Trump family announces another venture, a mobile phone company
NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump family said it will launch a mobile phone company, the latest in a string of ventures that have been announced while Donald Trump is in the White House despite ethical concerns that the U.S. president could mold public policy for personal gain.
Eric Trump, one of President Donald Trump's sons who will run the business, said that the new company would build its own phones in the U.S., and maintain a call center in the country as well.
The announcement of the new mobile phone company and service follows several real estate deals for towers and resorts in the Middle East, including a golf development in Qatar announced in April. A $1.5 billion partnership to build golf courses, hotels and real estate projects in Vietnam was approved last month, but the deal was in the works before Trump was elected.
Trump criticized Apple last month because it planned to make most of its U.S. iPhones in India, and threatened to slap a 25% tariff on the devices unless the tech giant starts building the product in its home country.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
43 minutes ago
- CTV News
U.S. Judge extends order suspending Trump's block on Harvard's incoming foreign students
Students walk through Harvard Yard, April 27, 2022, on the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File) BOSTON — U.S. President Donald Trump's order to block incoming foreign students from attending Harvard University will remain on hold temporarily following a hearing Monday, when a lawyer for the Ivy League school said its students were being used as 'pawns.' U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston extended a temporary restraining order on Trump's proclamation until June 23 while she weighs Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction. Burroughs made the decision at a hearing over Harvard's request, which Trump's Republican administration opposed. Burroughs granted the initial restraining order June 5, and it had been set to expire Thursday. Trump moved to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard earlier this month, citing concerns over national security. It followed a previous attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard's ability to host foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Burroughs has temporarily blocked that action, too, and is weighing whether it should remain on hold until the case is decided. Ian Gershengorn, a lawyer for Harvard, told Burroughs on Monday that Trump was 'using Harvard's international students as pawns' while arguing the administration has exceeded its authority in an attempt to retaliate against the school for not agreeing to the president's demands. Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than US$2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Foreign students were brought into the battle in April, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short, and on May 22 she revoked Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world's top students and harmed Harvard's reputation as a global research hub, the school said in its lawsuit. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the suit said. The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong. Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. Binkley reported from Washington Kimberlee Kruesi And Collin Binkley, The Associated Press
Globe and Mail
44 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Poilievre to face leadership review in January
Conservative Party members will vote in January on whether Pierre Poilievre should remain as leader after his party failed to win April's election. The vote will take place in Calgary, the party's national council determined during a meeting Saturday, three sources told The Globe and Mail. Some within the Conservative Party were suggesting a March convention, but two of the sources told The Globe that Mr. Poilievre wanted to have the leadership vote sooner. No firm date for the vote has been established, but the party is targeting the last week in January for the event. Calgary was chosen because it could accommodate the event, the sources said. The Globe is not identifying the sources as they were not authorized to publicly discuss national council decisions. A spokesperson for the Conservative Party declined to comment. Robyn Urback: Mark Carney's early moves are making the Conservatives look like waterboys Throughout 2024, Mr. Poilievre's party seemed certain to win the election scheduled for October, 2025. Polls suggested they had a double-digit lead over the governing Liberals, numbers linked both to Mr. Poilievre's economic focus and widespread discontent with then-Liberal leader and prime minister Justin Trudeau. After the election of Donald Trump last November, the ground began to shift as the U.S. President imposed a range of tariffs on Canada and mused about the country becoming the 51st state. The dispute set off a surge of nationalist fervour, and support for the Liberals began to inch up as the question for Canadians became who was best to go up against Mr. Trump. Then, Mr. Trudeau resigned, and former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney became prime minister, dissolved Parliament and called an election. He led the Liberals to a fourth-term victory, albeit another minority. Mr. Poilievre's party picked up more seats in the April 28 vote than they held in the last Parliament and increased their share of the popular vote. Lawrence Martin: Post-Mulroney, the Conservatives' brand is 'loser.' It's time for an overhaul The Conservative Party's constitution states that at the first national convention after an election the party doesn't win – if the leader hasn't resigned – 'the delegates will vote by secret ballot if they wish to engage the leadership selection process.' Mr. Poilievre also lost his seat in the April election. He is expected to run in the Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot. Mr. Carney has said he will call a by-election as soon as is feasible. Though the Conservatives have failed to win the past four elections, this will be the party's first leadership review since 2004, when then-leader Stephen Harper won handily. He went on to win government for the Conservatives in the 2006, 2008 and 2011 elections and then resigned after his defeat in 2015. Neither of his replacements – Andrew Scheer and Erin O'Toole – remained in their positions long enough after the 2019 and 2021 elections to face party membership. Some Tories say the collapse of the NDP vote is the reason they failed to defeat the Liberals this year. Others have said the campaign didn't adjust when it became clear the stakes were changing. 'We didn't pivot quickly enough,' Conservative MP Brad Vis told the podcast Bigger Than Me earlier this month. 'We were rightfully focused on cost-of-living issues, on changes that we need to see in the Criminal Code, but we didn't speak enough about the challenges that Donald Trump raised before and during the election in a quick enough manner that Canadians thought we were the best party to govern the country.'
