Behind Closed Doors, Trudeau Says Trump Threat to Take Over Canada Is Real

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: New York Times

Feb. 7, 2025 Updated 3:17 p.m. ET


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada on Friday made his first comments in response to President Trump’s repeated statements that he wants to annex Canada and make it the 51st state. Mr. Trudeau made clear that he did not regard Mr. Trump’s statements as having been made in jest and believes annexation is something Canada needs to treat as a serious threat. And he believes he knows why Mr. Trump covets Canada.

“I suggest that not only does the Trump administration know how many critical minerals we have, but that may be even why they keep talking about absorbing us and making us the 51st state,” Mr. Trudeau told a gathering of company executives and business leaders in Toronto, according to people in the room who listened to his comments.

The news media had been asked to leave the room at the time Mr. Trudeau delivered his comments, but at least two news outlets, The Toronto Star and the CBC, were able to hear them and record them. Mr. Trudeau’s office declined to provide details of what the prime minister said.

“They’re very aware of our resources,” Mr. Trudeau added, “of what we have, and they very much want to be able to benefit from those.” And he continued: “But Mr. Trump has it in mind that one of the easiest ways of doing that is absorbing our country. And it is a real thing.”

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/world/canada/trump-canada-trudeau.html

---

No paywall (gift)

[Joinfortmill]

1. This is as serious as it is insane.

[MadameButterfly]

2. What could go wrong?

Canada wouldn't be able to resist the US military but...
If Trump doesn't like how Canadians vote, they won't become a state, much less the several states they should become. How about a colony?

No more gun control, or national healthcare. Let Elon have at the Canadian Social Security and other benefits. They'll love it.

Trump would have to cut expenses elsewhere to finance a hostile takover of a country. Or two or four.

Will anyone explain this to him or will they compare it to the Louisiana Purchase again?

[TomSlick]

5. If the US invades Canada, the rest of NATO will be obliged to come to Canada's defense.

The same applies to Greenland.

Moreover, any US civilian official or military officer who orders US troops invade another country without cause will be subject to prosecution either by a subsequent administration or by the international community for participating in a war of aggression and crimes against peace. Obedience of orders is no defense.

While SCOTUS has created Presidential immunity out of whole cloth, international law will not recognize it. If Trump survives his term (God forbid), he would also be subject to prosecution for waging a war of aggression and crimes against peace.

[MadameButterfly]

15. I hope NATO is arming themselves

And thanks for this perspective. Should provide some deterrence. I hope someone will explain all that to Trump.

[LudwigPastorius]

20. "...any US civilian official or military officer who orders US troops invade another country without cause...

will be subject to prosecution either by a subsequent administration or by the international community for participating in a war of aggression and crimes against peace."

George W. Bush was never prosecuted by the ICC or subsequent U.S. administrations for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

With that precedent set, there is no reason to firmly believe that Trump would face prosecution for any expansionist wars he starts.

[TomSlick]

21. I'm not convinced.

First, a non-action is not precedent.

Second, while the justifications for the invasion of Iraq are questionable (to be charitable), the invasion and subsequent occupation were supported by a coalition of several countries. Moreover, the goal was not the annexation of Iraq.

There is no conceivable justification for an invasion of either Canada or Greenland and the US would surely be acting alone. If Trump invades Canada or Greenland, the long-term consequences will be very bad for the US. When the chickens come home to roost, the search for people to hold responsible will begin.

I doubt Trump would be prosecuted by the US under the SCOTUS gift of presidential immunity. The international community would be unlikely to gain custody of Trump for prosecution. However, officials other than Trump and military officers do not share that immunity.

[MadameButterfly]

24. At least with Iraq they went to great lengths to make up the chemical weapons

excuse. They'd have to get really creative to get people on board for this.

Isn't Trump already barrred from some European countries because of his felonies? A lot of officials and military officers who might be involved in such operations would prefer not to join Trump in having to remain in country for the rest of their lives to avoid international justice.
Besides domestic prosecution, if Republicans don't hold total power forever.

Yes, if/when we get out of this situation we will be looking back, this time.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

62. The US is required by law to prevent any US personnel from being taken into custody

Of the ICC and rescue, by any means, any personnel held by the International Court. Could a subsequently administration ignore the law, sure. But if trump or is followers stay in power, then they have the legal justification to use military force to rescue US personnel from facing a international war crimes trial.

