Auto show pulls Tesla over safety concerns
The Vancouver International Auto Show removed Tesla products a day before the slated event over safety concerns.
'The Vancouver Auto Show's primary concern is the safety of attendees, exhibitors, and staff,' said Eric Nicholl, executive director of the Vancouver Auto International Show, in a statement.
'This decision will ensure all attendees can be solely focused on enjoying the many positive elements of the event.'
Tesla was reportedly given multiple chances to withdraw from the show, which will welcome exhibitors from Wednesday to Sunday.
In recent days, some Canadians have engaged in 'Tesla Takedown' protests urging patrons to sell their vehicles, ditch their stock and stop CEO Elon Musk from performing his role as a senior adviser to President Trump and Department of Government Efficiency leader in the Trump administration.
BC Hydro, a Canadian electric utility, has also pulled the company from its electrical vehicle rebate program in an effort to prioritize Canadian goods.
Musk said he was receiving pushback over his attempts to stop fraud and waste.
He told Fox News's Sean Hannity on Tuesday that 'when you take away people's … fraud, the money they're receiving fraudulently, they get very upset, and they basically want to kill me because I'm stopping their fraud.'
The tech giant added, 'And they want to hurt Tesla because we're stopping this terrible waste and corruption in the government. And, well, I guess they're bad people. Bad people do bad things.'
His comments come as some Tesla dealerships within the U.S. have been set on fire and vandalized.
The Hill has reached out to Tesla for comment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
34 minutes ago
- CNBC
Education Department wanted Treasury to help manage student loans
The U.S. Department of Education planned for the Treasury Department to take a hand in managing the country's $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio, recent court documents show. "The Department had been negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Treasury Department regarding student loan management," Rachel Oglesby, the chief of staff at the Education Dept., said in a court declaration filed late on Tuesday. The agreement involved moving nine Education Dept. employees from the agency's Federal Student Aid Default Collections Unit to Treasury "to discuss collections activities," a spokesperson for the Education Department told CNBC. Education Department plans with the Treasury Department are now on hold after U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston blocked the Trump administration on May 22 from its efforts to dismantle the Education Department. Joun ordered the department to rehire the more than 1,300 employees affected by mass layoffs in March, and blocked the department from transferring student loans to the Small Business Administration. More from Personal Finance:Trump's 'big beautiful' bill could curb low-income tax creditWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill means for investorsWhat's happening with unemployed Americans — in 5 charts Experts say the Treasury talks are more evidence that the Trump administration hopes to reduce the role of the Education Department. President Donald Trump said on March 21 that the Small Business Administration, instead of the Education Department, would handle the country's debt. "They're all set for it," the president said of the SBA, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office. "They're waiting for it." At the time of Trump's announcement that student loans would move to the SBA, experts had said the next most logical agency would have been Treasury, since it already plays a role in collecting past-due debts from Americans through the Treasury Offset Program. Still, financial aid expert Mark Kantrowitz pointed out that The Higher Education Act of 1965 is "very clear" that the Education Department's Federal Student Aid office is "responsible for student loans." "It will require an act of Congress," Kantrowitz said, to move the loans to either the SBA or Treasury. Consumer advocates express worries that the mass transfer of accounts to another agency could trigger errors, or compromise borrowers' privacy. They also raised concerns about how a change in agency might affect unique student loan protections, and programs such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness. More than 42 million Americans hold federal student loans.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
The number of Americans filing for jobless claims last week remains at the highest level in 8 months
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. filings for jobless benefits were unchanged last week, remaining at the higher end of recent ranges as uncertainty over the impact of trade wars lingers. New applications for jobless benefits numbered 248,000 for the week ending June 7, the Labor Department said Thursday. Analysts had forecast 244,000 new applications. A week ago, there were 248,000 jobless claim applications, which was the most since early October and a sign that layoffs could be trending higher. Weekly applications for jobless benefits are considered representative of U.S. layoffs and have mostly bounced around a historically healthy range between 200,000 and 250,000 since COVID-19 throttled the economy five years ago, wiping out millions of jobs. In reporting their latest earnings, many companies have either trimmed their sales and profit expectations for 2025 or not issued guidance at all, often citing President Donald Trump's dizzying rollout of tariff announcements. Though Trump has paused or dialed down many of his tariff threats, concerns remain that a tariff-induced global economic slowdown could sabotage what's been a robust U.S. labor market. