In the early 1960s, Canada’s party system settled around the Liberals and Conservatives and the much smaller New Democratic Party (formerly the CCF). In 1993, Canada’s party system fragmented once again, with the rise of the Reform Party of Canada (which later morphed into the Canadian Alliance) and the Bloc Québécois. Those parties disappeared or diminished in importance. The Canadian party system has evolved to the point where three main parties compete for power. Various smaller parties organize in a more limited way.
Structure and Organization
Canada’s electoral system is based upon single-member constituencies. A political party tries to win a majority of seats in a general election to form a government. Political parties recruit members. They organize and fund their activities to nominate candidates to contest seats through political campaigns.
Canadian political parties function both nationally and locally. (See alsoLocal Government; Provincial Government.) Federal and provincial campaigns — and that of Yukon — are party contests in which candidates represent political parties. Municipal campaigns — and those of Northwest Territories and Nunavut — are contested by individuals, not by parties.
Generally, the national party organization is dominated by the party’s elected members and leader. The national party organization sets policy and election strategy. At the same time, political parties also organize at the constituency level through local associations. These associations are typically the focus of membership activity. One of their primary functions is to choose the candidate the party will run in that constituency. They also deliver and adapt the party’s message to the local context.
Federal Political Parties
National political parties have existed since before Confederation. However, they were not formally recognized on ballots until 1970. Starting in 1974, political parties could register with Elections Canada. Registration entitles them to several privileges. The most important of these are the right to have the party’s name listed on the ballot underneath the names of its nominated candidates and the right to issue official tax receipts for financial contributions to the party. (See Political Party Financing in Canada.)
To be eligible for registration, parties need to meet certain legal requirements and have at least 250 members. To be registered, parties need to nominate a candidate in a general election or by-election. At the time of the 2015 federal election, there were 23 registered political parties in Canada. Only some of those, however, could reasonably expect to win seats in an election. The five major federal parties are the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party of Canada.
There are often provincial parties with similar names or aims as national political parties; but Canadian parties are not generally well-integrated. The Conservative Party of Canada has no formal relationship with any provincial parties. The Liberal Party of Canada has more formal ties with the provincial Liberal parties; with the exception of the Parti libéral du Québec, which is independent, and the British Columbia Liberal Party, which is a centre-right party. It has not been affiliated with the federal Liberals since 1987. Provincial NDP parties are fully autonomous; except in Quebec, where formal ties exist between the Nouveau parti démocratique – Québec (NPD) and the federal party. According to the NDP charter, the NPD must “conduct itself in general consistency with the social democratic principles of the New Democratic Party of Canada.”
Despite the general lack of formal ties, however, there is often significant overlap between supporters of provincial and national parties of the same name.
Party Membership
Most Canadian political parties require their members to be Canadian citizens or permanent residents and not to be members of any other national parties. Members must also pay a nominal annual membership fee. Canadian parties typically provide limited opportunities for members to get involved outside of elections. During elections, however, party membership lists provide a source of volunteer labour. Members can participate in choosing party officers, delegates to conventions and local candidates. Relatively few Canadians join and participate in political parties. Parties typically do not publicize their membership numbers.
Representation
Political parties are important structures for representing the diversity of Canadian society. In the past, this largely centred around representing Canada’s linguistic duality; both in formal structures and in informal practices. For example, the Liberals traditionally alternate between francophone and anglophone leaders.
As Canadian society has become more diverse, there have been greater demands for inclusivity in parties. Many parties have responded with efforts to recruit more candidates from underrepresented groups, such as women and visible minorities. In 2015, 28 per cent of the nominated candidates were women. Among the five major parties (Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal, NDP), 33 per cent were women. Jagmeet Singh became the first racialized leader of a major national political party when he was elected leader of the NDP in 2017. In 2020, Green Party leader Annamie Paul became the first Black Canadian and the first Jewish woman to serve as leader of a major federal political party in Canada.
Party Financing
Political party activities, particularly media-intensive election campaigns, require great financial resources. Political parties aggressively fundraise, seeking contributions from members and supporters to fund their activities. Canadian national parties are limited by law to fundraising only from individuals and their financial activities are heavily regulated. (See alsoPolitical Party Financing in Canada.)
Candidates
Each general election involves simultaneous elections in all of Canada’s 338 ridings. In each constituency, there may be candidates from registered political parties; as well as representatives of other parties without registered status, whose names appear on the ballot as independents. (See alsoCanadian Electoral System.) In 2015, there were 1,792 candidates — the third-highest total ever for a Canadian general election. All but two constituencies had at least four candidates running; 48 electoral districts had seven or more.