[Irish_Dem]

34. NATO and Canada cannot defeat the US military.

And they would suffer horrendous casualties.

The only chance we have is if the US military refuses the order to invade Canada.
Or half the US military joins the NATO forces against the US.

I truly do not know how this would unfold.

[enid602]

36. Blue States

Depends how many US states secede and join Canada. Especially the wealthy ones.

[Irish_Dem]

38. The Blue states join Canada to fight Trump and the Red States?

Yes that would help for sure.

[enid602]

39. Newsom

I think Newsom is waiting to see if Trump stiffs him on the fires.

[Irish_Dem]

40. US Civil War, Part Two.

[enid602]

43. Vlad

Vlad’s wet dream. But seriously, the only way to finally settle the Civil War might be to defund the US through secession.

[Irish_Dem]

44. Trump will NEVER allow the Blue states to leave the Union.

He will send in troops to prevent that by taking control of each blue state capital.

Yes Putin wants to balkanize the US like the USSR was.
All the US states become nation states or groups of states.

[VMA131Marine]

57. The U.S. military is not nearly big enough to do what you are suggesting

Even if it pulled back from all foreign bases and deployments. The U.S. Army has about 450,000 active duty, 325,000 national guard, and 176,000 reserve troops. I suspect you would need most of them just to occupy California.

[Irish_Dem]

58. Our US military can take the capitals of Blue States.

This can be done in three days or less each.

ETA: Take over the capital buildings in a blue state, capture/kill all leaders.
Take over communications and airports. Airlift more troops and supplies.
Install all MAGA leaders.

This is what Putin thought he could do in Kyiv, but his military is a failure,
US military is not. This is also what Xi plans to do to Taiwan.
He has also set up a civil war when that happens.

But yes maintaining an occupation might be trickier.

[VMA131Marine]

59. Maybe, but ...

I’m not sure what that wins you. Besides, the occupiers will end up completely overwhelmed by protestors.

[Irish_Dem]

61. Have you ever lived/visited a strict fascist regime or an occupied country?

I lived in an occupied country as a US military kid, and my friends lived in another occupied country.
I have also visited China on a number of occasions.

1. Trump is installing a fascist regime. There is no First Amendment allowing protests.
Protestors will be jailed.

2. Taking the blue states prevents them from leaving the union. Captures their revenue.
Establishes the GOP and Trump as totally in control.

3. Establishes a complacent, subservient populace.

[VMA131Marine]

67. People will not just quietly comply

China has never had a history of democratic traditions, but you’re talking about removing rights from people who are used to them and have been told they are important. This won’t happen without a fight.

[enid602]

68. trumpland

And I think it’s fair to say that military assets based in Blue States will be fighting against trump after secession. And trumpland would only have half the revenues coming in. And (assuming Blue States join Canada) trumpland would be attacking a NATO country. This would be a shitshow that only trump could cause.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

64. Only parts of blue states would secede

Even the deepest blue states have bright red areas and hundreds of thousands or millions of conservatives. Not all are just going to go along with secession. Blue states can't help Canada much when they are facing their own attacks and sabotage at home.

[MadameButterfly]

41. Agreed but It's more complicated than in days of yore when a guy with a gun

could switch sides. Only one side will command the tanks, the jets, the nukes, and vast stores of ammo. It would take a miraculous rebellion to rest that from the US govt control. Hard to imagine enough pilots, for example, with the political orientation, the principle, the courage, and the opportunity to rebel.

[Irish_Dem]

42. This is exactly my point.

Only one side will command the air, land, sea.
With the arsenal and hardware.
And that is the US.
Yes hard to see US military rebelling.

Unless the US enters Civil War II.
Blue states vs Red States.

[TomSlick]

49. I'm not convinced the US could conquer Canada, especially if Canada is supported by NATO.

An invasion of Canada would be like Hitler's invasion of Russia. The country is too vast with large wild areas. The US might take the major cities, at considerable cost, but the Canadian military and its allies would simply retreat to remainder of the country and pin-down US forces for years. The Canadian snow would be red with US blood.