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has said the potential for both higher unemployment and inflation are elevated, an unusual combination that complicates the central bank's dual mandate of controlling prices and keeping unemployment low. Powell said that tariffs have dampened consumer and business sentiment. In early May, the Federal Reserve held its benchmark lending rate at 4.3% for the third straight meeting after cutting it three times at the end of last year. Last week, the Labor Department reported that U.S. employers slowed their hiring in May, but still added a solid 139,000 jobs despite uncertainty over Trump's trade wars. In a separate report last week, Labor reported that U.S. job openings rose unexpectedly in April, but other data suggested that Americans are less optimistic about the labor market. The report showed that the number of Americans quitting their jobs — a sign of confidence in their prospects — fell, while layoffs ticked higher. In another sign the job market has cooled from the hiring boom of 2021-2023, the government reported one job for every unemployed person. As recently as December 2022, there were two vacancies for every jobless American. The government has estimated that the U.S. economy shrank at a 0.2% annual pace in the first quarter of 2025, a slight upgrade from its first estimate. Growth was slowed by a surge in imports as companies in the U.S. tried to bring in foreign goods before Trump's massive tariffs went into effect. Trump is attempting to reshape the global economy by dramatically increasing import taxes to rejuvenate the U.S. manufacturing sector. The president has also tried to drastically downsize the federal government workforce, but many of those cuts are being challenged in the courts and Congress. On Wednesday, Google confirmed that it had offered buyouts to another swath of its workforce in a fresh round of cost-cutting ahead of a court decision that could order a breakup of its internet empire. Other companies that have announced job cuts this year include Procter & Gamble, Workday, Dow, CNN, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft and Facebook parent company Meta. The government's report on Thursday also showed that the four-week average of jobless claims, which evens out some of the weekly ups and downs during more volatile stretches, rose by 5,000 to 240,250. The total number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits for the week of May 31 jumped by 54,000 to 1.96 million, the most since November of 2021.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Least Bad Option Is a Trump Deal With Iran
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated June 12, 2025, 8:20a.m. Having once described Donald Trump as Israel's 'greatest friend ever,' Benjamin Netanyahu must be watching with some consternation as the American president enthusiastically pursues a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, the Israeli prime minister made every effort to stop the Obama administration's Iran deal in 2015. Trump exited that deal in 2018, perhaps partially at Netanyahu's urging. And now Trump is pursuing a deal of his own—his administration has even dropped a number of Iran hawks from its ranks, in what one pro-Israel D.C. outlet described as a 'purge.' But Israel's leaders shouldn't fear a new Iran nuclear deal. They may even find reasons to welcome it: Among a host of bad options for curbing Iran's nuclear program and pacifying a volatile region, a nuclear agreement between Trump and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be the least bad option for Israel, too. The need for a solution became more pressing just today, as the United Nations nuclear watchdog's board of governors has found Iran in violation of its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years—a possible prelude to the resumption of significant U.N. sanctions against Iran. American and European officials say that Israel is preparing a military strike against Iran, and the U.S. has moved some of its personnel out of the region in preparation. The Iranian foreign ministry described the U.N. watchdog report as political and said that it will establish a new enrichment center 'in a secure location.' No strike is likely to happen before the next round of talks on Sunday. And both the U.S. and Iran have compelling reasons to want a deal to stick. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. On Thursday, Trump called Iranian 'good negotiators' who were 'tough' and said the US was 'trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death.' Any agreement will require the two sides to reach an accord about whether Iran should maintain a capacity to enrich uranium on its own soil. The U.S., together with Israel, has strongly objected to any such prospect. 'WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 2. The Iranians insist on it—and, for their part, are playing a game of reverse psychology: 'This Guy Has No Will for a Deal,' read a headline in the semiofficial Tehran Times on June 7, referencing Trump. But both sides have compelling reasons to want these talks to come to something. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. Steven Witkoff, the Trump administration's top negotiator, has proffered a plan that reportedly suggests outsourcing Iran's uranium enrichment to a regional consortium. The enrichment would be for civilian purposes, and the consortium would include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Qatar and Turkey. The idea is to remove the technical capacity from Iranian hands and internationalize the process. Whether this consortium would do its work on Iranian soil or elsewhere, however, is not clear. And as Richard Nephew, an American diplomat who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, told me, this is the nub of the issue—'centrifuges in Iran'—in relation to which 'a consortium is window-dressing.' [Read: Trump's real secretary of state] Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to Iran's security establishment, told me that Iran has 'seriously studied' Washington's consortium proposal and could accept it only if at least some enrichment were to be done on Iranian soil. One option might be to use Iran's islands in the Persian Gulf for this purpose, he added. These are part of Iran but geographically close to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and therefore easier to monitor than the mainland. For Israel, the matter of where the enrichment happens is nonnegotiable. 