Court Blocks Law Stripping Medicaid Contracts From Planned Parenthood
Earlier this week, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction partially striking down a new Congressional provision, slipped through in the 'big budget bill,' to cut off Medicaid health care contracting for Planned Parenthood affiliates. It was highly significant for the Republican Congress to try to defund, as government health contractors, Planned Parenthood's state affiliates, and the case will have major repercussions. A review of the court's 36 page opinion shows the battle to be expected as the case goes on appeal.
On the one hand, Judge Indira Talwani cautiously limited her shielding only to ten of the forty-seven Planned Parenthood affiliates. These ten do not provide abortions (or are below a statutory funding threshold). While the decision disappointed Planned Parenthood by not extending protection to all affiliates, the judge's narrow focus could make the opinion more resilient on appeal. As the case proceeds, the challengers of the provision argue the case is not about reducing abortions, but about ending Planned Parenthood's providing of Medicaid health care to poor women. On the other hand, if and when the Trump Administration takes this case beyond the court of appeals to the Supreme Court, the question is both how the 6-3 conservative majority will treat Planned Parenthood, and whether the Court will use its 'shadow docket' to rule on the case with minimal due process.
The measure, section 71113, is basically the latest of a number of legislative efforts to end government health care contracting with Planned Parenthood. It was no surprise after the 2024 election that there would be another such try by President Trump and the majority Republican House and Senate. The striking approach was to draft the provision in a way to focus just uniquely on Planned Parenthood, and to have it relate enough to Medicaid spending that it could go aboard a budget bill that did not require 60 votes to get past a Senate filibuster.
Section 71113 describes as a 'prohibited entity' barred from Medicaid funding either an organization that conducts abortions or is connected to such an abortion provider, i.e., Planned Parenthood's overall Federation, or any 'affiliates' – clearly meaning the 47 Planned Parenthood affiliates – even, and especially, the affiliates that themselves do not conduct any abortions. (No entity can receive Medicaid funding for abortions, narrow exceptions aside, but Planned Parenthood affiliates receive extensive Medicaid funding for women's health and the like.)
The provision took effect for Medicaid bills starting the day of passage, the case was immediately filed, and Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts issued initially a temporary restraining order on July 7, and then a preliminary injunction with the 36 page opinion on July 21. Presumably the Trump Administration will take an appeal to the First Circuit, although it may also proceed to take an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, a step known as the 'shadow docket.'
By the standards of the past, there might not seem to be an emergency, since what is taking place, in terms of affiliates providing Medicaid health care, has been going on in the same fashion for many years. But, the Trump Administration has had great success rushing cases for such emergency treatment, in the view it would take it would need to affect Medicaid spending immediately, and, as discussed below, there are important tactical advantages to the emergency approach.
The court describes the importance of Planned Parenthood's services as a government medical contractor. 'An estimated one out of every three women and one in ten men nationally has received care from a Planned Parenthood Member at least onc in their lifetime, and this number is even higher among individuals with Medicaid, 43% of whom have received services from a Member health center.' (Opinion at 7.)
'Approximately 51% of Planned Parenthood Members' patients rely on Medicaid for their healthcare, and half of visits to Planned Parenthood Members health centers are covered by Medicaid.' (Opinion at 8). With narrow exceptions, Medicaid cannot pay for abortions, even in states where they are legal, and 'Abortions comprise approximately 4% of Planned Parenthood Members' services nationwide.' (Opinion at 7.)
As the court analyzed, 'Plaintiffs argue that if Section 71113 covers Planned Parenthood Members that do not provide abortions, the law impose an unconstitutional condition on those Members and Planned Parenthood Federation's First Amendment right of association.' (Opinion (Op.) at 16.) 'Contrary to [the Trump Administration's] assertion, Section 71113 does not merely 'withhold[] funding based on whether entities provide abortion services' but also based on whether 'an entity, including its affiliates,' provides abortion services.' (Op. at 18 (quoting the provision).
The court found 'the record demonstrates that Members' affiliation via their membership in Planned Parenthood Federation is express.' Op. at 19. After reviewing the mission and advocacy, the court said 'Membership in Planned Parenthood Federation –and corresponding affiliation with other Members – is thus part and parcel with Planned Parenthood Members' associational expression.'