I would hope that senior military leaders would retire instead of obeying a patently illegal order.

All the while, the rest of the world would cripple the US economy with sanctions.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

52. The US could launch a first-strike attack on Canada's four major cities and wipe 70% of the population.

That's JUST the cities. After that strike, which would take about 20 minutes mind, you think anyone's gonna resist?

Canada wouldn't even have the time to get an e-mail off . The war would be won before it began.

[TomSlick]

69. The Canadian military, including its air forces, are top notch.

Trump discounts it at his peril and that of any invading force.

It Trump strikes Canadian cities, I would expect Canada to respond in kind. Britain will likely respond in kind. The rest of NATO will respond in some fashion. France may come to the defense of the Quebecois.

Canada is as aware of Trump's bellicose statements as we. Canada will have time to respond. I would be surprised if Canada has not dispersed its military forces and will be able to defend itself and strike back.

I hope that a significant portion of the US senior commanders would refuse a patently illegal order to invade Canada.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine has taught us that a determined populace can defend itself against an aggressor. If Canada can be conquered, it will be at a great cost.

[Irish_Dem]

72. All the US has to do is get Ottawa first.

And that can happen quickly. Before NATO and Europe get their act together.
Kill all Canadian federal leaders, take over all comms and airports.

Also psychologically it is going to be hard for NATO and Europe to start a war with the US.
Many lives will be lost. It is a certain march to their deaths.

Yes the only hope we have is that US senior officers refuse.
But that will mean court martial or death.
And certainly Trump will have installed all of his MAGAs officers into place at this point.

But yes, the tricky part is the occupation and then going to all the province capitals.

But also keep in mind, there are MAGAs types in Canada now, so it will be a civil war.

[TomSlick]

73. That's what Putin, and the rest of the world, thought about Ukraine.

A determined people defending their homeland can put up one hell of a fight. Any "MAGA-types" in Canada will not be willing to accept an annexation by the US. Canadians are friendly and all, but not that friendly.

If I was the Staff Judge Advocate for a general officer commander planning for an invasion of Canada, I would advise them - in writing - that such an invasion would be a violation of international law as a crime against peace and waging a war of aggression. I would also advise them, in the same legal opinion, that obedience of orders (a/k/a The Nuremberg Defense) is no defense and that I had secured a copy of my legal opinion beyond their reach.

Don't underestimate the Canadian military, RCMP and Canadian civilians. They would put up a hell of a fight. Britain would join the fight almost immediately.

If Trump doesn't know, his military advisors do, an invasion of Canada would be costly in blood and treasure. The Canadian snow would be red with American blood.

[Irish_Dem]

56. The US could easily take the capital of Canada, Ottawa.

Could take over the gov't buildings, capture/kill all the leaders.
Wipe out all communications, and take over all airports.
We could then airlift in more troops and supplies.

(This was the plan for Kyiv but Putin's military is a failure.
The same simply cannot be said for US troops.
BTW this is the plan for China to take Taiwan.)

Then however things would get sticky for the US once they take the Canadian capital.
It is easy to take the capital, but not so easy to maintain an occupation.
As you point out.

I do not know how many of our military leaders are MAGAs.
And how many would be willing to cross Trump.
It would be the end of their careers, court marital and possible death.

Trump would threaten any other country which sanctioned him.
All kinds of serious threats and then make good on those threats.

[TomSlick]

70. See my Response 69 above.

[ruet]

63. How Would You Propose The NATO Forces Get To Canada?

The US is THE heavy air and sea lift for NATO.

[TomSlick]

71. The Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, RAF and RCAF should not be discounted.

Considerable damage could be done to US air and naval forces.

The RAF could respond quickly doing considerable damage to a force invading Canada.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

74. The RAF doesn't have the the aircraft to be a threat and their navy is quite small now as well

They have less than 10% of the fighter aircraft that we have and they completely lack bombers, electronic warfare, AWACS, and dedicated air superiority aircraft. They have maybe a couple dozen transport aircraft that can even reach Canada and zero armed aircraft that can fly that distance without mid air refueling. They have less than 10 mid air refuelers.

