In early February, Shannon Proudfoot interviewed Pierre Poilievre for our April cover story on the Conservative leadership candidate. It was a wide-ranging discussion with a politician who typically doesn’t have such conversations, touching on the roots of his political beliefs, why he continued to support the trucker protest in Ottawa and how he sees his role in the House of Commons and the Conservative firmament at this moment.
What follows is a transcript lightly edited for length and clarity.
Q. First, how do you pronounce your last name?
A. People pronounce it probably a thousand different ways. I always say “paul-ee-EV” because it’s the closest thing to accurate that Anglophones can properly pronounce. If you were to pronounce it properly—and no one does—you would say “Poilievre.” (he rolls the R into the last E) I always tell people I don’t care how you pronounce my name as long as you know how to put an X beside it on election day.
Q. Okay, onto more substantive questions: How do you see your role in the House of Commons and within your party? What are you there to do?
A. To keep the commoners the masters and the crown the servant. That is the only purpose of Parliament. The reason we even have a Parliament is because through hundreds of years, British kings usurped power from the people and abused their authority. The House of Commons was created to restrain the power of the crown in order to protect the freedom of the commoners. The Senate is red because that’s the colour of royalty, the House is green because that’s the colour of the fields in which the common people work. Particularly in opposition, our job is to restrain the power of the government in order to protect the freedoms of the people.
Q. Do you see yourself as a continuation of, say, a Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper conservatism, or is there something distinct you’re trying to do?
A. I would say there is something distinct I’m trying to do, but I have no hesitation in telling you the leaders from which I’ve drawn inspiration.
It might surprise you to hear this, but I am a great admirer of Wilfrid Laurier because Laurier believed in individual liberty and decentralized power. He was a champion of freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise, freedom of trade, freedom of speech. One of my favourite quotes from him—he was our first French-Canadian Prime Minister—he said, “As French Canadians, France gave us life and England gave us liberty.” What he meant was that his French heritage was always the core of his personal identity and the parliamentary system in which he operated was an inheritance from England.
He was also a master conciliator between French and English, Protestant and Catholic. He found clever compromises that allowed people of different faiths to live out their aspirations without stepping on each other’s toes. That’s one of the magical things about Canada, that by giving everyone their individual freedom, we make it possible for people of different faiths and backgrounds to co-habitate in harmony.
Q. What does that look like on the ground? If you were to be leader or prime minister, how do you operationalize that?
A. Well, for example, I believe in freedom of speech on the internet, so governments shouldn’t control what we see and say online. We should allow families to make their own decisions—I believe in a country where if you want to raise your kids with traditional Judeo-Christian values, you can do that. If you want to live the secular or even atheistic life, you can do that too. You can marry who you want, make your own personal decisions with minimal interference by the state and maximal freedom for individuals and families.
Q. A political opponent who respects your skill and smarts and enjoys sparring with you commented that they didn’t understand what was at the core of what you were trying to do. There’s no doubt you’re very skilled at practicing politics, but if that’s the means, what is the ends? I’m wondering how you would answer that.
A. The ends is to make Canada the freest country in the world.
Q. How does partisan fisticuffs achieve that end? Or maybe a better question is what would that look like if you became leader? Can you still be in that pugilistic mode if you are leader of the party?
A. I’m definitely not as partisan as someone like Justin Trudeau or Charlie Angus or Mark Gerretsen.
Q. I think lots of people would disagree with that, but you’re entitled to see it differently.
A. Those people wouldn’t have any evidence for their claims. I just think it is important to put it in context because I think this complaint is driven mostly by people who just don’t think Liberals should ever be criticized. There’s a lot of people in Ottawa’s political establishment that want a one-party Liberal state where the Conservatives do nothing other than offer mild criticisms about procedure and progress, but never really challenge anybody’s ideas. That is horrible for democracy. Our system was deliberately designed for the opposition to prosecute the government’s failings and misbehaviour. That is a feature, not a bug. The role of House of Commons is to bring the mighty low, to remind the prime minister that he is a servant and not a master. So no, there will be no change in my approach with respect to how I hold the government to account, only that I will do it on a bigger scale.
Q. I want to ask you about the convoy protest. I understand the point you’ve made about not holding an entire movement responsible for the repellent views of a few in its midst. But the fact is core organizers have repeatedly threatened violence or spewed racism all over the internet. How do you justify supporting that?
A. I support the legitimate aspirations of individual truckers and other Canadians on whose rights governments have trampled for two years now.
