Donald Trump's Head-Spinning Foreign Policy
WASHINGTON—President Trump hasn't sounded much like Donald Trump in recent days.
He said the U.S. needed to attack Iran over a growing nuclear threat, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wasn't ripping off America and that Russian President Vladimir Putin was an impediment to ending the war in Ukraine. It was a remarkable shift for a president who said he would extract the U.S. from foreign entanglements, once called NATO obsolete and often has avoided criticizing Moscow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
G7 agrees to avoid higher taxes for US, UK companies
The United States and the Group of Seven countries have agreed to support a proposal that would exempt US companies from some components of an existing global agreement, the G7 says. The group has created a "side-by-side" system in response to the US administration agreeing to scrap the Section 899 retaliatory tax proposal from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, it said in a statement from Canada, the head of the rolling G7 presidency. The G7 said the plan recognises existing US minimum tax laws and aims to bring more stability to the international tax system. United Kingdom businesses are also spared higher taxes after the removal of Section 899 from Trump's tax and spending bill. The Government of Canada has published the @G7 statement on global minimum taxes. Read it here: — Finance Canada (@FinanceCanada) June 28, 2025 The UK government said businesses would benefit from greater certainty and stability following the agreement. Some UK businesses had in recent weeks said they were worried about paying substantial additional tax due to the inclusion of Section 899, which has now been removed. "Today's agreement provides much-needed certainty and stability for those businesses after they had raised their concerns," finance minister Rachel Reeves said in a statement, adding that more work was need to tackle aggressive tax planning and avoidance. G7 officials said that they look forward to discussing a solution that is "acceptable and implementable to all". In January, through an executive order, Trump declared that the global corporate minimum tax deal was not applicable in the US, effectively pulling out of the landmark 2021 arrangement negotiated by the administration of his predecessor Joe Biden with nearly 140 countries. He had also vowed to impose a retaliatory tax against countries that impose taxes on US firms under the 2021 global tax agreement. This tax was considered detrimental to many foreign companies operating in the US.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's disapproval rating increases slightly, poll says
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — A new Emerson College Polling of U.S. voters finds that President Donald Trump's disapproval rating has increased since April. According to the poll, 45% of U.S. voters approved of the Trump Administration's policies, and 46% disapproved. Trump's approval remained at 45%, while his disapproval increased from 45% to 46%. Emerson College reports that 52% of voters say things in the United States are generally on the wrong track, while 48% think things are headed in the right direction. On the generic 2026 congressional ballot, 43% of voters plan to support the Democratic candidate, while 40% support the Republican candidate. Eighteen percent are undecided. 'Looking ahead to next year's Midterm Election, the Democrats have a slight edge over the Republicans, with independents breaking for the Democratic candidate 37% to 27%,' said Spencer Kimball, Executive Director of Emerson College Polling, in a news release sent to 6 News. 'However, a significant 36% of independents are undecided, so this number is expected to shift.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