Their navy isn't much better. They have 2 carriers, both of which are dwarfed by the 11 supercarriers we operate. They have 6 quite excellent destroyers and 8 frigates. That rounds out their total blue water surface fleet. 16 ships. Submarines, they have 4 ballistic missile subs and 5 attack subs.

In comparison, the US Air Force has 1690 fighter aircraft, 291 ground attack aircraft, 141 bombers, 26 AWACS, 14 electronic warfare, 505 midair refueling aircraft, and 274 strategic transport aircraft that can fly intercontinental distances without the need to refuel.
The Navy has 11 supercarriers, 75 destroyers, 9 cruisers, 14 ballistic missile subs, 51 attack subs, and 4 guided missile subs.

The UK, along with the rest of Europe, completely lack the capability to respond in force to this side of the Atlantic with any reasonable speed. They are, and have been, entirely dependent on the US for heavy air and sealift operations and electronic warfare, and mostly dependent on the US for midair refueling, early warning, and airborne control. NATO militaries have been entirely designed around dependence on the US. It will takes years, if not decades, for that to change.

[TomSlick]

75. All true.

From you're icon, you're a fellow Army guy.

If a superior force invaded part of the US, would you expect the US military to calculate the odds and give-up or fight back and do as much damage as possible? Does "This We'll Defend" mean anything?

Would you expect less of the Canadians?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

76. I'd expect them to fight smart

There wouldn't be any shortage of soldiers ready to die to defend the nation. But throwing lives away is stupid. I'd expect fighting retreats from areas in order to save valuable units and gain enough time to regroup for a counter attack. Maximize damage where possible and retreat where necessary.

For the Canadians I would expect much of the same. But they have a major numerical disadvantage. They have under 100k total across all branches. The Canadian Army has only around 45k personnel. With 90% of their population living within 150 miles of the US border, their supply lines and logistics base is very concentrated. Defend that area and they put Canadian citizens at risk. Retreat to the vast unpopulated interior of the country and they lose ready access to fuel, ammo, and food stores. Living off the land is entirely possible, but fuel and munitions are going to be harder to come by. Those areas are only going to have a limited supply of that. Even our most rural areas have farms with diesel fuel on hand and ammunition is available pretty much everywhere in the US.

I have never served with Canadians but I have operated with British Royal Marines in Iraq. Excellent personnel. But they suffer from an issue that I hear is common among Commonwealth and most European militaries. They aren't good at improvising and their first instinct when running into a unplanned situation is to hold fast and take up a defensive posture until they can get new orders on what to do. As you probably already know, US forces don't operate that way. Something unplanned happens, we improvise, attack, and continue onto the objective. We give our junior officers and NCO's fairly wide latitude in how to accomplish things. I wouldn't be shocked if Canadians follow the Commonwealth mindset.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

47. Realistically, the US could solo the entire world without going Nuclear.

Invading the U.S. is damn near impossible and we could easily blitz the Canadians and Central Americans before any other country could mount a response, and that's just using our bog-standard military. If we as a country shifted to a "Total War" footing, we'd obliterate not only the military but civilian populations, so "Occupation" wouldn't be an issue. Exterminate, repopulate, exploit and extract.


Say what you will but if it was "World vs. US", no holds barred? US wins hands down. And I 100% guarantee that the US has a military plan to do just that if necessary.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

60. Nato might be obligated

But they lack the capability. Nato is utterly dependent on US Military logistics. They have very little capacity of their own outside of their borders. The rest of Nato lacks the ability to move large amounts of troops and material across the Atlantic. The handful of ships they have would be easy targets for the US Navy since the rest of Nato is also severely lacking in that area as well. Their navies are well trained, but simply too small to be effective. Their force projection capabilities is limited. In fact, basically every Nato countries defensive plan hinges around US forces already stationed in Europe taking part in the initial defense and US forces starting to deploy with 24hrs of any invasion, with a large reinforcement within a week.

If we were to actually invade, Canada would fall within days and there isn't much the rest of Nato can do about it.

[Irish_Dem]

33. Would have to be a US territory so they cannot vote in US elections.

[Blasphemer]

3. Let him try it...

Even his voters have zero appetite for war. The GOP would ditch him once his poll numbers hit Dubya territory.