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
A parade, protests and assassinations: tensions keep rising in Trump's America
Debra Thompson is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail. This weekend, the United States was once again enveloped in a spectacle of contrasts. A military parade in the nation's capital was meant to flaunt state power while city streets across the country thrummed with anti-Trump protestors and their fragmented demands. And both occurred in the wake of the horrific, cold-blooded assassination of a Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota. The events are not unrelated, though none directly caused the others. In a fundamental way, the ritual, the resistance, and the tragedy are united by the spectre of political violence: the threat of it, the rejection of it, and the frightening reality of it. Saturday began with news of a political assassination. Melissa Hortman, a Democratic state representative, and her husband Mark were killed, and state Senator John A. Hoffman, also a Democrat, and his wife Yvette were believed to have been wounded by the same suspected gunman, Vance Boelter, who was apprehended late on Sunday evening. Governor Tim Walz said the shootings appeared to be 'politically motivated,' and a notebook belonging to Mr. Boelter included the names and locations of about 70 potential targets, including doctors, community and business leaders, and Planned Parenthood centres. Analysis: The great theatre of Donald Trump's U.S. military parade In Washington, President Donald Trump sought to have a parade to celebrate the United States Army's 250th anniversary and his own 79th birthday through an expression of military might. The parade, which Mr. Trump had wanted since his first term in the Oval Office, featured dozens of tanks and artillery vehicles alongside more than 6,000 uniformed troops. In his closing remarks, Mr. Trump declared, 'Every other country celebrates their victories. It's about time America did too. That's what we're doing tonight.' At the same time, the 'No Kings' rallies drew an estimated five million protestors in over 2,000 events across the country. The demonstrations, organized by a coalition of progressive organizations, were construed as 'a nationwide day of defiance … to reject authoritarianism.' The protests were largely non-violent, though one bystander was killed by security forces after they confronted a would-be shooter with an AR-15-style rifle in Salt Lake City, and police fired tear gas into crowds in Los Angeles after a 4 p.m. dispersal order. It was a weekend in which these varying forms of, and challenges to, political violence each overshadowed and complicated the others. The abstract, valourized violence of the military – organized, unified, non-partisan – was challenged by the counter-narrative of ordinary citizens with fragmented interests contesting authoritarian drift. And both were eclipsed by politically motivated assassinations, a direct form of anti-democratic violence that is both a symptom and accelerant of political radicalization. The events of this past weekend tied together the uneasy presence of violence inside a democratic polity. Mr. Trump's military parade was never going to be a simple celebration of American history. It is, as with many other of Mr. Trump's directives, an attempt to reweigh the underlying values of American democracy. This performance of state power at a moment of domestic unrest, on the President's birthday, is a reminder to both supporters and critics about who serves as the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military force. Power, in Mr. Trump's view, is personal. Robyn Urback: Donald Trump campaigned on eroding democracy. Now, he's just fulfilling his promises Peaceful protests, by contrast, are an integral element of democracy, an aspiration to resolve political conflict by demonstrating solidarity with others and without resorting to violence. Yet, the No Kings protests arose against the backdrop of normalized, legal state repression, as immigration raids escalated. When protestors responded, Mr. Trump ordered the National Guard to deploy. Protestors across the country mobilized in defiance of the President's approach to immigration, the lack of transparency, the gutting of the federal public service and more, but were ultimately hampered by the fact that the democratic right to assemble and protest a democratically elected president is a tight knot of contradiction. And then there is the assassination of elected officials, political violence in its clearest, most irreducible, most dangerous form. What was once rare now seems to be getting more common: within the last year alone, there have been assassination attempts against Mr. Trump before the election, an arson attack that targeted the home of Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, and the murders of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington. Conflict is inevitable in democracies, but its expression as unabridged violence is a failure of democratic institutions and norms to mediate, channel and contain it. This task is made more difficult in a country that has always, to some degree, venerated violence and war as part of its national identity. The American Revolution is mythologized as an act of righteous rebellion and the right to bear arms is, after all, written into the constitution. The events of this weekend underscore the precarity of the situation. Whether American democracy under Mr. Trump can once again reclaim its ability to contain violence by keeping it without the bounds of ritualized displays like the parade and peaceful civil demonstrations remains an open question. But the stakes are indeed high: a democracy that cannot prevent political violence is likely to succumb to it.
