Talks with Trump's team constructive before boosted tariff announced, ambassador says
Kirsten Hillman, who also serves as Canada's top negotiator with the U.S., says there were professional and constructive conversations with Trump's team throughout the week.
But ultimately, Hillman says, the right deal for Canada wasn't on the table.
While Trump's latest tariffs appear staggering, Hillman says it's important to remember that there is a carveout for goods compliant under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade.
Read the full report from The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President Seeks New Census to Exclude Illegal Migration
News Analysis In a photo released by state media, President Vladimir V. Putin attends a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on Tuesday. President Vladimir V. Putin has long said he wants to sit down with President Trump. The reason: He believes that such a meeting, rather than just progress on the battlefield, is his best chance for securing a victory in his war against Ukraine. Analysts who study Mr. Putin, as well as people who know him, have said since the early days of the war that the Russian leader's overarching goal is primarily to secure a peace deal that achieves his geopolitical aims — and not necessarily conquering a certain amount of territory on the battlefield. And it is the U.S. president, they say, who is best positioned to deliver on those aims — which include keeping Ukraine out of NATO and preventing the alliance's future expansion. That helps explain why Mr. Putin has appeared so focused on placating Mr. Trump and avoiding a break with Washington, even as Mr. Trump has shown growing impatience with Mr. Putin's refusal to agree to a cease-fire. 'Putin wants to keep Trump as a resource for a possible transition to peace,' said Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political analyst in Moscow. 'Trump is needed to achieve Russia's conditions.' 'It is probably better for us to meet,' Mr. Putin said of Mr. Trump in January, 'and, based on today's realities, talk calmly about all areas that are of interest to both the U.S. and Russia.' The Kremlin confirmed on Thursday morning that Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump planned to meet in the coming days, but did not set an exact date for the sought-after summit. The Trump administration had been holding out on agreeing to a meeting, looking for a sign from the Kremlin that Mr. Putin was in fact serious about a real cease-fire on the battlefield. Image Ukrainian firefighters work at the scene of a Russia strike in Kharkiv last month. Credit... David Guttenfelder/The New York Times The White House's sudden commitment to hold a summit has raised questions about what, if anything, Mr. Putin agreed to on Wednesday during his talks in Moscow with Mr. Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff. Exactly what the two men discussed is unclear. The Kremlin's top foreign policy aide, Yuri Ushakov, said Mr. Putin had conveyed certain 'signals' to Mr. Witkoff on Ukraine, but did not go into detail. One possibility is that Mr. Putin signaled more flexibility on the issue of how land could be divided up or traded in any settlement between Russia and Ukraine. For months, Russian envoys have insisted in talks with U.S. counterparts that Moscow be given the entirety of the four regions that the Kremlin claimed to have 'annexed' from Ukraine in late 2022 even though vast swaths of the territory remained under Ukrainian control. U.S. negotiators viewed that position as unreasonable and saw it as a sign that Moscow wasn't serious about negotiating an end to the war. Some analysts suggested that Mr. Putin had told envoys during talks this year to stick only to the hardest-line position, in order to force a meeting between him and Mr. Trump. Russian officials may be hoping that a one-on-one summit will give Mr. Putin an opportunity to sway Mr. Trump, long sympathetic to Russia, back to supporting the Russian leader's views on what he calls 'the root causes of the conflict.' Image In a photo released by state media, Mr. Putin met with President Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, on Wednesday. Credit... Kristina Kormilitsyna/Sputnik, via Reuters People close to the Kremlin, as well as political analysts, say that Mr. Putin's demands — to exclude Ukraine from NATO, limit Ukrainian military capabilities and lay the groundwork for a more Moscow-friendly government in Kyiv — are more important to him than the specifics of what territory Russia ultimately controls. Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, pointed out that Moscow, from the start, hasn't formally demarcated the borders of the four 'annexed' regions — which she said shows there has always been some flexibility on the land issue. She didn't exclude the possibility Moscow would be open to exchanging certain territories. 'The most important thing for Putin is NATO and these ironclad guarantees that Ukraine will not be in NATO and that NATO countries will not develop a military presence inside Ukraine, plus a set of political demands on Ukraine itself,' Ms. Stanovaya said. Other demands, she added, might be open to negotiation. 'One quality of Mr. Putin is that he doesn't keep a pre-prepared plan,' Ms. Stanovaya said. 'He lives for today, he knows what he wants to get in the end.' In this case, she said, what Russia's leader wants is for Ukraine to stop being what he sees as an 'anti-Russia project' and to return to Moscow's sphere of influence. 'So, either he achieves this through NATO guarantees, that is, guarantees from the West, or he achieves this through political control within Ukraine,' Ms. Stanovaya said. 'One or the other, or both. Then, we'll see how it goes. Territory is very secondary.'