The Administration had justified the law thusly: 'the law effectuates a congressional desire 'to reduce abortion and government subsidization of abortions.'' Op. at 23. Rejecting from the record the Administration's contention that money moved around to abortion, 'the record is devoid of evidentiary support for Defendants' suggestion that Planned Parenthood entities share funds that are ultimately used for abortions.' (Op. at 21) The court also noted that the provision was tailored not to touch others besides Planned Parenthood.
'Defendants do not dispute that conjunctive criteria leave 'virtually all abortion providers who participate in Medicaid—other than Planned Parenthood Members—unaffected' by the legislation.' Op. at 27 (underlining in original).
The court's order appears to block section 71113 as to ten affiliates, but does not resolve the case as to the other affiliates. (Then ten protected ones are mainly those not providing abortions, but also those under the statutory threshold of $800,000 in Medicaid funds). It might seem at first that the opinion cautiously proceeded for now as far as to be affirmable on appeal. But, it must be considered what the pattern of the current 6-3 Supreme Court is, particularly since the start of the Trump Administration, but also keeping in mind its pattern ever since overruling Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision.
No doubt, the 6-3 Court majority would uphold freedom of association for the affiliates of the National Right to Life Committee or the National Rifle Association. To say there is a lack of sympathy for Planned Parenthood is an understatement. Moreover, it would not be impossible for this Court to decide to treat the case as an 'emergency.' The defendants are the Administration, represented in court by the Solicitor General, and he has had signal success to getting the Court's majority to treat cases of injunctions against Administration action as 'emergencies.' He would argue that every day that goes by, the Planned Parenthood affiliates protected by the court's order are wrongly billing services to Medicaid which must be stopped.
Moreover, he will get to argue here something he usually cannot: it is not just the Administration's will getting frustrated, it is the will of Congress. For a Court majority that was by itself during the Biden Administration years, it may feel like a welcome moment to have the Trump Administration plus the Republican Congress, albeit by a provision slipped into a big budget bill, seeming to ask it for action. As has been seen so often, if the Court majority treats a case as an 'emergency,' it can forego oral argument – meaning, forego a press and public window – and even forego providing any majority opinion at all.
It does not have to explain why it would defund Medicaid care for poor women even by affiliates that perform no abortions. That would seem the wrong way to handle a case worthy, if taken, of full legal treatment – maybe one of the most constitutionally significant government contracting cases for poor women of the Court's year -- but, it could happen. Then again, maybe Judge Talwani's narrow order just addressing ten affiliates will head this off.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump lands another big win with EU trade deal, but he can't dodge the Epstein saga
President Donald Trump claimed another win for his campaign to transform the global economy and American life, but he still can't escape intensifying questions over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein controversy. The United States clinched a framework deal with the European Union on Sunday that averted a damaging trade war. Trump believes such moves will revive US manufacturing. But the resulting 15% tariff on EU goods entering the US likely means American consumers will face higher prices in the long term. This is a significant step. So Trump's insistence that it was not simply a bid to distract from the Epstein saga is reasonable. 'Oh, you have got to be kidding with that,' the angry president told a reporter. But his irritation underscored his failure to shrug off weeks of revelations about the case and his own past friendship with the accused sex trafficker, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial. Mystery surrounds the administration's motives after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, met last week with Epstein's imprisoned accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Her lawyer implied that Maxwell was open to a presidential pardon. Trump's record of using such power for political purposes has critics warning he may be seeking a deal that would politicize justice. The storm back home isn't abating. Two lawmakers, one Democrat and the other Republican, vowed Sunday to force a vote on the House floor on the release of Epstein case files. Such a vote could embarrass the administration and create a major political showdown. This came on a typically frenetic weekend that Trump spent in Scotland and that served as a metaphor for his turbulent influence on America and the globe. He juggled the highest-level