Trump told he might be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize by world leader
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Donald Trump was told by a reporter that he might be nominated for one of the world's most prestigious prizes after his help in brokering a peace deal.
The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda have signed a peace deal facilitated by the US to help end the decades-long fighting, which has killed over 6,000,000 people.
The agreement, signed on Friday, was lauded by Trump as a 'big day for the world, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio signified how important it was after 30 years of war.
The deal, signed by the foreign ministers of the two countries, will also help the US government and American companies gain access to critical minerals needed for much of the world's technology.
'President Félix Tshisekedi is thinking of nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize. You deserve it,' a reporter told Trump in the White House.
'You have been working to bring peace in the world, not only in the Congo, and he's very hopeful to meet you in the future,' she added.
'Tshisekedi told me that for many years, American presidents have overlooked this conflict. They didn't do anything.' Do you think Trump should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
The fighting between Rwanda and the DRC has been going on for more than 30 years.
The tensions began shortly after the Rwandan genocide in 1994, which saw Hutu extremists murder more than 800,000 Tutsis.
After the government which allowed the genocide was overthrown, the Hutu extremists fled to the DRC, which borders Rwanda.
The dense jungle and lack of government in the rural area allowed the extremist group to hide among civilians and continue their onslaught against Rwanda, leading to multiple wars that have lasted until today.
Millions have been killed and millions of others displaced as armed groups took over areas of the DRC. The DRC is known for its mines of cobalt, which is vital for tech, making this conflict even more heightened, as other countries bid to get the natural resources.
Official details of the agreement aren't known, but earlier drafts have given an insight into key details of the peace agreement. More Trending
Each side would have to respect the other's territory and stop hostilities towards one another. They would also disarm and return refugees and displaced persons to their homes.
But the elephant in the room is the minerals across the DRC, which Trump said the US was getting 'a lot of rights to'.
The DRC previously offered a deal which would trade some of their precious minerals for a security guarantee, and it appears this might have gone ahead.
We'll know more in the coming days, but for now, it appears the two countries have agreed to a historic peace deal.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Trump warns it 'will only get worse' for Iran as he lays into 'so-called' Supreme Leader
MORE: What the US Supreme Court ruling means for Donald Trump's birthright citizenship plan
MORE: Donald Trump is already selling 'Daddy' T-shirts for £20
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Trump says he is terminating trade talks with Canada over tax on tech firms
Mr Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the US that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect on Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,' Mr Trump said in his Truth Social post. Mr Trump's announcement was the latest move in the trade war he has launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the US president repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a US state. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (Patrick Doyle/The Canadian Press via AP) Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Friday that his country would 'continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation'. Mr Trump later said he expects that Canada will remove the tax. 'Economically we have such power over Canada. We'd rather not use it,' Mr Trump said in the Oval Office. 'It's not going to work out well for Canada. They were foolish to do it.' When asked if Canada could do anything to restart talks, he suggested Canada could remove the tax, predicted it will but said: 'It doesn't matter to me.' Mr Carney visited Mr Trump in May at the White House. Mr Trump last week travelled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Mr Carney said Canada and the US had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving US companies with a two billion US dollar (£1.4 billion) bill due at the end of the month. 'We appreciate the Administration's decisive response to Canada's discriminatory tax on US digital exports,' Matt Schruers, chief executive of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said in a statement. Canada and the US have been discussing easing a series of steep tariffs Mr Trump imposed on goods from America's neighbour. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the US was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Mr Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium as well as 25% tariffs on cars. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period he set would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Mr Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 US-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Mr Trump's first term. Addressing reporters after a private meeting with Republican senators on Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to comment on news that Mr Trump had ended trade talks with Canada. 'I was in the meeting,' Mr Bessent said before moving on to the next question. About 60% of US crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of US electricity imports as well. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminium and uranium to the US and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager to obtain. About 80% of Canada's exports go to the US. Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said it is a domestic tax issue, but it has been a source of tensions between Canada and the US for a while because it targets US tech giants. 'The Digital Services Tax Act was signed into law a year ago so the advent of this new tax has been known for a long time,' Mr Beland said. 'Yet, President Trump waited just before its implementation to create drama over it in the context of ongoing and highly uncertain trade negotiations between the two countries.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer urged to act after Trump threatens Commonwealth ally Canada
Keir Starner is facing calls to act after Donald Trump cut off talks with Canada and threatened the Commonwealth country with more trade tariffs. Just weeks before president Trump is due to meet King Charles, Canada's official head of state, on a visit to the UK, he claimed he had 'such power' over the country but added 'I'd rather not use it.' In a move that caused market turmoil amid fears of a renewal of Trump's trade war, he said he would tell Canada the levies they will have to pay on goods entering the US '....within the next seven day period.' The call for Starmer to intervene comes after a similar diplomatic row exploded earlier this year when the PM declined to back Canada against Trump's ambitions to turn it into the 51st state of the USA. A Conservative MP in Canada and a former ambassador were among those to criticise the UK prime minister for failing to stand up for their country. The latest attack on Canada comes at a a difficult time for the Labour leader. He is hoping to woo President Trump on a historic second state visit to the UK in September, when he will meet the King, a keen champion of the Commonwealth. Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: "Once again, Donald Trump has shown contempt for his allies by continuing his damaging war on trade. With such an unreliable partner in the White House, the government needs to strengthen our economy, by establishing a bespoke UK-EU Customs Union, and work closer with our European and Commonwealth allies to create a coalition of the willing to end Trump's trade war." SNP MP Stephen Gethins said: 'The Trump project, just like Brexit, is about throwing up barriers to trade with our partners that will cost jobs and damage public finances. The UK needs to be building bridges with states like Canada and the EU that will help deliver sustainable economic growth. There have to be serious questions around the Labour government's judgement over the offer of a state visit to Trump.' The latest row erupted over Canada's plans for a digital services tax. In a post on Truth Social, the president complained that he had 'just been informed' of the move, which could leave some American technology companies with large bills. Trump called the plans 'a direct and blatant attack on our Country.' 'They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also,' he wrote, added that as a result the US was 'hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.' Trump later claimed the US has 'a great relationship with the people of Canada' but that its government, headed by the former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, had made things 'very difficult'. He added: 'We don't want to do anything bad, but ... economically ... we have such power over Canada. I'd rather not use it, but they did something with our tech companies today, trying to copy Europe.'