Q. Okay, but I want to understand more about how you slice and dice which elements of that are palatable and worth supporting and which are not.
A. That’s a very simple question to answer. Those people who are championing their rights and freedoms through peaceful means are worth supporting. Anyone who engages in violence, racism, vandalism or obstruction deserves our full condemnation. I believe in individual responsibility. Those who do bad are individually responsible for the bad they have done. That does not change the fact that there are tens of thousands of people who have gathered on overpasses, beside highways, on sidewalks across the country to demand that governments give them their freedoms back.
Q. Do you feel like there should be consequences for people who are unvaccinated given that they create a cost to society? If one of your core beliefs is personal responsibility, are the rest of us not carrying those people and should there not be consequences for the choices they’ve made?
A. I believe vaccines work and that’s why I have chosen to be vaccinated, and that’s why I encourage other people to be vaccinated. But other individuals have made different decisions, and by the way, you don’t know their stories. You find it very easy to judge why they have decided to do what they’ve decided, but they have their own stories that might have led them to their decisions.
Q. Isn’t that what vaccine mandates are about? You can freely choose not to be vaccinated and we can freely chose not to employ you or let you in a restaurant?
A. No. You don’t get to take away someone else’s freedom because they made a personal health decision that you don’t like.
Q. Are you worried about what we could call a sorcerer’s apprentice effect? There’s a lot of anger in society right now, and if you say things that excite certain people, what if you can’t control how they react to that? What if you mobilize people and then something ugly happens that you would never have wanted to happen?
A. No. Because I have not said anything to provoke something like that. And by the way, the guy who has done more to provoke division and stoke anger across this country is Justin Trudeau, with his jabbing his fingers in people’s faces and baring his fangs and calling people ugly names even though he’s never met them. This is not the sunny ways we were promised, is it?
Q. I know you’re very smart, you’re a strategic thinker, you’re well-read. I would contend that’s not the mode of politics you’ve chosen, so how did it come to be that you chose this very combative style?
A. I just dispute the premise. If you look at my approach in Question Period, I usually ask for a fact. It’s usually give me the date, give me the number, give me the yes or the no. I think that’s why the government finds it so hard to respond, they’re used to getting rhetorical questions and exchanging partisan barbs. If you look at the most popular exchanges I’ve had in the House of Commons, it’s almost always ‘On what date will the budget be balanced?’ ‘How much money have you printed, Mr. Governor of the Bank of Canada?’ They’re precise, factual questions, and those are the kinds of questions we should be asking. The reason that some people find it so devastating is because the facts are devastating.
I know the Press Gallery in Ottawa has an opinion about me, but if you look at the speeches and interventions in the House that I have made that have garnered millions of views, they are 10-minute dissertations on monetary policy, they are historical speeches, they are insights into governance and deep public policy questions.
Q. The bedrock political beliefs people have are usually rooted in their personal story. Your beliefs in fiscal responsibility and personal freedom has been remarkably consistent, but how is that rooted in your own biography?
A. There are two things. First of all, I’m adopted. I had a teenage unwed mother who had just lost her mother when I was born, and it was two schoolteachers from Saskatchewan who adopted me and raised me and basically gave me a life. So I have always believed that it is voluntary generosity among family and community that are the greatest social safety net that we can ever have. That’s kind of my starting point.
On the flip-side, I grew up in Alberta in the early 1980s, when the first Trudeau was ravaging the economy. I was a toddler when the National Energy Program came in. And I remember how horrible things were. My earliest memories—I didn’t really understand why, I didn’t understand politics or anything—I just remember it being a really stressful time for a lot of people. And as I grew older and I’ve learned more about how that happened and why, it left a mark on me.
We had to move because we couldn’t hold onto our home with rates being that high. My folks were protected from job losses because they were teachers, obviously, but by the time I got into my adolescence, I would hear the stories about how horrible that time was. As I got older into my 20s, I read about why it was such a horrible time, and the answer was because the government in Ottawa basically tried to take over the economy. They tried to nationalize large parts of the economy, including most of the energy sector, they imposed massive taxes, ran up huge debts, printed limitless sums of money and they wreaked havoc on the population.
So I know what that can do, and I see it’s happened again.
Q. Given those deep early experiences, do you think your views have evolved over time?
A. I would say my core principles have remained the same. But I understand that I have to work with people who might not share the exact same core principles. As I’ve grown older, I’ve understood that there are competing viewpoints that have to be reconciled so that we can peacefully move forward in a democracy. So you need to have broad principles, but you need also to be humble enough to invite other viewpoints to the table so you can achieve the best part of the principles you believe in.