diplomacy — talks with the EU's top official, Ursula von der Leyen — with a trip promoting his business empire, in this case his portfolio of exclusive Scottish golf clubs. His visit was greeted with street protests by caustic Scots and featured outbursts of extreme rhetoric — including his social media call for the prosecution of former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump will come face-to-face Monday with pressure to force Israel to do more to mitigate a growing famine in Gaza. He'll see British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at his Turnberry resort in southwest Scotland before traveling with Starmer to Aberdeenshire, where Trump will inaugurate a new course at another club. Starmer last week said of the crisis in Gaza that 'we are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe.' A significant trade deal that comes with many caveats Much is unknown about the scope of the trade deal with the EU, which will see a 15% tariff imposed on most of the bloc's exports and billions of dollars in purchases of US energy. But it extends a winning streak and a record of implementing campaign promises for a president who is imposing personal power and often idiosyncratic beliefs — for instance in the effectiveness of trade tariffs — on the US and the world. 'This was the big one. This is the biggest of them all,' Trump said Sunday after meeting von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission. Von der Leyen followed the accepted wisdom that praising Trump personally can provide political payoffs. 'He is a tough negotiator, but he is also a dealmaker,' she said. Trump has recently announced framework deals on trade with Japan and the Philippines — which both include higher tariffs that represent a fracturing of the 21st-century global free-trade arrangements. Trump believes that this system, which helped make the US a dominant global power, is nevertheless unfair on American workers and industries. And he rejects economists' arguments that raising tariffs increases prices for already-stretched US consumers. Trump is flexing power everywhere. He is gutting the federal government, dominating Congress, and exerting unprecedented pressure on law firms and universities to impose his right-wing ideology, all while seeking to intimidate media outlets. These are wins for his populist 'Make America Great Again' movement and its program to buckle what supporters see as liberal power. But as with Trump's outlier belief in tariffs, the long-term impacts that his actions could have on American society, the economy and democracy are alarming critics. Trump has politicized the legal system; his government funding cuts have hampered vital scientific research on critical subjects such as cancer; and his expanding of presidential power often tests the Constitution. Still, markets may welcome the EU trade deal framework, assuming it is fully implemented — hardly a given considering Trump's volatile history of threats and reversals. An EU-US trade war would have been a far worse outcome. But the agreement confirms suspicions that Trump's goal is not fairer trade but higher tariffs. Although existing tariffs have so far not harmed the economy as much as some experts feared, Americans will pay more for cars, food, luxuries and consumer goods. The inflationary impact on the economy, and Trump's likely appointment next year of a new Federal Reserve chair who will lower interest rates, could mean greater economic threats to come. There's also an important geopolitical aspect to the EU trade deal. The Europeans committed to buying $880 billion of energy from the US. This could make America's NATO allies less vulnerable to pressure from Russia at a time when the Western alliance is opposing Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. 'We still have too much Russian LNG (liquid natural gas) that is coming through the back door again to our European Union, and some Russian gas and oil still in the European Union, which we do not want anymore,' von der Leyen said. Epstein drama haunts Trump's Scottish golf trip Trump's frustration that a key political achievement has been overshadowed by the Epstein saga is unlikely to dissipate in the coming days. The controversy started because of conspiracy theories among Trump's base that claimed the disgraced financier did not take his own life in prison but was murdered, and that he left behind a client list of rich and powerful Americans who'd taken advantage of his alleged sex trafficking. These claims were promoted by Trump and allies including Pam Bondi and Kash Patel. When all three assumed positions of great power (Bondi is attorney general, and Patel is FBI director), their failure to release the files as promised caused a rupture in Trump's MAGA base, which the administration has failed thus far to repair. The political uproar explains why Blanche's meeting with Maxwell last week caused such consternation. Maxwell's lawyer told reporters after her second day of meetings with Blanche in Tallahassee, Florida, that she had answered every question truthfully and honestly. He also noted that the president has the power to pardon those convicted of crimes. 