Carney to meet with cabinet, premiers following Trump's latest tariff threat
The Prime Minister's Office announced there will be a cabinet meeting on Tuesday to discuss ongoing Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Carney's office said he also will meet with the premiers on July 22 as they gather for the annual Council of the Federation conference in Huntsville, Ont.
Carney said Thursday his government will 'steadfastly' defend workers and businesses. In a late night post on social media, Carney said Canada will continue to work to secure a trade deal with the U.S. by a revised deadline of Aug. 1.
In a letter to Carney on Thursday, Trump threatened to impose 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods by that date — evidently setting a new deadline for the trade talks that were supposed to wrap up by July 21.
Asked about the tariff threat while leaving the White House Friday morning, Trump told reporters that 'it was sent yesterday. They called. I think it was fairly well received.'
A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office said Carney and Trump did not speak Thursday night. She said that while officials from both countries meet daily as trade talks continue, Thursday's meeting took place before Trump sent his tariff letter.
Trump's letter said if Canada works to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States, he may consider a tariff adjustment.
Fentanyl seizures are up slightly this year at the shared border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has seized about 26 kilograms of the drug at the Canada-U.S. border to date this fiscal year, up from 19.5 kilograms last fiscal year.
That still pales in comparison to fentanyl seizures at the United States' southern border, where U.S. border agents have seized nearly 3,700 kilograms so far this fiscal year.
A White House official said the 35 per cent tariff rate is only expected to be applied to goods already hit with a 25 per cent import tax. This would exempt goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, plus energy and potash imports that face a 10 per cent tariff rate.
The official said no final policy paper has been drafted and Trump has not yet made a final decision.
Canada also faces additional U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, as well as a U.S. plan to introduce tariffs on copper on Aug. 1.
In a post on social media, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that in the face of Trump's latest tariff threat, 'we need to come together' and develop a plan to protect Canadian workers, business and communities.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith discouraged Ottawa from imposing retaliatory tariffs, saying it would 'constitute a tax on Canadian consumers and businesses and only weaken Canada's economy further.'
In a post on social media, Smith said the federal government should also drop 'Trudeau-era anti-resource development laws.'
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said on social media that his party supports increasing trade ties with the European Union. He also accused Carney of 'failing' by focusing on investments in the oil and gas sector, which he said would only affect trade 'well after Donald Trump's departure.'
Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, said on social media there's only one word to describe Trump's tactics — 'extortion.' Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called the latest tariff threat an 'unjustified attack on Canada's economy.'
The tariffs would mean higher prices for Americans and continued damage to the 'most productive trade relationship two countries have ever had,' said Candace Laing, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
'Rather than public threats and ultimatums, the Canadian Chamber hopes to see both governments continue their ongoing talks in good faith and behind closed doors, with the aim of reaching a real and reliable economic and security relationship in the near term,' Laing said in a media statement.
The 'consistent attacks' on Canada have damaged a 'vital relationship,' said United States Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, adding 'this action even undermined his own Administration's negotiations to reach a trade deal.'
The Democrat from New Hampshire said she's heard many complaints about tourists not coming from Canada and lost business due to Trump's trade war.
'The American people and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in Congress reject this short-sighted and costly trade war with Canada,' Shaheen said in a news release.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 11, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
14 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Chokeholds, bikers and ‘roving patrols': Are Trump's ICE tactics legal?
An appellate court appears poised to side with the federal judge who blocked immigration agents from conducting 'roving patrols' and snatching people off the streets of Southern California, likely setting up another Supreme Court showdown. Arguments in the case were held Monday before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the judges at times fiercely questioning the lawyer for the Trump administration about the constitutionality of seemingly indiscriminate sweeps by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents. 'I'm just try ing to understand what would motivate the officers ...to grab such a large number of people so quickly and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain,' said Judge Ronald M. Gould of Seattle. Earlier this month, a lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order that has all but halted the aggressive operations by masked federal agents, saying they violate the 4th Amendment. The Justice Department called the block that was ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong 'the first step' in a 'wholesale judicial usurpation' of federal authority. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov M. Roth argued Monday. 'We don't think that happened, and we don't think it's fair we were hit with this sweeping injunction on an unfair and incomplete record.' That argument appeared to falter in front of the 9th Circuit panel. Judges Jennifer Sung of Portland and Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco heard the case alongside Gould — all drawn from the liberal wing of an increasingly split appellate division. 'If you're not actually doing what the Distinct Court found you to be doing and enjoined you from doing, then there should be no harm,' Sung said. Frimpong's order stops agents from using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The judge found that without other evidence, those criteria alone or in combination do not meet the 4th Amendment bar for reasonable suspicion. 'It appears that they are randomly selecting Home Depots where people are standing looking for jobs and car washes because they're car washes,' Judge Berzon said. 'Is your argument that it's ok that it's happening, or is your argument that it's not happening?' Roth largely sidestepped that question, reiterating throughout the 90-minute hearing that the government had not had enough time to gather evidence it was following the Constitution and that the court did not have authority to constrain it in the meantime. Arguments in the case hinge on a pair of dueling Golden State cases that together define the scope of relief courts can offer under the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'It's the bulwark of privacy protection against policing,' said professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford Law School, whose work on 4th Amendment injunctions was cited in the Justice Department's briefing. 