Q. Are you essentially a small-government proponent? I’m trying to understand how you would frame your own views.
A. I would say I want to maximize people’s individual choices and freedoms. The government should do what people cannot do for themselves: protect the borders, protect people and their property from crime, enforce contracts, build infrastructure that the private sector cannot or will not build, provide for the less fortunate who cannot provide for themselves, and have a basic social safety net of schools and hospitals. So, government does only the things that people can’t do for themselves, then it can leave people the freedom to take responsibility for themselves and each other in a free society.
Q. This is going to sound like a super soft-ball question, but I mean it: What do you love about politics? You look like you love it, so why did you choose this life?
A. Honestly, I believe in what I’m doing. I really do. Sure, there are lots of fun things in politics—the camaraderie, the agony and ecstasy of elections, the daily drama all make it an interesting place to be. But there are lots of interesting places to be in the world, and what drives me is I truly believe in what I’m doing. I truly believe that the principles I fight for are right.
Q. I’m still not sure if I understand what Pierre Poilievre’s Canada looks like. In 20 years, when your career is over, what would you consider a success?
A. That Canada is the freest place in the world. That hundreds of thousands of immigrants want to come here every year because they know it’s the best place on earth in which to work hard, start a business, raise their kids, earn a scholarship and achieve their dreams. This is a place where you’re free to believe what you want, spend your money how you want, build the future that you want, that we’ve become a country of boundless opportunity because people have the freedom to pursue their own path.
Q. In what ways is that not true now?
A. In countless ways. First Nations communities are blocked from harvesting their own resources. Immigrants come here as doctors and engineers and they’re banned from working in their own professions by gatekeeping bureaucracies. A person on disability is losing 80 or 90 cents of every dollar they earn when they get a job because of clawbacks and taxes. Businesses tell me they spend more time filling out paperwork for the government than they do serving customers and paying employees. Energy workers are stuck taking lower wages because we can’t build a pipeline to get their product to market. The government is stealing small parts of people’s livelihoods every year by printing money and driving up inflation. All of these things represent an attack on the personal and economic freedom of Canadians, and all of them can be fixed.
Q. What is your strategic thinking on how big the market is in Canada for what you are offering?
A. I guess we’re about to find out. Listen, I’ve been elected as a small-government conservative in a big-government town seven times now. People sometimes forget I’m elected in Ontario’s second-biggest city.
Q. Has becoming a dad changed your outlook on politics or just the doing of your job?
A. It has made me subservient to a very energetic three-year-old and now a newborn. That’s the interesting thing about parenthood for very small children: they, in reality, are the boss. If somebody came from outer space and saw how humans raise their kids, they would see these little creatures bossing around these big creatures.
The practical consequence of that is you have to learn to put your own priorities aside and put the interests of your little ones ahead of yourself. It doesn’t matter if my wife and I are tired, if the little one is up at two in the morning, we’re up at two in the morning. It doesn’t matter if I have a really important meeting at the crack of dawn, my wife and I have to be up if the kids are screaming.
Forcing me to constantly think of the priority of another human being has made me a better and more selfless person. It has taught me patience. I was never a patient person, I always felt a sense of urgency about time, and focus. But being a parent has taught me to be patient and compassionate in a way that I wasn’t before I was a married father.
Q. Do you find it’s impacted your ability to consume what you want to consume to know what you want to know for your job?
A. It’s tricky. But it’s funny, you get these super-human powers that you didn’t know you had. It must be some feature of evolutionary biology where we couldn’t have lived on four hours of sleep before we were parents, but something in us comes alive and allows us to now.
And the other thing is that we learn to juggle. When we don’t have kids, we spoil ourselves and think, well I have this perfectly curated schedule that just works for me. But when you have kids, I find I just have to learn to adapt. I’ve taken a lot of my reading onto audiobooks now. So I drop my little girl off at daycare, that’s about 35 minutes of driving, and I just fire up an audiobook, I put it up to 2.5 speed.
Q. I find my brain is fuzzy now from having kids, so I have to slow it down to absorb it.
A. Well, I’m not sure how much I absorb, but at least it makes me feel like I’m reading.
Q. What do you think people get wrong about you?
A. (long pause) I don’t know. I can’t answer that question. I don’t spend enough time thinking about what other people think of me to really know what they’re getting right or wrong.
Looking for more?
Get the best of Maclean’s sent straight to your inbox. Sign up for daily stories and analysis.
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.