'We hope he exercises that power in a right and just way,' the attorney, David Oscar Markus, said Friday. Blanche has so far not offered a detailed public account of the meetings. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump in his relationship with Epstein, and the president appears to have severed the friendship long before the accused sex trafficker was charged with federal crimes. But the Justice Department's unorthodox approach is raising concerns that it goes beyond a public relations effort to convince MAGA voters the administration is doing something. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison term, has an incentive for providing information that could ease her situation — and Trump has the power to do so. Questions over the president's motives became even more important when CNN and other outlets reported last week that Trump's name was mentioned in the Epstein files, along with those of some other prominent Americans. This does not mean that he or anyone else is guilty of wrongdoing. In fact, Bondi might have made the correct decision legally in refusing to release information that could harm the reputation of people not accused of crimes. But beyond a joint Justice Department and FBI statement on the rationale for not releasing the files, the administration has rarely attempted to justify a policy that has put it at odds with its own supporters in the MAGA movement. 'I'm concerned that the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, is meeting with (Maxwell) supposedly one-on-one,' Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. 'Look, I agree … that she should testify. But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files.' Republican leaders hoped the case might simply disappear over the summer recess. But Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a co-sponsor with Khanna of a House bill demanding the release of the files, isn't giving up. 'This is going to hurt Republicans in the midterms. The voters will be apathetic if we don't hold the rich and powerful accountable,' Massie said on NBC. 'I think when we get back, we can get the signatures required to force this to the floor.' The Trump administration has asked the courts to release grand jury testimony pertinent to the Epstein case. But one federal judge refused last week, in a ruling that may have given the DOJ political cover. 'We want them to release the files. However, we can't make them release it because of separation of power,' Oklahoma GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Jake Tapper on CNN's 'State of the Union.' That may be the case. But grand jury testimony is believed to be only a fraction of the evidence against Epstein that the government holds — and hasn't made public. And the entire controversy has been worsened by the administration's clumsy approach and unwillingness to confront the anger of the MAGA base. 'I think that part of this problem is that there were some false expectations that are created, and that's a political mistake,' Missouri Republican Rep. Eric Burlison told CNN's Manu Raju.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
How one tax change in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' that even Gov. JB Pritzker supports will work
Gov. JB Pritzker and his fellow Democrats have been unrelenting in their criticisms of the tax and spending plan President Donald Trump signed July 4. But along with much-lambasted cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and education, the budget reconciliation plan Republicans pushed through Congress this summer includes a tax change that Democrats as well as some Republicans in high-tax blue states have backed for years. The measure temporarily raises the limit on how much of their state and local tax bills taxpayers can deduct when filing their federal income tax returns. Boosting the cap on the so-called SALT deduction to $40,000, from the previous $10,000, and extending its expiration date for five years will largely benefit those at the upper end of the income scale. But it's also seen as especially beneficial in states such as Illinois that have high property taxes. 'I think raising it is a good thing for the state of Illinois, and I think more needs to be done to kind of alleviate the pain that the Trump administration is visiting on states across the country,' Pritzker said last week at an unrelated event in Chicago. 