At the local level, the most important task of the constituency association is to choose its candidate. The procedures for doing so are normally loosely established by the national political party. But there is considerable autonomy accorded to local parties, and their practices vary. Usually, the candidate is selected by a secret vote of all members in the constituency. It is also common for candidates to be acclaimed; particularly in areas where the party is weak, and few people are interested in becoming candidates.
There is a tradition of the local association choosing the candidate. But the party leader must approve any candidate running under the party’s name. This gives the national party a degree of control over the nomination process as the leader can refuse to approve a candidate chosen by the local association. This is sometimes used to ensure that a favoured contestant becomes the party candidate; or to help the party improve the diversity of its candidate pool. Such interventions are controversial, and party leaders use them sparingly.
Once the party’s candidate is chosen, the local party tries to secure his or her election. The party will choose a campaign manager, rent a campaign office and begin the process of publicizing the party and the candidate with signs and advertisements. Closer to the election, it will organize door-to-door canvasses and the distribution of literature. On election day, the local party focuses its efforts on encouraging its identified supporters to get out and vote.
Leadership
Party leaders are the central figures in political parties. They are in effect the party’s candidate for prime minister (or premier, at the provincial level). As a result, the selection of party leader is one of the most important tasks undertaken by parties. Normally, the selection of party leaders takes place after the resignation or death of the incumbent. Parties will also periodically call for or force a leadership review. In the first 50 years after Confederation, a party’s Members of Parliament (MPs) chose one from their ranks to lead the party. This system was supplanted by the leadership convention; delegates from the local party associations and other components of the party gathered in a central location to choose a leader. Only a few thousand of the party’s members would participate in these conventions.
In the 1990s, Canadian political parties began to switch to a system where all party members vote for their choice of leader. All major parties now choose their leader in this way. The Conservatives and Liberals weigh the votes in each constituency equally. This ensures that constituencies with large numbers of members do not dominate the process. Administering leadership votes takes significant resources. Parties have used combinations of in-person, telephone, postal and Internet ballots. These systems treat all party members equally. But they can create situations where the chosen leader has weak support among a party’s MPs or the party establishment.
The parties also elect a president and other executive members. Their job is to manage the party’s administrative apparatus. Most parties also hold policy conventions. These usually take place every two years. There is often debate between the MPs and participants in policy conventions as to how far elected members are bound by the resolutions established at such conventions. In a general election, it is the task of the national party to manage the overall national campaign. It plans the leader’s tour, raises and spends money on advertising and campaign literature, and distributes money and other resources. At other times, the parties operate offices with a small but paid staff. Their responsibility is to conduct party business and to coordinate the various constituency, provincial and national organizations.
At the time of Confederation, Canada’s politics were modelled on Britain’s system of parliamentary democracy. This meant that two broad-based political parties would compete for power. In the Conservative Party, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier brought together a broad ruling coalition. (See Great Coalition of 1864.) It comprised a diverse collection of ideological, regional, religious and economic interests. At the political level, they allied the Tories of Canada West with the French-speaking Parti bleu of Canada East; along with business interests from the Maritimes. With the exception of the 1874 election, when Macdonald’s government was driven from office by the Pacific Scandal, the Conservative Party dominated Canadian politics until 1896.
In 1957, John Diefenbaker led the party to a minority government and then to a landslide victory in 1958. (SeeElections of 1957 and 1958.) Diefenbaker won significant support in Quebec. However, he was unable to manage this coalition. The Liberals came back to power in 1963. Western Canadian provinces had previously supported minor parties such as the Progressives and Social Credit. These provinces remained in the PC camp even after the Conservatives’ defeat.
As in the period before Diefenbaker, the PC had difficulty competing with the Liberals’ ability to bridge Quebec and the other provinces. This changed in 1984 when PC leader Brian Mulroney led the party to a landslide victory. Mulroney did this by bringing Quebec into the PC fold. He wedded that province’s support with the Conservatives’ traditional western support base. However, Mulroney’s pursuit of constitutional reform exposed the disagreements between western Canada and Quebec over Canadian identity. (See Meech Lake Accord; Charlottetown Accord.) The western wing of the party largely left to form the Reform Party in 1987. The Quebec wing of the party left to form the Bloc Québécois in 1990. After the 1993 election, the Progressive Conservative party lay in ruins; it was reduced to only two seats in the House of Commons.
