Canada Commits Billions in Military Spending to Meet NATO Target
Declaring that Canada is too dependent on the United States for its defense, Prime Minister Mark Carney on Monday committed to having his country meet NATO's spending target this year, seven years ahead of schedule.
President Trump and leaders of other allied nations have long criticized Canada for consistently falling well short of NATO's goal of a military budget equal to 2 percent of each member's gross domestic product.
Canada's previous government, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, planned to raise Canada's spending, which is at 1.37 percent, to meet the military alliance's target by 2032.
Mr. Carney, speaking in Toronto, said that new geopolitical threats, advances in technology and the fraying of Canada's alliance with the United States demanded an accelerated spending schedule.
'We stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans throughout the Cold War and in the decades that followed, as the United States played a dominant role on the world stage,' he said. 'Today, that dominance is a thing of the past.'
'It is time for Canada to chart its own path,' he added, 'and to assert itself on the international stage.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
37 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
S&P 500 Ekes Out Gain as US-China Talks to Resume
Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Ed Ludlow, Bloomberg News, Ross Gerber, Gerber Kawasaki, Daniel Flax, Neuberger Berman, Tony Wang, T. Rowe Price, Chris Palmeri, Bloomberg News, Sinead Colton Grant, BNY Wealth, Angelo Zino, CFRA Research, Justin Bibb, Cleveland Mayor & Leonardo Williams, Durham Mayor, Alicia Caldwell, Bloomberg News, Gregory Valliere, AGF Investments, Pooja Sriram, Barclays. (Source: Bloomberg)
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration surges military forces to Los Angeles
The Big Story The U.S. military is set to deploy about 700 Marines to Los Angeles, further increasing military presence in and around the city after the Trump administration ordered 2,000 California National Guard troops there over the weekend. ©Eric Thayer/Associated Press The command has activated the Marine infantry battalion that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth placed on 'prepare to deploy' orders over the weekend amid ongoing protests against raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a Monday statement from Northern Command. Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, based out of Twentynine Palms in California, 'will seamlessly integrate' with the National Guard troops already deployed to Los Angeles to protect federal personnel and property, Northcom said. The command noted that the Marines had been 'trained in de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.' Hegseth in a post on X later noted the deployment, attributing it to increased threats to federal officers and buildings. 'We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not,' Hegseth wrote. It is unclear whether the Marines will actually be placed on the ground or if they will remain on standby. However, Newsom's press office stated that it was their understanding that the service members are not yet being deployed, as there is a distinction between deployment and mobilization. In a statement posted to X, Newsom's press office also bashed the movement of Marines as 'mobilizing the best-in-class branch of the U.S. military against its own citizens.' 'The level of escalation is completely unwarranted, uncalled for, and unprecedented,' the office added. Later on Monday, Newsom said Trump is deploying 2,000 additional National Guard troops to Los Angeles, bringing the total to 4,000. The move is likely to further inflame tensions between California officials and the Trump administration, which have locked horns over how to respond to protests in Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs against federal immigration raids. President Trump has insisted the deployment – only the second time in the past 60 years that a U.S. president has mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor – is necessary to stop protests against ICE. But Newson has accused the Pentagon of 'lying to the American people' in justifying the deployment of service members within the state, asserting that the situation intensified only when the U.S. military deployed troops. Read the full report at Welcome to The Hill's Defense & National Security newsletter, I'm Ellen Mitchell — your guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and inthe future: California files lawsuit against Trump for deploying National Guard to Los Angeles California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the state's attorney general filed their much-anticipated lawsuit over President Trump's decision to send in California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell immigration protests, calling it an 'unprecedented power grab.' Filed in federal court in San Francisco on Monday afternoon, the suit asks a federal judge to block Trump's authorization as an unconstitutional … Trump sends troops to Los Angeles after immigration crackdown protests: What to know President Trump authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops, following days of protests against immigration enforcement actions in the Los Angeles area. The rare move bypassed the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and has garnered criticism from local Democrats who warned the move could further inflame tensions. The federalizing of the California National Guard also has prompted some legal questions about … Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring … On Our Radar Upcoming things we're watching on our beat: In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Vance, Newsom spar over