[bsiebs]

4. Well on the positive side... we could end up with two additional Democratic senate seats and more Democratic house seats

[mwooldri]

7. Two? And the rest.

Canada has 10 provinces. Three territories.

In the unlikely event Canada became part of the USA it would come in as provinces. Though Quebec will insist on a few concessions. I somehow believe Trump is not fluent in French.

[Nasruddin]

10. Ca ne fait rien

It would come in first as conquered territory. That's my guess

It's interesting - DU doesn't speak French, either
Ça ne fait rien!

[MadameButterfly]

26. La majorite de DU ne parle pas le francais

but we know there are French speakers in Canada. Wonder if Trump knows?

[MadameButterfly]

25. But Trump thinks it's value is one state

He starts with an insult. He won't make it even one state if he suspects it might go Democratic. Territory at best, in practice, a colony. Taxation without representation.

[Self Esteem]

30. Trump won't care if it goes Democratic.

It's clear he only values the idea of expanding America for the history books. It's why he's so set on Greenland and the Panama Canal. He sees it as his way into the history books like Monroe and McKinley. That's all this is about.

[MadameButterfly]

35. I think its about a kneejerk tendency of authoritarian

despots. I've read it's baked into the mental illness that made them what they are. They can't help themselves.

OK, his ego sort of wants to be in the history books, but you have to understand that his understanding of history is severely limited. He probably has no idea who Monroe is or what he did. He just thinks more land, more money, more power, more famous, mine.

[EllieBC]

45. Firstly we aren't giving up our long weekends.

Good Friday is a stat holiday here and we like having 1 a month.

Secondly, if you think that douchecanoe president would let Canada have reps you must be insane. We would be a territory that gets to pay taxes and get no representation.

[edbermac]

6. Real? It's utter bullshit.

Exactly how is he going to make it the 51st state?

[Nasruddin]

8. Think Lebensraum

Canadians unlikely to become citizens

[mwooldri]

9. Not by peaceful means that's for sure.

This tariff business has gotten even Quebecoise separatists stating they're proud Canadians.

It'd be more likely for Canada to vote to join the EU than it would for Canada to vote to join the USA.

[William Seger]

11. Yes, ditto for Greenland. It's the Russian model: resources to the oligarchs

[DENVERPOPS]

13. Putin wants control of the North

and he has tasked Trump with delivering it to him. He wants total control of the "North West Passage", AND he wants control of all the wealth of minerals and oil below the entire area North of the United States.

Putin has been going all out on building nuclear ice breaker ships in preparation to dominate the regions of the North West Passage as a major trade route......

[JoseBalow]

12. Does dipshit drumpf know about the Frenchies?

I gotta feeling he doesn't know!

[tavernier]

14. I purchased baseball caps with CANADA logo for my family members

last week and we all wore them and took pictures to send to our Canadian friends in solidarity. I was surprised at the responses. They were truly touched by the gesture and thanked us with much passion and kindness. A few said that they have been nervous and fearful of what Trump is doing and were relieved that we reached out to them.

[NickB79]

16. Annexing Canada makes total sense if you believe the worst-case climate models

A lot of US farmland will be destroyed over the next 50 years. Heatwaves, droughts and groundwater depletion are certainties throughout the Great Plains. The Ogallala Aquifer has a few decades at most before it's unusable for irrigation. Same goes for fresh water and lumber resources.

It also explains the push for control of Greenland, so the US can project power into the Arctic against Russian, Chinese and European influence over natural resources as the ice melts.

I'm of the opinion that the powers that be have access to the best climate projections, and they're bad. Really bad. Bad enough that they're not telling the general public. Even some of the world's leading climate scientists, such as James Hansen, are now saying climate change is accelerating, not slowing, despite all the renewables we've rolled out so far, and that 2C of warming is baked in at this point. We'll likely blow past 3-4C by the end of the century. 4C of warming guarantees that any land within 500 miles of the equator becomes completely unsurvivable from excessive heat and humidity.

[MadameButterfly]

29. So they don't really think Global Warming is a hoax

They are just shifting their real estate ambitions accordingy

[Hellbound Hellhound]

48. That's something I've always believed. They KNOW climate change is real. It's a territory "war".

Most of the south and west US will be uninhabitable, and the Great Lakes will be the last bastion in the U.S. for fresh water, but because we share a border, we'll need to eliminate Canada from the equation so we can exploit them to our needs. Likewise, warmer temps will expose natural resources in otherwise inaccessible areas to the north in Canada, meaning the US needs to control the resources before that becomes a problem.