The Progressive Conservative party languished throughout most of the 1990s. It slowly increased its support to a handful of seats across the country. Meanwhile, the Reform Party (reformed as the Canadian Alliance in 2000) had difficulty expanding beyond its western support base. In 2003, the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada. It chose Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper as leader in 2004. Harper led the Conservative Party of Canada to two minority governments in 2006 and 2008 and to a majority government in 2011. Harper’s careful, incremental pursuit of neo-conservative public policy led to a slow increase in support. However, the party continued to struggle with gaining support in Quebec.
The rise of Wilfrid Laurier to the leadership in 1887 transformed the party. Laurier was elegantly bilingual and a politician of genius. He neutralized the hostility of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec toward the concept of political liberalism. His victory in the election of 1896 laid the groundwork for decades of Liberal domination in Quebec and for the party’s predominance in the next century. Laurier lost office, however, when he again proposed free trade with the United States in 1911. (SeeReciprocity.) Robert Borden and the Conservatives succeeded Laurier and led the country through the First World War. Borden solidified the deep anti-Conservative sentiment in Quebec by imposing conscription in 1917. Many Québécois were in strong opposition, as they considered the conflict an English, not a Canadian, war. ( See Election of 1917.)
In 1984, the Liberals lost much of their Quebec support base to the Conservatives. The Liberals were swept from office. Aided partly by a divided opposition, the party came back to power in 1993 under Jean Chrétien. The Liberals won three consecutive majority governments. Their parliamentary domination rested on a steady and relatively high share of the popular vote. After the Sponsorship Scandal came to light, the Liberals were reduced to a minority government in 2004 under Paul Martin. In 2006, the Liberals lost power. The party then went through a succession of leaders and faced a decline in voter support. In 2011, the party was reduced to 34 seats and third place in the House of Commons. The Liberals won a majority government under Justin Trudeau in 2015 but were reduced to a minority government in 2019.
The NDP provided Canada with a “two-and-a-half-party” system until the 1990s; a system in which the two large parties — the Liberals and Conservatives — were joined by a smaller party. A combination of weak leadership, scandal at the provincial level, competition from other protest parties and trade union dissatisfaction seriously weakened the party. It reached a point where some, including its own members, questioned its survival.
The NDP was revived under the leadership of Jack Layton. He became party leader in 2003. Layton’s likeable image, combined with his efforts to professionalize the party’s electoral machinery, helped restore the NDP’s place in the party system. In May 2011, Layton led the NDP to its best-ever election result; it finished second with 103 seats and became the Official Opposition. Much of the NDP’s breakthrough came from Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois was founded as a parliamentary movement. It was formed by Members of Parliament from Quebec ridings who left the Conservative and Liberal parties after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. The parliamentary bloc was led by Lucien Bouchard, who had been a Conservative cabinet minister. He resigned his seat and soon after formed the Bloc Québécois political party.
The Bloc runs candidates solely in the province of Quebec. Its principal policy is to promote Quebec’s interests and Quebec sovereignty in the House of Commons. In the 1993 election, the Bloc received the second-most seats (54) and became the Official Opposition. But the party slowly declined in support. It was almost obliterated in the 2011 election when it lost all but four seats. However, in the 2019 election, the Bloc ate into the NDP’s support in Quebec; it claimed 32 seats to the NDP’s 24.
Green Party
The Green Party of Canada was founded in 1983 to promote environmental concerns. The party ran small numbers of candidates with little voter support until 2004. Changes to Canada’s party finance laws meant that a party that earned two per cent of the vote nationally would receive public funding. Under leader Jim Harris, the Greens nominated a full slate of candidates for the 2004 election and qualified for the funding.
The combination of increased party resources and growing environmental consciousness among voters led to the growth of the party. It received seven per cent of the vote in 2008. Elizabeth May, who became leader of the party in 2006, won the Greens’ first ever seat in the House of Commons in 2011. She was succeeded as leader by Annamie Paul, the first Black Canadian and the first Jewish woman to lead a major federal party.
Fringe Parties
Canada has seen a variety of very small parties that meet the criteria for registration but earn small shares of the vote and do not win seats in the House of Commons. Some of these parties, such as the Communist, Christian Heritage or Canadian Action parties, have lasted for a long period of time. Others might only contest one or two elections before fading away. These parties have little success electorally. But they allow their supporters to participate in the debate over the direction of the country.
Significance
Political parties are important to the health of Canadian democracy. They help to organize political competition and structure the operation of our political system. As organizations, however, there are signs that Canada’s political parties are weakening. The membership base of political parties is aging and declining. Fewer Canadians identify themselves as party supporters. Voter turnout in Canada has declined in the last two decades, raising questions about the ability of parties to connect with voters. Canadian parties are as important as ever in the operation of our political institutions. But their connection with the electorate is increasingly tenuous.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