'This is one way in which pain can be alleviated. So it's a positive thing overall. Large states, highly populous states like ours, tend to benefit from the SALT deduction, so whatever is good for the state of Illinois, I'm for.' Supporting the higher limit puts Democrats, who've decried the Republican plan as a boon for the rich, in an awkward position since it largely affects high earners. Yet it can also be good politics for those representing districts that span some of Chicago's wealthier neighborhoods and suburban communities — areas that have become increasingly Democratic in recent decades. The overall impact of the change, particularly for middle- and upper-middle-income homeowners in the city and suburbs, remains to be seen, however. Trump's new tax package leaves in place a higher standard deduction that was enacted alongside the original $10,000 SALT cap as part of his 2017 tax cuts. The higher standard deduction — $31,500 for married couples on 2025 taxes that will be filed next spring — makes it less likely households with property tax bills in the low five figures would choose to itemize on their federal returns and claim the SALT deduction. Because of that and other intricacies of the tax code, the effect of the change on individual tax bills in Illinois is likely to be very narrow, said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Chicago-based Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a nonpartisan think tank. According to his group's analysis of the 2017 change, 'only 11 of the 1,229 ZIP codes in Illinois saw a majority of their taxpayers pay higher federal income taxes under the (SALT deduction) cap of $10,000,' Martire said. And as might be expected, those ZIP codes are concentrated in affluent suburbs such as Hinsdale and Wayne in DuPage County, Lake Forest, Barrington, Highland Park and Deerfield in Lake County, and Glencoe, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Wilmette and Western Springs in Cook County. 'There are communities that disproportionately impacts … and they are communities of wealth, for the most part,' Martire said. Still, Martire said, the previous cap of $10,000 likely put the squeeze on some upper-middle income families — think those earning around $250,000 per year, with a five-figure annual property tax bill and hopes of sending their kids to college without the help of need-based financial aid. 'You're upper-income … at that level, but you're not living entirely high on the hog,' Martire said. 'The truth of the matter is, from a policy standpoint, if you're going to have a cap, the cap should be relatively high, and maybe even higher than $40,000, so that those paying a higher overall tax bill are those at the very top of the scale,' he added. Taxpayers have been able to deduct what they pay to state and local governments since the permanent federal income tax was adopted in 1913. While policymakers have been chipping away at the deduction for decades, the $10,000 cap instituted in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the most stringent restriction to date, though it didn't meet the Trump administration's and congressional Republicans' original goal of eliminating the deduction entirely. Before the 2017 change, taxpayers, with a few exceptions, could deduct from their federal taxes the full amount they paid in local property taxes as well as either state income or sales taxes. Pritzker last week said the cap 'never should have been put in place in the first place.' Republicans who pushed for eliminating or at least limiting the deduction argued that the policy was a federal tax giveaway to Democratic-led states that had made political decisions to impose higher levies on their residents. Many Democrats in states such as New York, California and Illinois opposed the cap, arguing that their residents already send a greater share of tax dollars to Washington than their states receive back and that limiting the deduction would result in some people being taxed twice on the same income. The new cap became a contentious issue in some congressional races in the 2018 midterm election, particularly in suburban districts. U.S. Rep. Sean Casten of Downers Grove, for instance, campaigned heavily on the issue in his successful bid to unseat GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, a six-term incumbent from Wheaton who helped write the legislation creating the $10,000 cap. When Democrats took control of the House in 2019, they passed legislation that would have eliminated the cap. The measure was not taken up in the Republican-led Senate, though support for the limit didn't break cleanly along party lines. After Democrats took control of the Senate in 2021 with President Joe Biden in the White House, efforts to address the cap again faltered, despite efforts by Pritzker and other Democratic governors who wrote Biden a letter that spring calling for it to be eliminated. 'Like so many of President Trump's efforts, capping SALT deductions was based on politics, not logic or good government,' the letter said. 