CULTURE CURRENT-Chrystia Freeland on getting her voice back

Chrystia Freeland's resignation from former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet in December 2024 changed the course of her career, and perhaps the political future of Canada. She went on to lose ​her bid to succeed Trudeau as leader of Canada’s Liberal Party in 2025 and vacated her seat in parliament earlier this year. But Freeland, 58, who prior to ​her career in politics worked in journalism, including at the Financial Times and Reuters — where she served as a senior ‌editor for ​three years, until 2013 — says breaking with a decade-long political partnership let her regain her own voice. She uses that voice in her new memoir, "Unreliable Boyfriend,” in which she details her experience negotiating a trade agreement with the first Trump administration.

Speaking with Reuters from London, Freeland, now an economic advisor to the Ukrainian government and chief executive officer of the Rhodes Trust, discusses her decision to break with Trudeau after more than nine years in his Cabinet, saying it ultimately benefitted the Liberal Party and Canada. Freeland resigned after Trudeau offered her ‌a lesser position and said the two had different views on the way forward for Canada. Following Trudeau's own resignation in early 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney won the party's leadership contest and went on to clinch an election in which the Conservatives had previously been favoured. Freeland also warns against making concessions to Trump, and expresses her reservations about getting too close to China.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You’ve written extensively about your experience negotiating the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement during Trump's first term, a deal that overhauled a quarter-century-old trade pact Trump blamed for losing US manufacturing jobs. Trump now seeks new changes to the North American trading relationship. What do you think are the differences between the first and second Trump administrations?

Actually, I’m more struck by the similarities than ‌the differences. I think that the president is unchanged. He's actually very consistent. He is the same person, he has the same objectives. There has been some change in the people around him. In the first administration, there were more people in his entourage who were prepared to challenge him and to act in ways to restrain him. The really big ‌difference is the way everyone outside the administration has treated him, both in America and around the world. In this administration, and I think this has been a mistake, the initial reaction both inside and outside the United States was to try to appease him. (Editor's note: In response to questions, the White House referred Reuters to comments Trump made last year saying he and Freeland had a bad relationship.)

You note in your book that being loyal to Justin Trudeau ultimately hamstrung your own political future. What will that experience mean for the rest of your career? Will we see a tougher, more elbows up Chrystia? I think that I've been pretty elbows up when it comes to fighting for Canada.

I do write a lot in my book about loyalty and its importance and also its limits. On balance, I think loyalty is a virtue, and I am a pretty loyal person. I mean, often in life, ⁠we owe loyalty to lots ​of different entities, and sometimes those loyalties clash. It was a hard choice. I won't conceal that ⁠and I don't in my book. And I wish I hadn't been in the position where I ended up making that choice. With hindsight, I wish I had quietly left earlier. But I do think, at the end of the day, the choice I made ended up being really good for Canada and also being really good for the Liberal Party. So that's pretty comforting for me. (Editor's note: The Liberal Party did not respond to ⁠a request for comment.)

And certainly a conclusion that I came to just for myself, at my age, with the life experience I've had, is I wanted to recover my voice. And I'm so glad to have done that. You’re currently serving as an economic adviser to the Ukrainian government. Do you see yourself taking a role in a future Ukrainian administration?

I am a citizen of Canada and proud to be a ​citizen of Canada. When it comes to Ukraine, I think Ukraine is extremely ably led by Ukrainians. And look, I care deeply about Ukraine. I've been connected to Ukraine for many, many years, and I believe that Ukraine is at the front lines of what I think is a global struggle between democracy and dictatorship. Having been ⁠a G7 minister, I have a perspective and a network that I think can be helpful to Ukraine, but I'm also really aware that the people living in Ukraine now, (who are) going through the war, they're the ones who know what Ukraine needs and what Ukraine should do.

You write in your book about your friend, Prime Minister Mark Carney, who you ran against for Liberal Party leader last year. You describe him as a technocrat, and yourself as a values politician, ⁠who ​is primarily guided by what they believe is right. Is there anything you would have done differently? I believe that Mark is doing an outstanding job. I think Canadians right now are proud of him and are proud to be Canadian. I certainly feel that way.

If I fell under a bus on the way home tonight, and I hope I don’t, I think that one line in my obit would be that through my actions I helped make possible Mark's election as prime minister. And I would be proud to have that in my obit. So I'm like unreservedly a fan. (Editor's note: Carney's office did not respond to a request for comment.) What I do write about in my book is that I think ⁠all democracies need to be cautious, particularly about China. I think that the big fight is between democracy and dictatorship in the world. Very tragically, the US is kind of wavering there. We need to recognize that becoming too economically dependent on China is a real security vulnerability.

The other thing that I would say, and I've been clear about this ⁠from the moment Trump was first elected, (is that) it was always clear to me that President Trump ⁠represented an existential challenge to Canada and that we needed to take his threats to our security seriously. My view from the very outset was in a calm, measured way, that we always needed to retaliate; that we could not accept illegal and unjustified tariffs, we could not accept a violation of a trade deal that the president himself agreed and that we needed to have dollar-for-dollar retaliation from day one. My view was also that any concessions that we made needed to be part of an overall deal. We shouldn’t pay just to ‌get to the table. Do you think it was the right ‌decision for Carney to walk away from the trade deal with the US that was on the table in August?

(One) hundred percent. The perspectives expressed in Culture Current are the subject’s own and ​do not necessarily reflect the views of Reuters News.

(Editing by Yasmeen Serhan, and Aurora Ellis)