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
Repeal Of The Endangerment Finding Could Shred U.S. Climate Progress
Amid political drama, a quieter but more consequential move is underway: Donald Trump wants to repeal the EPA's Endangerment Finding — the legal cornerstone of federal climate action. The Finding, issued in 2009, legally obligates the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Yet, this is one of Trump's most radical—and legally risky—climate moves to date. Politically, it signals that climate denial has shifted from questioning science and dissing carbon-free solutions to disabling the government's ability to act on it. This move would undermine the legal basis for nearly every federal climate initiative since 2009. If it succeeds, it could eliminate the federal government's duty to combat climate pollution. The result? It would weaken emissions standards across transportation, power, and industry, exposing Americans to greater health and financial risks from unchecked warming. 'Without the Endangerment Finding, there's no legal reason for EPA to act on climate,' said Jody Freeman, Harvard law professor and former climate adviser under President Obama. 'This isn't just another deregulatory move—it's foundational.' Air pollution from fossil fuels is linked to 1 in 5 global deaths, according to a 2021 Harvard study. When the EPA issued the Endangerment Finding in 2009, it identified six greenhouse gases—particularly carbon dioxide and methane—that threatened human health and welfare. Hence, EPA's regulatory reach extended. It covers power plants, vehicle emission standards, and permitting rules for large industrial facilities. The Finding followed the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which determined that greenhouse gases are 'air pollutants' under the Clean Air Act. Consequently, EPA cannot simply ignore them if they threaten public health. Because the 2009 Finding is based on scientific evidence, repealing it would require new data, a complete administrative process, and likely court review. Greenhouse gas regulation brings well-documented public health co-benefits, including reductions in particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. According to EPA estimates, past rules tied to greenhouse gas limits have saved between 12,000 and 15,000 American lives annually due to improved air quality. A Keystone In U.S. Climate Law Meanwhile, the economic cost of inaction is soaring. NOAA reports that U.S. climate disasters caused $95 billion in damages in 2023 alone. The National Climate Assessment warns that climate-driven economic losses could exceed $2 trillion by 2100 if emissions continue unchecked. 'The agency ignored the benefits of greenhouse gas reductions altogether, pretending they don't exist. EPA's analysis merely shows—tautologically—that if one ignores the benefits of regulation, regulation has only costs,' said Richard Revesz, professor and dean emeritus at the New York University School of Law, in a Slate column. Legally, repealing the Endangerment Finding is a minefield. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, EPA must offer new scientific reasoning to justify reversal—an argument almost no peer-reviewed science supports. A 2021 review in Environmental Research Letters found 99.9% of climate science papers attribute warming to human activity. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA limited EPA's ability to enforce broad climate rules through the 'major questions' doctrine. However, it did not affect the Endangerment Finding itself. Courts have consistently declined to question the underlying science. Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown law professor and former EPA attorney, told Environmental Law Reporter that repeal efforts would be met with intense opposition and run counter to decades of environmental jurisprudence. 'The Clean Air Act requires EPA to study pollutants, assess their danger, and set standards'—full stop, she said. Trump's rollback fits a larger trend. His administration has left the Paris Agreement and is working to undo at least 30 environmental regulations while loosening caps on power plant emissions—actions that appeal to fossil fuel donors and ideological groups like the Heritage Foundation, which pushed for repeal in its 'Project 2025' plan. However, these steps clash with the direction of the business community. According to Climate Impact Partners' 2024 report on the Fortune Global 500, 45% of companies have net-zero goals by 2050. That's up from 39% in 2023 and considerably greater than the 8% in 2020. Legal Chaos Meets Business Reality To that end, most major U.S. companies have climate targets and disclosure rules. Microsoft aims to be carbon-negative by 2030. GM plans to phase out internal combustion vehicles by 2035. Even ExxonMobil has pledged net-zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2050. 'For nearly two decades, businesses across the U.S. have directed investment and charted long-term plans based on the widespread understanding that the EPA can and should set rules to address climate pollution,' said Anne Kelly, vice president of government relations, Ceres. 