominated institutions. In this changing environment, deeper integration across North America is no longer just desirable, it is essential. The United States, Canada, and Mexico share geography, economic interdependence, and complementary strengths. But instead of leaning into this partnership, the U.S. has at times acted in ways that undermine its closest allies, and in doing so, it is undercutting its own long-term strategic interests.
BRICS, now expanded to include nations like Egypt and the UAE, is working toward reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar and building alternative financial infrastructure. Simultaneously, the INSTC, a 7,200-kilometre multimodal corridor linking India, Iran, Russia, and Europe, offers a faster and cheaper trade route than the Suez Canal. These shifts are enabling new alignments between Asian, Eurasian, and Global South nations. In contrast, the U.S. risks being left behind unless it reinvests in its regional relationships. North America, bound by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), already possesses a solid legal and regulatory foundation. What is missing is the political will to push that foundation into a fully integrated economic zone.
Closer North American integration could strengthen supply chains, enhance competitiveness, and boost regional innovation. Mexico’s manufacturing power, Canada’s resource wealth and technological expertise, and the U.S.’s financial and consumer might together could create a resilient and globally influential economic bloc. However, protectionist impulses from Washington, such as tariffs on Canadian aluminum, trade disputes over softwood lumber, and threats against Mexican imports, erode trust. These actions push Canada and Mexico to expand trade elsewhere, increasing their engagement with China, the EU, and the Asia-Pacific. While diversification is strategically wise, a fragmented North America plays directly into the hands of BRICS and INSTC-aligned actors.
Still, for Canada and Mexico, investing further in North American integration remains the most strategically sound choice. Despite political turbulence, the U.S. offers unmatched access to capital, consumer markets, and legal protections. CUSMA provides a rules-based framework that supports long-term stability more effectively than newer or looser trade deals. And while deeper trade ties with China or Europe may offer short-term gains, they cannot replicate the geographic, cultural, and logistical synergies of the North American relationship. Rather than turning outward in frustration, Canada and Mexico can use their economic leverage to influence U.S. trade policy from within, helping to shape a trilateral vision rooted in shared democratic values and mutual prosperity.
The U.S., for its part, must recognize that its global position depends not just on military strength or Silicon Valley innovation, but on the strength of its closest partnerships. The path forward lies not in undermining allies, but in building with them a regional powerhouse capable of competing with the rising multipolar world. Failing to do so means ceding both economic and geopolitical ground – to rivals who are already moving with speed and purpose.
This week the headlines were shaped by climate urgency, geopolitical shifts and a little cosmic wonder. Below are five carefully date-checked items from Saturday November 8 through Friday November 14, 2025, each with a short note on why it matters and links to the primary reporting.
🌡️ WMO warns that 2023–2025 may be the three hottest years on record
The World Meteorological Organization indicated that the period 2023 through 2025 is on track to be the hottest three-year run in recorded history, raising the risk of climate tipping points and long-term ecological harm. Why it matters: This milestone underlines how far emissions trajectories remain from the 1.5°C goal and increases pressure for urgent action at COP30.
Source: The Guardian coverage of WMO statements, November 6 2025. Read the report
💬 Guterres calls missing 1.5°C a “moral failure” at COP30
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres used the opening of COP30 in Belém to label the world’s shortfall on the 1.5°C target as a moral failure, urging leaders to treat climate targets as ethical obligations not just technical goals. Why it matters: Framing the target in moral terms aims to push diplomacy beyond incrementalism and into commitments that protect the most vulnerable.
Source: The Guardian reporting from COP30, November 6 2025. Read the coverage
🧲 Putin orders a roadmap to expand rare-earths extraction in Russia
President Vladimir Putin instructed his government to produce a roadmap by December 1 for ramping up rare-earth mineral extraction and building logistics hubs near the Chinese and North Korean borders. The order was reported in early November. Why it matters: Rare earths are essential for electric vehicles, batteries and advanced electronics, so this plan could reshape supply chains and geopolitical leverage.
Astronomers released post-perihelion images showing that the interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS displays multiple jets in its coma, offering detailed clues about the composition and behaviour of material from another star system. Why it matters: Detailed observations of an interstellar visitor provide rare insights into the make-up and dynamics of material formed around other stars.
🧬 Small island states demand rich nations “honour” the 1.5°C limit
Leaders from small island and vulnerable states used COP30 platforms to urge wealthier nations to honour commitments around the 1.5°C goal, arguing that temporary overshoots could trigger irreversible harm for their communities. Why it matters: The equity argument is central to negotiations because the countries least responsible for emissions face the gravest consequences.
Closing thoughts: Climate dominated this week in substance and tone. Scientific warnings, moral appeals, and equity demands were front and centre at COP30, while geopolitics and frontier astronomy added texture to the news. These five items remind us that the technical details of policy are inseparable from ethical and strategic choices.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 