'This assault disproportionately targeted Democratic-run states, increasing taxes on hardworking families,' the governors said. Eventually, however, the issue was left by the wayside as the Biden administration worked to cobble together support for his scaled-down domestic policy agenda, in large part because eliminating the cap would have cost the federal government roughly $100 billion in lost revenue annually. Once Republicans took back control of Congress and the White House in the 2024 election, the GOP was forced to grapple with the issue as Trump and his supporters worked to push through his sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act. With few votes to spare thanks to a razor-thin majority and unified Democratic opposition to the overall package, several House Republicans from Democratic-led states, though none of Illinois' three GOP members, threatened to withhold their support if a higher limit for the state and local tax deduction wasn't included. Without any action from Congress, the cap would have expired completely at the end of the year. In the end, Trump signed a measure that raised the cap to $40,000 for the current year, with a 1% annual increase through 2029. In 2030, the cap will drop back to $10,000, unless Congress takes further action. The higher cap phases out for higher-income individuals, beginning with those earning more than $500,000 but doesn't drop below the $10,000 level for any taxpayer who claims the deduction. Despite the effort to scale back the cap for the highest earners, only about 7% of tax filers will see a benefit from the change, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, research associate Nikhita Airi said. Of the overall tax savings, nearly 85% will go to the top 20% of earners, with more than half going to those in the top 10%. 'It's a deduction with a pretty clear constituency, and that kind of explains why it's been so politically durable and what ended up happening within the reconciliation bill,' Airi said. Even though some Illinois Democrats have been pushing for the cap on the deduction to be raised, they weren't in a celebratory mood when Republicans did so as part of their massive $3.4 trillion package. 'If I served you a big bowl of poison and there's a Skittle in it, you shouldn't eat the Skittle,' Casten, the Downers Grove Democrat, said at a recent forum hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Tariff roulette
Presented by Send tips | Subscribe here | Email Canada Playbook | Follow Politico Canada Welcome to a week that could define Canada's economic future — or deepen its trade crisis. In today's edition of Canada Playbook: → As Canada hopes for an August deal, Trump is chasing trade wins elsewhere. → A midsummer dollop of news on interest rates and economic growth. → Why EU Ambassador GENEVIÈVE TUTS is hawkish on transatlantic bonds. Trade war SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER — Aug. 1 approaches, the day Canada and the U.S. are expected to strike a new economic and security deal — or not. Prime Minister MARK CARNEY and President DONALD TRUMP have recently sought to temper expectations. — He's just not that into you: The White House has informed Canada that it is not the priority at the moment, Playbook has learned. Trump, who is in Europe, is focused on securing agreements with other countries, like India. — Get in line: In Scotland on Sunday, Trump struck a trade deal with the European Union, locking in a 15 percent tariff. It follows his deal with Japan last week, though there are questions about that one. → Trump's Canada take: 'We haven't really had a lot of luck with Canada,' the president told reporters outside the White House on Friday. 'I think Canada could be one where they'll just pay tariffs, not really a negotiation,' he said. — State of play: The president is unpredictable, and Canadian officials don't often know what he's going to do until he does it. — For example: Trump caught Canada off guard when he paused negotiations over the digital services tax. He blindsided them again when he sent Carney a letter to say tariffs on Canadian goods would increase to 35 percent on Aug. 1. — The devil in the details: The White House is playing coy about whether the 35 percent tariff would exempt goods that comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. While the U.S. has suggested that would be the case, the decision ultimately lies with Trump. Canada will view the lack of an exemption as a serious setback at the table. → Why it matters: That exemption would mean most Canadian businesses would retain tariff-free access to the U.S. market. 'The vast majority of Canadian goods and services are tariff-free,' Carney told reporters last week in Hamilton, Ontario. — In related news: The Globe's JASON KIRBY and MARK RENDELL explain why in a world of tariff pain, USMCA gives Canada an edge — for now. — But, but, but: Trump's tariffs are hammering four Canadian sectors: steel, aluminum, autos and lumber. Another could soon be hit: Trump said a new 50 percent tariff on imported copper will take effect Aug. 1. — Where we go from here: Canada is looking for certainty, so it can provide relief for impacted sectors and stability to investors. So far, officials have been dodging questions about further retaliation, but the Liberal government previously promised to match Trump's tariffs on aluminum if they don't reach a deal. — Worth noting: The Globe's NOJOUD AL MALLEES reports that the government collected about C$1.5 billion more in import duties in April and May over the same period last year, a 180 percent increase thanks to countertariffs. — Trump insists: He will negotiate with 'three or four other countries' before Aug. 1. Others will have just his letter. 