'Any move to undo this vital policy foundation would send shockwaves throughout the economy.' Policy volatility threatens the infrastructure, energy, and manufacturing sectors—particularly companies like NextEra Energy, Cummins, and Siemens USA that depend on clear climate regulations for capital planning. Investor coalitions and global regulators, especially in Europe, are monitoring the situation closely. A repeal would indicate that U.S. climate policy is politically fragile, making it more difficult for any business to plan, invest, or lead internationally. There is no new scientific consensus challenging the 2009 Finding. Instead, some officials may try to redefine EPA authority by arguing it can now ignore pollutants it once deemed dangerous—a line of reasoning that the U.S. Supreme Court already rejected in 2007. However, it remains a key part of the current administration's stance—presented with more polished messaging. It's simply the rebranding of climate denialism. While the repeal might resonate in parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, it won't bring coal back. Market forces—not regulation—have driven coal's decline. U.S. coal generation has dropped by more than 50% since 2007. Utilities are shifting to cheaper, cleaner options regardless of federal policy. Groups like Reimagine Appalachia argue that real regional revitalization comes not from reversing environmental progress, but from clean manufacturing, broadband, and job retraining. 'Ignoring the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions will not make them go away,' the group said. Even if the repeal fails in court—or drags on—it could still cause years of legal uncertainty, chilling innovation and enforcement. At a time when billion-dollar wildfires and record heat waves are rising, the message from Washington isn't climate readiness. It's a return to the 1950s. The science may be overwhelming. But don't underestimate how much industrial power and political ambitions can undercut progress.
CNBC
a few seconds ago
- CNBC
5 things to know before the Thursday open: Chip tariffs Wall Street's fashionista
President Donald Trump has a mandate for chipmakers: Manufacture domestically, or pay a hefty price. Trump said Wednesday that he would slap 100% tariffs on imported semiconductors and chips. But for those manufacturing in the U.S., he said, "there will be no charge." Still, stock futures rose Thursday morning as investors were encouraged by the policy's broad exemptions. The latest trade announcement comes as Trump's long-awaited plan for reciprocal tariffs takes effect Thursday. Follow live market updates here. Apple, meanwhile, got a warm reception at the White House on Wednesday. Apple CEO Tim Cook, standing alongside Trump in the Oval Office, unveiled plans for his company to spend $100 billion on U.S. firms and suppliers over the next four years. That's in addition to a $500 billion investment Apple announced in February. Apple will shell out $2.5 billion for an expansion that will allow glass for iPhones and Apple Watches to be made at Corning's U.S. facilities. To mark the occasion, Cook gifted Trump with a souvenir based around Corning's glass. Shares of Apple jumped 5% in Wednesday's session ahead of the event, marking it the stock's best day in almost three months. Elsewhere at the intersection of tech and government, OpenAI said it would give its ChatGPT enterprise product to U.S. federal agencies for just $1 — no, that's not a typo — through the next year. Wegovy and Ozempic could have some new competition. Eli Lilly said its daily obesity pill, called orforglipron, helped patients lose about 12% of their body weight in a late-stage trial. Notably, some doctors said the results were comparable to Novo Nordisk's Wegovy. With the trial results, CNBC's Annika Kim Constantino reports, orforglipron moves closer to becoming the first needle-free alternative in the weight-loss and diabetes drug market. Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Thursday allowing alternative assets, such as private equity and cryptocurrency, into 401(k)s. As CNBC's Sarah Min reports, this would mark a major boost for the alternative asset industry, which has called for greater adoption of private holdings in defined contribution plans. The development comes as the presence of private markets in 401(k)s has already started to take off and has caught the attention of providers like BlackRock. If you have seen Wedbush analyst Dan Ives on CNBC over the years, you've likely noticed not just his bullish tech takes but his eccentric clothing. And, if you've ever considered mimicking his fashion choices, you're in luck. Ives launched a clothing line on Thursday that includes a graffiti-style button-down shirt and polo. One item even features a portrait of Ives on the sleeve. "I dress differently. I go to the beat of a different drum, but it's just like I do in terms of picking stocks," Ives told CNBC ahead of the launch. "The clothing is symbolic of just the way that I attack investing." —
