Trump says U.S. has ended trade talks with Canada
President Trump posted on Truth Social that Canada had planned to put a tax on U.S. technology companies, calling the move "a blatant attack." NBC News' Christine Romans reports on this latest development as the administration inches closer to trade deals with other economic partners.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president
Those of us who cover the US supreme court are faced, every June, with a peculiar challenge: whether to describe what the supreme court is doing, or what is claims that it is doing. What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday's 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens. And so what the court has actually done is dramatically expand the rights of the president – this president – to nullify constitutional provisions at will. The ruling curtails nationwide injunctions against Trump's order ending birthright citizenship – meaning that while lawsuits against the order proceed, the court has unleashed a chaotic patchwork of rights enforceability. The Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship will not be able to go into effect in jurisdictions where there is no ongoing lawsuit, or where judges have not issued regional stays. And so the supreme court creates, for the foreseeable future, a jurisprudence of citizenship in which babies born in some parts of the country will be presumptive citizens, while those born elsewhere will not. More broadly the decision means that going forward, the enforceable rights and entitlements of Americans will now be dependent on the state they reside in and the status of ongoing litigation in that district at any given time. Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion. You can't stop him unless and until you can get a lawyer, a hearing, and a narrow order from a sympathetic judge. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, adds that the decision is 'profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'. She also calls the ruling an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. The case concerns an executive order by the Trump administration, issued the day that Trump returned to office, purporting to end birthright citizenship – in defiance of the 14th amendment. When immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration to enforce their clients' constitutional rights, a nationwide injunction was issued which paused the Trump administration's plainly illegal order from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeded. These injunctions are a standard tool in the arsenal of federal judges, and an essential check on executive power: when the president does something wildly illegal, as Trump did, the courts can use injunctions to prevent those illegal actions from causing harm to Americans while litigation is ongoing. Nationwide injunctions have become more common in the Trump era, if only because Trump himself routinely does plainly illegal things that have the potential to hurt people and strip them of their rights nationwide. But they are not used exclusively against Republican presidents, or in order to obstruct rightwing policy efforts. Throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican appointed judges routinely stymied their policy agendas with national injunctions; the Roberts court blessed these efforts. But once Donald Trump returned to power, the court adopted a newer, narrower vision of judges' prerogatives – or at least, of the prerogatives of judges who are not them. They have, with this ruling, given Donald Trump the sweeping and unprecedented authority to claim presumptive legality of even the most fundamental of American rights: the right of American-born persons to call themselves American at all. Part of why the supreme court's behavior creates dilemmas for pundits is that the court is acting in with a shameless and exceptional degree of bad faith, such that describing their own accounts of their actions would mean participating in a condescending deception of the reader. In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett says that the court is merely deferring to the rights of the executive, and ensuring that the president has the freedom to do what the voters elected him to do. Putting aside the ouroboros-like nature of the majority's conception of electoral legitimacy –that having received a majority of Americans' votes would somehow entitle Donald Trump to strip them of the rights that made those votes free, meaningful, and informed in the first place – the assertion is also one of bad faith. Because the truth is that this court's understanding of the scope of executive power is not principled; it is not even grounded in the bad history that Barrett trots out to illustrate her point about the sweeping power of other executives in the historical tradition – like the king of England. Rather, the court expands and contracts its vision of what the president is allowed to do based on the political affiliation of the president that is currently in office. When a Democrat is the president, their vision of executive power contracts. When a Republican is in office, it dramatically expands. That is because these people's loyalty is not to the constitution, or to a principled reading of the law. It is to their political priors. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Another danger of reporting the court's own account of itself to readers is this: that it can distract from the real stakes of the case. In this decision, the court did not, technically, reach the merits of Trump's absurd and insulting claim that the constitution somehow does not create a birthright entitlement to citizenship. But in the meantime, many children – the American-born infants of immigrant parents – will be denied the right that the 14th amendment plainly guarantees them. The rightwing legal movement, and the Trumpist judges who have advanced it, have long believed that really, this is a white man's country – and that the 14th amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and its vision of a pluralist nation of equals, living together in dignity across difference – was an error. Those babies, fully American despite their differences and their parents' histories, are squirming, cooing testaments to that better, more just future. They, and the hope that they represent, are more American than Trump and his crony judges will ever be. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Moment Dutch Queen appears to mock Donald Trump caught on camera