[MadameButterfly]

50. Hmmm. Depressing

Do they know that there will be less land when the oceans rise, and it might behoove them to also try to prevent Global Warming?

Oh, i forgot. It will create more beaches.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

51. More beaches, more rivers, more filtration, more water. On top of more land and more resources.

It's depressing, but cruelly efficient, even if it costs a few billion their lives. Especially if the majority are "Brown" and on the other side of the country (EDIT: World) .

One of the reasons I'm moving to Tasmania to become a farmer. I don't need to last forever, I just need to last long enough to survive my natural life span.

[MadameButterfly]

53. Enjoy Tasmania

Not a bad plan. But for the rest of us, we have to win.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

54. The one thing I've learned from history is that governments rise and fall, good or evil.

Might take two hours, might take two millennia. Everything in its time. But as it stands, American politics have become World politics, regardless of voting capacity. I'll keep doing what I can, promoting American Democratic values no matter where I end up. Thank you for the well-wishes, and I offer you the same.

[MadameButterfly]

66. All true but, historically there wasn't global warming

and no one had nukes. We can only do what we can, but the stakes are higher.

“Remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall” is a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi.

[EllieBC]

17. And we have no way to repel him.

Our military is TINY. Our equipment old and there not enough if it.

If we had even one nuke that would hold him off but no we have to be all Canadian and shit.

[mackdaddy]

18. Ai computer centers also need mass cooling.

Building them in cold climates reduce the power for cooling needed, and they have the oil and gas needed to burn to power them.

Ai will be one of the ways for the Oligarchs to control the masses once they take over.

[Intractable]

19. How about Canada anexxing New England, and then I move there?

[MadameButterfly]

31. Hey, that's any idea

But there are parts of the US that won't want to be left behind. WE could do an India/Pakistan thing.

[alarimer]

22. He might be serious but there is no practical way this happens without invasion, which no one wants.

No one in the rest of the world will stand for it.

[MadameButterfly]

32. I wonder if the US army would be willing to fight

for it. Imagine what enlistment would be like. Draft, anyone?

[EllieBC]

46. No one else is saying anything.

Still waiting on the crown to maybe help us out here before it’s too damn late.

[Rebl2]

23. Would hope

NATO would help Canada if us tried to invade. I thought dump promised to not get us in wars. Oh I forgot, HE LIES ALL THE TIME.

[Self Esteem]

27. I don't think Trump would attempt a military intervention...

But I could see him imposing obscenely high tariffs and only promising to lift them if Canada joins the US.

[MadameButterfly]

37. He'll try to bully them into submission like he did Colombia

Right now most of the western world is beginning to plot economic indepencence from the US so they won't lose their freedom. His actions will also spawn more military spending than the globe has ever seen.

[MrWowWow]

28. Wut Aboot NATO?

Will it just sit idly by, sipping high tea and eating those mini, finger food sandwiches at the Empress Hotel in Victoria?

-asking for a Peace Arch fanboy

[lapfog_1]

55. Canada should agree to join the USA

at least for a trial "marriage" for 4 years.

BUT, one condition. Each province in Canada becomes a USA state, with full rights and privileges.

There are 10 provinces in Canada.

They would very likely ALL vote for Democratic Senators and Congress persons. Alberta might go rogue. Or not.

That gives Democrats control of the House... and the Speakership

And leadership in the Senate.

Unfortunately we would still need repuke votes in the Senate to convict and remove Trump ( and Vance ) from the Presidency... but with the courts I suspect we could put an end to what's happening in the executive branch. Who knows, we might even get 81 Senate votes ( out of 120 ) to convict and remove ( and then try and convict in criminal court ).

Then, after we hold the next Presidential election... we can put Trump and Trumpism back into whatever dark hole in the ground it emerged from. Canada goes back to being Canada again... but only after we give DC statehood... and maybe Puerto Rico too.

[TommieMommy]

65. What a greedy piece of 💩. He probably wants to take over the world