Why is this ironic? I see this point a lot but don’t understand the underlying reasoning for why it is a meaningful rebuttal?

It’s insane that the US administration (said as an American) doesn’t continue to treasure a values-aligned, peaceful, stable, independent neighbor along a massive unprotected border.

But I don’t understand this energy carve-out argument.

Expectation is that Canada should have a balanced trade with the USA. The reality is that Canada will always have a trade deficit because of oil exports to the USA, especially now when the USA needs it the most.

That is the ironic part.

True. And if you’re going to carve out oil sold to the us, shouldn’t you be carving out resources sold to Canada? Seems like a lopsided comparison