Kevin O’Leary, the Canadian entrepreneur and Shark Tank judge known for his sharp financial insights, has waded into the heated debate over tariffs, trade tensions, and a controversial new economic proposal in the United States. As the U.S. and Canada find themselves at odds over trade policy, with real consequences for iconic American brands like Jim Beam, O’Leary has emerged as a vocal critic of both the ongoing tariff war and a plan to distribute $2,000 checks to Americans from tariff revenues—a centerpiece of former President Donald Trump’s so-called ‘Invest America Act.’
The drama began to unfold more publicly in late December 2025, when Jim Beam, one of the world’s largest bourbon whiskey producers, announced it would temporarily halt production at its Clermont, Kentucky distillery for a full year beginning January 1, 2026. According to a company statement cited by The Independent, the move is part of a plan to "invest in site enhancements," but the timing raised eyebrows. The shutdown comes as U.S. spirit exports to Canada have plummeted—down a staggering 85 percent in the second quarter of 2025, with total U.S. spirit exports dropping nine percent compared to the previous year. The culprit, industry leaders say, is persistent trade friction between the two neighbors.
"Canada needs to get in a much more cooperative mode, and the U.S. has to get much more cooperative mode with Canada, because Canada has all the natural resources the U.S. needs. Water, paper, rare earth, commodities of all kinds all priced in U.S. dollars, gold, silver, you name it, they got it," O’Leary told NewsNation. He didn’t mince words about the impact of tariffs either, declaring, "There shouldn't be any tariffs between those two countries." In a follow-up post on X, O’Leary was even more blunt: "Playing tariff games between neighbors is stupid and completely unnecessary." He described the situation as a "self-inflicted mess," emphasizing, "When a major bourbon producer shuts down for a year, that’s not the market talking, that’s politics getting in the way of common sense. There shouldn’t be tariffs between allies. This hurts businesses on both sides of the border."
Chris Swonger, CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, echoed O’Leary’s concerns. Swonger told The Independent that the sharp decline in exports was directly linked to "persistent trade tensions." He warned, "There’s a growing concern that our international consumers are increasingly opting for domestically produced spirits or imports from countries other than the U.S., signaling a shift away from our great American spirits brands."
Despite these warnings, President Trump has remained bullish on his tariff policies. On December 23, 2025, he posted on Truth Social, "The TARIFFS are responsible for the GREAT USA Economic Numbers JUST ANNOUNCED…AND THEY WILL ONLY GET BETTER!" The administration’s confidence in tariffs as an economic tool has led to the development of the ‘Invest America Act,’ which proposes distributing $2,000 ‘tariff dividend’ checks to nearly every American, funded by revenue from import duties.
The proposal, which has been gaining traction among some lawmakers and members of the public, is designed to redistribute tariff revenue to families, offering them direct financial relief at a time when many are struggling with the rising cost of living. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that working households would be among those eligible, with income caps and final amounts subject to congressional approval. For families feeling squeezed by inflation, the promise of a $2,000 check is an attractive prospect.
Yet O’Leary, never one to shy away from controversy, has emerged as a leading critic of the plan. In December 2025, he took to social media and broadcast interviews to warn that the so-called tariff dividend could backfire spectacularly. "It’s a terrible idea," he declared, arguing that the policy could do more harm than good by driving up the prices of everyday goods and stoking inflation.
O’Leary’s central concern is that the $2,000 checks would act as a form of "helicopter money"—a term he used in a video on X, referring to the direct injection of cash into the economy without any link to productivity. He warned that this could push inflation up by as much as nine percent, drawing a direct comparison to the post-pandemic period when massive stimulus payments contributed to a historic spike in prices. "If the prices of commodities inflate as a result of the injection of cash into the economy, the $2,000 would have no effect on the income," O’Leary explained. "While households might feel relaxed, the cost of essentials can rise faster than household incomes. Consequently, it leaves people with no option."
He also argued that tariffs themselves function as hidden taxes, particularly on goods that aren’t produced domestically. "Tariffs are ultimately designed to increase the prices of imported goods," O’Leary said. "These costs are passed on to consumers when they are purchasing commodities at the checkout counter." He pointed out that imposing tariffs on products unavailable in the U.S.—like certain fruits and spices—doesn’t spur domestic production, it just makes life more expensive for ordinary Americans.
O’Leary’s skepticism extends beyond the immediate impact on household budgets. He contends that the $2,000 checks would provide only a fleeting sense of relief, likening them to a "temporary sugar rush" that would quickly be overshadowed by higher prices and long-term economic pain. Instead, he advocates for using tariff revenue to pay down the national debt, stabilize the bond market, and promote sustainable economic growth. "Tariff revenue must be used to pay the debt levied on the country. It could help lower the mortgage rates, ensure long-term stability and economic growth, and stabilize the bond market. These benefits will help enhance the living standards of the people in the long run much more than any one-time payment," he said.
O’Leary’s perspective is shared by many economists wary of the inflationary risks associated with stimulus checks. As he and others point out, the massive government spending during the COVID-19 pandemic did provide short-term relief but also contributed to the largest inflation hikes in recent memory. Even as inflation has eased somewhat since those peaks, it remains a persistent source of anxiety for American families.
Meanwhile, Jim Beam’s production pause at its Clermont facility serves as a stark reminder of how trade policy decisions can ripple through entire industries. While the company has assured that production will continue at its craft distillery in Clermont and its larger Booker Noe distillery in Boston, the loss of output from its flagship plant for a year is a blow to both the brand and the broader U.S. spirits industry. The Independent reached out to Jim Beam for further comment, but the company’s statement made clear that the shutdown was a strategic choice in the face of challenging market conditions.
As the debate over tariffs and the proposed dividend checks rages on, O’Leary’s warnings ring with a sense of urgency: "This hurts businesses on both sides of the border." Whether policymakers heed his advice or press forward with bold new initiatives, the coming year will be a defining test for trade relations, economic policy, and the wallets of ordinary Americans.