'What the government can do depends on really specific details. That makes it hard for a court to say here's the thing you can't do.' In policing cases, every exception to the rule has its own exceptions, the expert said. The Department of Justice has staked its claim largely on City of Los Angeles vs. Lyons, a landmark 1983 Supreme Court decision about illegal chokeholds by the Los Angeles Police Department. In that case, the court ruled against a blanket ban on the practice, finding the Black motorist who had sued was unlikely to ever be choked by the cops again. 'That dooms plaintiffs' standing here,' the Justice Department wrote. But the American Civil Liberties Union and its partners point to other precedents, including the San Diego biker case Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. vs. Hannigan. Decided in the 9th Circuit in 1996, the ruling offers residents of the American West more 4th Amendment protection than they might have in Texas, New York or Illinois. In the Easyriders case, 14 members of a Southland motorcycle club successfully blocked the California Highway Patrol from citing almost any bikers they suspected of wearing the wrong kind of helmet, after the court ruled a more narrow decision would leave the same bikers vulnerable to future illegal citations. 'The court said these motorcyclists are traveling around the state, so we can't afford the plaintiff's complete relief unless we allow this injunction to be statewide,' said professor Geoffrey Kehlmann, who directs the 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic at Loyola Law School. 'In situations like this where you have roving law enforcement throughout a large area and you have the plaintiffs themselves moving throughout this large area, you necessarily need to have that broader injunction,' Kehlmann said. Frimpong cited Easyriders among other precedent cases in her ruling, saying it offered a clear logic for the districtwide injunction. The alternative — agents sweeping through car washes and Home Depot parking lots stopping to ask each person they grab if they are a plaintiff in the suit — 'would be a fantasy,' she wrote. Another expert, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the Los Angeles Police Department chokehold case set a standard that litigants 'need to show it's likely it could happen to you again in the future.' But, he added: 'The 9th Circuit has said, here's ways you can show that.' The tests can include asking whether the contested enforcement is limited to a small geographic area or applied to a small group of people, and whether it is part of a policy. 'After the injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said 'we're going to continue doing what we're doing,'' Berzon said. 'Is that not a policy?' Roth denied that there was any official policy driving the sweeps. 'Plaintiffs [argue] the existence of an official policy of violating the 4th Amendment with these stops,' Roth said. 'The only evidence of our policy was a declaration that said, 'Yes, reasonable suspicion is what we require when we go beyond a consensual encounter.'' But Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California, part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests, argued that the federal policy is clear. 'They have said, 'If it ends in handcuffs, go out and do it,'' he told the panel. 'There's been a wink and a nod to agents on the ground that says, 'Dispatch with the rigors of the law and go out and snatch anybody out there.'' He said that put his organization's clients in a similar situation to the bikers. 'The government did not present any alternatives as to what an injunction could look like that would provide adequate relief to our plaintiffs,' Tajsar said. 'That's fatal to any attempt by them to try to get out from underneath this injunction.' The Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics, he said, are 'likely to ensnare just as many people with status as without status.' The Justice Department said ICE already complies with the 4th Amendment, and that the injunction risks a 'chilling effect' on lawful arrests. 'If it's chilling ICE from violating the Constitution, that's where they're supposed to be chilled,' Chemerinsky said. A ruling is expected as soon as this week. Roth signaled the administration is likely to appeal if the appellate panel does not grant its stay.
CNBC
15 minutes ago
- CNBC
Jim Cramer explains why Trump's trade deals didn't bring on a market rally
CNBC's Jim Cramer examined Monday's market action and said he thinks the U.S.'s major trade deals failed to move stocks because investors' focus is elsewhere this week. "Right now, we're presuming these tariffs don't matter," he said. "What matters is earnings, unemployment, the Fed meeting and — you know what — dead last, tariffs." The S&P 500 finished up 0.02%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 0.14% and the Nasdaq Composite closed up 0.33%. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump announced the U.S. reached a trade agreement with the European Union to place a 15% tariff on most European goods. The duty is lower than the 30% rate Trump had previously proposed, but it's higher than the 10% tariff the EU hoped for. Trump also said the EU promised to buy $750 billion worth U.S. energy and invest another $600 billion in the U.S. According to Cramer, some on Wall Street may have "tariff ennui" as they watch Trump's trade deals unfold in a similar way — the U.S. threatens a high tariff but eventually pulls back as the trading partner offers to "throw in some sort of sweetener like a natural gas buy, or a big investment," he said. The market has already rebounded from its post-Liberation day lows, Cramer added. At this point, he continued, investors aren't buying stocks due to trade announcements unless something about the deal is substantially different. Cramer also suggested that investors have tariff ennui because the U.S. has more major trade deals to settle — namely with China, Canada and Mexico — so negotiations are likely to continue for months. Investors are also preoccupied with Big Tech earnings, Cramer said. Apple, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon are set to report this week, and he suggested the anticipation of their quarterly results overshadows news like the EU deal. Wall Street is also fixated on the Federal Reserve's Wednesday meeting and employment data set to be released on Friday. The central bank's meeting comes as Trump's criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell escalates. Citing inflation risks born from the president's tariff policy, Powell has not cut interest rates — even as Trump has repeatedly pressured him to do so. The Fed is expected to hold rates steady, and Cramer said "we're going to see a level of presidential hectoring that will be painful for the markets." He added that he thinks Trump is likely to demand a rate cut whether Friday's labor report is weak or strong. "This week is a beast of its own and nobody on Wall Street is going to care about trade policy until the week is over," Cramer said. Click here to download Jim Cramer's Guide to Investing at no cost to help you build long-term wealth and invest The CNBC Investing Club owns shares of Apple, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon.
NBC News
15 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump on Gaza conditions: ‘That's real starvation'
President Trump disagreed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said some of the conditions he's seen in Gaza are 'real starvation.' It comes as Israel has paused its offensive against Hamas to allow more distribution of aid, including new air drops. NBC News' Matt Bradley reports.