President Donald Trump's photo op with Dutch royals took something of a strange turn during a NATO summit in The Hague this week. While cameras flashed and rolled, Queen Máxima was seemingly caught mocking the way that the US president speaks. The moment, now circulating widely online, occurred shortly after Trump arrived at the event and posed with the king and queen of the Netherlands outside the Huis ten Bosch Palace (Picture: Polling USA) Trump stood between King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima, flashing a thumbs up and announcing to everyone, 'That's the picture we want!' The King kept things formal, responding, 'I hope you slept well.' Trump answered with a grin, 'It was great,' and offered up his thanks (Picture: Getty) As the exchange ended, Queen Máxima was seen turning toward the cameras - but not before appearing to mimic President Trump's mouth movements. That subtle moment has sparked online speculation that the queen was rather sardonically parodying the visiting US leader (Picture: PPE/SIPA/Shutterstock) Clips of the moment quickly spread across social media, where users chimed in with their takes on what they'd seen. 'This is hilarious! I've never been a fan of our stiff monarchy, but Queen Maxima rocks it! Treat him like a baby,' one Dutch user wrote on X (Picture: Polling USA) Others weighed in too, including media figures. CNN News 18 deputy editor Vani Mehrotra posted: 'Did she really do that? Queen Maxima of the Netherlands is believed to be mocking US President Donald Trump, per this video and social media comments' (Picture: PPE/SIPA/Shutterstock) The incident comes as Trump re-enters the global political arena, raising questions about how foreign leaders are reacting to his presence, as well as issues including the introduction of tariffs and the bombing of three key nuclear sites in Iran (Picture: Shutterstock) It's not the first time Trump has been at the center of a rather awkward NATO moment. Back in 2019, world leaders including Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron were caught on camera appearing to joke about Trump's long press briefings during a London summit (Picture: NATO TV/AFP via Getty Images) At this week's summit in The Hague, NATO members signed off on a major pledge to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP over the next decade - a shift that could reshape the alliance's future priorities. That figure of 5% was one suggested quite forcefully by President Trump (Picture: Haiyun Jiang-Pool/Getty Images)
Auto Blog
an hour ago
- Auto Blog
Subaru Is Making a Huge Bet on the Forester to Navigate Trump Tariffs
Subaru is not backing down Japanese automaker Subaru is resting on its bestseller, the Forester crossover SUV, to be its north star as it navigates the rough seas caused by the Trump administration's heavy automotive tariffs. According to a new report by Nikkei Asia, Subaru hopes the new Forester SUV will help cushion the blow from steep tariffs and keep its footing in its most important market. At the company's annual shareholder meeting in Tokyo this week, Subaru President Atsushi Osaki made it clear that Subaru will stay committed to its stateside customers. 0:01 / 0:09 Another Chinese automaker is taking the fight to Tesla Watch More 'We'll overcome this by maintaining the U.S. as our main market and balancing it with Japan and Canada,' Subaru President Atsushi Osaki said at the automaker's annual shareholder meeting on June 25. 2025 Subaru Forester Hybrid — Source: Getty Images Japanese cars, American buyers To say that Subaru depends on the United States auto market to survive would be an understatement. According to its figures, more than 70% of Subaru's global sales are in the United States—far more than its Japanese automaking rivals like Honda and Toyota. In fiscal 2024, Subaru sold 662,000 vehicles in the U.S., or 71% of its total global sales of 936,000. Despite this, Subaru's manufacturing situation leaves it vulnerable to Trump's tariffs. Roughly half of Subarus sold in the States are Japanese imports, which means they're now subject to the 25% tariffs imposed by the Trump administration earlier this year. Subaru estimates those tariffs could cost the company $2.5 billion if they do not work proactively, making its $2.79 billion operating profit from the 2024-2025 fiscal year useless. Workers assemble vehicles on the production line at the Subaru Corp. Gunma Yajima Plant in Ota, Gunma Prefecture, Japan. — Source: Getty Images However, the atmosphere around the shareholder meeting suggested that Subaru would heavily rely on the Forester as a savior for the marque. The latest version of the brand's most popular SUV first went on sale in the U.S. in 2024 with a purely gasoline version, followed by a Toyota-developed hybrid model released earlier this year. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Demand is already strong. According to figures from Subaru of America, 15,434 Foresters moved off dealer lots and into the driveways of new owners in May 2025. As of last month, 84,629 Foresters had been sold since the start of this year, a 3.5% year-over-year increase. In addition, Osaki noted that strong Forester sales in Japan could reduce the impact of U.S. tariffs. 'The new Forester is performing extremely well,' Osaki said. He also added that the hybrid version was selling beyond its expectations. The Subaru of Indiana Automotive Inc. (SIA) assembly plant stands in Lafayette, Indiana. — Source: Ty Wright/Bloomberg via Getty Images To help further cushion its tariff impact, Subaru plans to ramp up production in its U.S. factory in Indiana, its only overseas plant that makes finished cars. Starting this fall, Subaru will invest 40 billion yen (~$277 million) to begin producing the new Forester at the plant. The factory currently churns out around 340,000 to 350,000 vehicles annually, but Osaki said it could push past 400,000 with the new investment. Still, shifting more production away from Japan caused concern among shareholders. Subaru's domestic manufacturing operations are centered in Gunma prefecture, where many of its suppliers are also based. Osaki acknowledged the dilemma, noting that boosting U.S. output is impossible without its suppliers. 'It's true that it would improve our ability to deal with the tariffs, but it would be would be difficult without cooperation from all of our suppliers,' Osaki said in response to shareholder questions. 'We need to think about this comprehensively.' Final thoughts Subaru itself is in a precarious position. Last month, it informed dealers that price increases would add an additional $750 and $2,055 to the cost of vehicles, depending on the model and trim. Specifically, Forester buyers got a price hike between $1,075 and $1,600, depending on trim, while Crosstrek and Impreza buyers got hit by a $750 price bump. At the time, Subaru did not explicitly cite the tariffs as the reason behind the price bumps but noted that they are a response to 'current market conditions.' 'The changes were made to offset increased costs while maintaining a solid value proposition for the customer. Subaru pricing is not based on the country of origin of its products,' it said. Fast-forward to now, it seems that Subaru is proactive in recognizing what is working and what is not, though it is tough to tell what the tariff picture will be. According to a new report by Bloomberg, Japan's chief trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa is on his way to Washington, D.C., to hold his seventh round of trade negotiations with his American counterparts. About the Author James Ochoa View Profile