'Most of the others are going to be a certain tariff and we're going to keep it as low as we can. They're generally smaller countries or countries we don't do much business with, but they've already received, to a large extent, they've received a letter,' Trump said Sunday. → Coming up: Trump said countries that don't get a deal will receive a confirmation letter this week. Commerce Secretary HOWARD LUTNICK said other countries can keep talking to Trump beyond that date. 'I mean, he's always willing to listen. And between now and then, I think the president's going to talk to a lot of people. Whether they can make him happy is another question,' Lutnick said on 'Fox News Sunday.' Negotiators on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border will keep talking. — In related reading from POLITICO: 'Donaldddddd': Foreign leaders schmooze Trump on his personal cell. THREE THINGS WE'RE WATCHING ECONOMIC INDICATORS This week's data could reinforce fears Canada is tipping into recession: — On Wednesday, interest rates: Most bank economists think TIFF MACKLEM will hold the Bank of Canada's policy rate steady at 2.75 percent. Macklem also stood pat in June and April announcements after seven consecutive cuts dating to 2024. 'At this point, there is a bit less than a 50% chance of even one cut priced in for the rest of 2025,' BMO's DOUG PORTER wrote in a lookahead note. In their own note, RBC's CLAIRE FAN and ABBEY XU sized up the impact of stubbornly high core inflation measures, a 'weakening but relatively resilient economic backdrop' and the potential for increased federal spending amid the threat of permanent tariffs. Their conclusion: 'We do not expect the [bank] will cut again in this cycle.' — On Thursday, GDP data: Most bank economists are projecting a slight turn to the negative for month-over-month May numbers. Porter raised the specter of an economy that shrinks in the second quarter of 2025. A decline in consecutive quarters meets the technical definition of recession. (But remember: Q1 GDP grew by 2.2 percent — exceeding expectations.) THE EPSTEIN CRISIS Scandal dominates U.S. newscycles as fallout continues: The president failed to move the news cycle past JEFFREY EPSTEIN last week, and the narrative shows no sign of fading. — In related reading: ANKUSH KHARDORI, a senior writer for POLITICO Magazine and a former federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, annotates shifts in the Trump administration's rhetoric in response to the scandal. INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO GAZA Canada continues to recalibrate its foreign policy: Foreign Affairs Minister ANITA ANAND is in New York today for a United Nations conference on achieving a Palestinian state, The Star reports. Prime Minister MARK CARNEY has called Israel's 'denial of humanitarian aid' in Gaza 'a violation of international law.' The PM has stopped short of following France, which will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the first G7 nation to do so. Trump is also due to meet with British PM KEIR STARMER today to talk about the need for a ceasefire in Gaza. THE ROOMS THAT MATTER — PM Carney will make an affordability announcement in Prince County, Prince Edward Island at 9:30 a.m. — Former PM STEPHEN HARPER will deliver a keynote at the Midwestern Legislative Conference annual meeting in Saskatoon at 9:30 a.m. local time. Topic: The importance and future of the Canada-U.S. relationship. PLAYBOOK'S ONE-ON-ONE 'NOT JUST … BLAH BLAH BLAH' — As the PM talks a big game about reducing Canada's dependence on the United States, the European Union's top envoy in Canada insists transatlantic bonds are tightening between Ottawa and Brussels. 'Something is happening now, very concretely, not just political blah blah blah,' GENEVIÈVE TUTS told Playbook in an interview in her office on Friday. — Seriously: Tuts described June's EU-Canada summit as 'not just symbolic,' but a 'crucial' and 'historic' moment for the longtime allies in the face of geopolitical uncertainty and global tariff tension. 'I felt a real commitment to deliver on very concrete topics.' — Once more, with feeling: 'This was not a show,' said Tuts, whose note-taking tic — we all have one — is repeatedly drawing circles around her scribbles. 'This was a strong willingness, and this was sincere.' — More trade, please: Tuts was hawkish on expanding business takeup on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement — Canada's free-trade deal with the EU first applied provisionally in 2017. 'It's good, but we could go from good to great,' she says. The 'main challenge' is making sure businesses that do trade are aware of CETA, Tuts said. She points to a new EU-Canada industrial policy dialogue, as well as nascent negotiations on a digital trade agreement, as opportunities to get the word out. → There's an app for that: Tuts nodded to creative solutions to 'matchmaking' companies on opposite sides of the Atlantic. 'I had a discussion in Brussels with one of my colleagues who was even talking about having an app, a sort of Tinder CETA, to organize this matchmaking process,' Tuts said. — Let's talk: Our colleagues in Europe have reported on formal talks between the European Commission and Canada, as well as Japan, to coordinate responses to Trump tariffs. → Well, d'uh: Tuts described those conversations as a no-brainer. 