Los Angeles: 'Do your job' California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Vice President Vance on Monday sparred on social media over the situation in the Los Angeles area. The back-and-forth between the governor and the vice president started with Newsom responding to comments from President Trump, who said he would support arresting … On Tap Tomorrow Events in and around the defense world: What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets: Trending Today Two key stories on The Hill right now: Mark Green to resign from House after final vote on 'big, beautiful bill' Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) on Monday said he plans to resign from Congress after the House holds a final vote on the party's 'big, beautiful bill,' … Read more Pam Bondi's brother crushed in DC Bar Association election Brad Bondi, the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi, overwhelmingly lost his bid to lead the D.C. Bar Association in a race with record turnout, … Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump pushes $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for babies
As Republicans' massive tax and spending cut bill makes its way through the Senate, President Donald Trump on Monday touted a provision in the measure that would provide every child born in the United States with a $1,000 investment account. Dubbed 'Trump accounts,' the tax-deferred investment accounts would be set up for children born in the U.S. after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029 — covering the majority of Trump's second term. The accounts will, over the course of a child's first 18 years, track the overall stock market, and parents are allowed to contribute up to $5,000 a year to the account. The accounts will be controlled by the child's guardians or parents. Once an account holder turns 18, they can cash out and use the funds, which will be taxed as long-term capital gains, for limited purposes: they can pay for college or a job training program, open a small business or make a down payment on a first home. If the money is spent on anything else, it will be taxed as ordinary income. 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers in the economies into the future,' Trump said Monday. Trump promoted the program as a pro-family, pro-child initiative at the same time his administration and congressional Republicans face criticism from Democrats over cuts that the tax, spending and immigration bill would make to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Democrats argue the reductions would leave millions of American children and families without proper health care or nutritional benefits. Trump appeared at a White House roundtable that featured leading CEOs, including Dell Technologies founder Michael Dell, Goldman Sachs chief executive David Solomon and Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. Dell said his company would match the government's $1,000 seed money in the accounts of their employees' new children. At the event, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), who shepherded the tax and spending cuts bill through the House last month, said the program is a 'transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one.' 'If you have a 401(k), you understand the power of investing early for the future,' Johnson said at the White House. Trump accounts were originally introduced under the 'MAGA Act' — short for 'Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement' — by Rep. Blake D. Moore (R-Utah) in May. The proposal adopted Trump's name before it was incorporated in the House Republican version of the bill, which the Senate is working on. While Trump and Johnson encouraged Senate Republicans on Monday to keep the program in the bill, it is unclear if the proposal will remain. Already, fiscally conservative Republicans in the Senate have complained that the bill doesn't do enough to cut spending, and they are looking to make substantial revisions in the House package. Republicans have not released any cost estimates for the program. But with about 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. each year, the cost could exceed $3 billion annually. The One Big Beautiful Bill — as Trump and Republicans have dubbed the tax and spending cut package — is expected to add more than $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Trump program is similar to 'baby bond' programs run in California, Connecticut and Washington, D.C., which give some newborns investment accounts. However, while those local programs were created to reduce the wealth gap by supporting children in need or lower-income families, Trump accounts will be made available to Americans regardless of their socioeconomic status. To open a Trump account for their child, at least one of the parents will be required to have a Social Security number with work authorizations — leaving some U.S.-born children of immigrants out of the program. Economist Darrick Hamilton — who conceptualized the idea of baby bonds — told The Washington Post that Republicans' program will probably 'enhance inequality' by 'directing our public resources towards an already affluent class while at the same time, imposing … mean-spirited cuts to those who need the most.' 'It's a bad idea co-opting a good idea in both rhetoric and design,' Hamilton said. Other critics of the program said American children in poverty would be better off if congressional Republicans did not make major cuts to social safety net programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The current tax and spending bill would make significant cuts to both programs. 'Feel like low-income families would prefer their assistance buying groceries not get cut, but that's just me,' said Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Senior Director Brendan Duke on X.