'This is not surprising that people facing the same challenges, people who are allies and friends, talk to each other,' she told us. 'The relationship between President von der Leyen and Prime Minister Carney is very good. They know each other. They speak the same language. They understand each other. And they talk to each other on a regular basis.' — ICYMI: HBD +2 to Tuts, who celebrated Saturday. MORNING MUST-CLICKS — 'There's no shortage of people in Ottawa trying to think big thoughts. I think if there's a problem it's at the service delivery,' author and scholar DONALD J. SAVOIE tells AMNA AHMAD in a National Post Q&A. — From AARON WHERRY over the weekend: Can Mark Carney move fast and not break things? — The NDP has released the rules for its leadership race. Via DAVID BAXTER of The Canadian Press: 'They're telling candidates they must gather specific numbers of signatures from supporters in diverse regional, racial and LGBTQ+ groups.' — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami President NATAN OBED told the Globe's EMILY HAWS that in the next decade Inuit are looking to build 79 projects, totaling about C$30 billion. — The PM sat with APTN's DENNIS WARD for a one-on-one interview. — In his latest missive, PAUL WELLS observes 'there is a notable droop to the once proudly waving Canadian elbow.' LOBBY WATCH Our daily check-in on federal lobbyist registrations and notable meetings around town: — Westport Fuel Systems, a fuel delivery component supplier, posted a July 24 meeting with PMO policy coordinator JOSHUA SWIFT. The company is advocating for federal programs that 'encourage the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles — specifically vehicles that use natural gas and/or hydrogen as a primary fuel.' PLAYBOOKERS Birthdays: HBD to MARCO MENDICINO, former Cabmin who served briefly as Carney's chief of staff. Greetings also to Sandstone Group senior associate, longtime Liberal staffer and Playbook trivia regular GEORGE YOUNG. Birthdays, gatherings, social notices for this community: Send them our way. Movers and shakers: NATAN OBED told the Globe he'll be seeking reelection as president at the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami's annual general meeting in September. Alberta MP HEATHER MCPHERSON says she is 'considering' entering the NDP leadership race. 'I've certainly had lots of folks ask me to.' ANDREW WING is now the executive assistant to Northern and Arctic Affairs Minister REBECCA CHARTRAND. Spotted: Retired teacher YOLAINE MUNTER, mother to Canadian Medical Association CEO ALEX MUNTER, scoring a shoutout from GABRIELA DABROWSKI as the Ottawa-born tennis star received a key to the city. 'There's no greater thrill for my mom Yolaine than to celebrate the success of former students,' Munter posted on social media. A visiting teenager, telling Playbook on Friday that he'd dreamed for years of visiting the House of Commons — and, when he finally took a tour, was overwhelmed enough that he nearly fainted on entering the chamber. Noted: AILISH CAMPBELL has wrapped up her time as Canada's EU ambassador. Manitoba Premier WAB KINEW has called a by-election in Spruce Woods for Aug. 26. Elections Canada deregistered the Edmonton Riverbend Green Party Association, effective July 31. Via DARREN MAJOR of CBC News: As of Sunday evening, 209 candidates had registered to run in the Battle River-Crowfoot by-election. BRUCE ANDERSON has returned to 'Good Talk' after stepping away from the pod during the federal election campaign. The Canadian Coast Guard isn't monitoring that Chinese research vessel, but the U.S. Coast Guard did. PROZONE For Pro subscribers, our latest policy newsletter. In other news for Pro readers: — Commerce triples anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber. — Tesla barred from offering autonomous rides in California. — USDA chief says potentially half of its DC staff may not relocate for reorganization. — EU plan to offshore climate action not grounded in analysis, commission admits. — Whale entanglements decline but still threaten survival. TRIVIA Friday's answer: In 2013, HULK HOGAN arm-wrestled then-Mayor ROB FORD to help promote the Fan Expo convention in Toronto. The other 1980s wrestler who challenged Ford to an arm wrestling match — but never got one — was the IRON SHEIK. (Thanks to DARREN MAJOR for the submission.) Props to PATRICK DION, DAVID GRANOVSKY, RAY DEL BIANCO, JEFFREY VALOIS, BOB GORDON, DARRYL DAMUDE, JOHN PEPPER, DAVE PENNER, AIDEN MUSCOVITCH, ELIZABETH BURN, CAMERON PENNER, MALCOLM MCKAY, ROBERT MCDOUGALL, AXEL RIOUX and ADAM SMITH. Today's question: In celebration of the birthday of CAMILLA, the royal family shared a portrait of the queen consort. What Canadian novel was she deep into reading in the photo? Send your answer to canadaplaybook@ Canada Playbook would not happen without: Canada Editor Sue Allan, editor Willa Plank and POLITICO's Grace Maalouf.