'Israel would be willing to accept the consortium solution only if it is located outside of Iran, a condition that Iran, of course, will not accept,' Raz Zimmt, the head of the Iran program at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told me. 'This is Israel's official stance, and it enjoys near-unanimous support across the Israeli political spectrum.' The reasons for this are understandable: Iran's leaders, unlike many of their counterparts in the region, have never embraced a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead continue to clamor for the destruction of Israel. Just last month, Khamenei called Israel 'a cancerous, dangerous, and deadly tumor that must be removed from the region and it will be.' Israeli leaders are worried that a deal with Iran will not go far enough in disabling it from acting on its animus against Israel. In fact, hard-line Israelis cannot envision a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that doesn't involve the total dismantlement of its centrifuges and expatriation of its uranium. That's because the means to weaponize are already there. Even those, including Nephew, who advocate for a new deal caution that Iran's enrichment capacity has increased in the seven years since Trump left the 2015 agreement. Iran now has enough enriched uranium that if it sought to weaponize, it could build as many as 10 atomic weapons. Even if it shipped that stockpile elsewhere, the country would still have its advanced centrifuges. With these, experts say, Iran could hold on to just 5 percent of its current stockpile and still be able to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb inside of a month, and four bombs' worth in two months. Given this reality, according to Zimmt, the Israeli government believes that it is running out of time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And to this end, he told me, 'Israel clearly prefers no deal over a bad deal,' because without a deal, military strikes become thinkable. Many in Israel see such a confrontation as the best option—even though Iran's nuclear facilities are spread across its territory, and some are buried deep underground, making any military campaign likely to be drawn-out, complicated, and hazardous. The analysts I spoke with did not see much lasting good coming of such an assault. Nephew noted that the setback to Iran's nuclear program would likely be temporary and said that Israel would be 'infinitely better off with a good deal.' Gregory Brew, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, pointed out that Iran's regional proxies have been so weakened that Israel is in a particularly strong position at the moment. A negotiated settlement to the nuclear question could allow Israel to build on its advantage by pursuing closer ties to Arab states. This 'would be a win for Israeli security and the region as a whole,' Brew said. Back in 2015, the Arab states of the Gulf region were leery of a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal. They had poor relations with Iran and worried that an agreement might exclude their interests. Now those relations have softened, and most of the Gulf states are eager for an arrangement that could cool the region's tempers. Their support for diplomacy should be good news for Israel, which already has diplomatic, trade, and military ties with two Gulf countries (the UAE and Bahrain). The Saudis have conditioned normalization on Israel's allowing for a Palestinian state, but their language is pragmatic—Riyadh's overwhelming interest appears to be in economic development, which regional conflict only undermines. A nuclear deal that draws in the Gulf states would undoubtedly serve to better integrate Iran into the region's economy. Some in Israel may balk at this idea, preferring to see Iran isolated. But there is a case to be made that giving Iran a stake in regional peace and stability would do more to de-radicalize its foreign policy than caging it has done. Some in Israel remain skeptical. 'I don't believe that Saudi or Emirati participation in the deal carries any real significance,' Zimmt said. 'It's not something that would reassure Israel, certainly not before normalization with Saudi Arabia, and not even necessarily afterward.' Other Israeli critics of Trump and Witkoff chastise them for mistaking the ideologically driven actors of the Middle East for transactional pragmatists like themselves. [Daniel Byman: Trump is making Netanyahu nervous] But leaders and peoples—in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Damascus, Beirut—have grown tired of wars around religion and ideology, and many are ready to pursue development instead. This explains why Syria's new leaders have embraced Trump and promised not to fight Israel. Iran is not immune to this new regional mood. Iranian elites have reason to fear that the failure of talks will bring about devastating military strikes. But they also have reason to hope that the lifting of sanctions, and even a partial opening for the country's beleaguered economy, will be a boon to some of the moneyed interests close to the regime. Najafi told me that Iran already has a shared interest with Arabs in trying to avoid a confrontation between Israel and Iran: 'Arabs know that any military action by Israel against Iran could destroy their grand developmental projects in the region,' he said. I've talked with Iranian elites for years. Most of them have no interest in Islamism or any other ideology. They send their sons and daughters to study in American and Swiss universities, not to Shiite seminaries in Iraq or Lebanon. Khamenei's zealotry is very unlikely to outlive him in Iran's highest echelons of power. A diplomatic deal, however flawed, will not only curtail Iran's nuclear program but also put the country on a path defined by its economic and pragmatic interests. A more regionally integrated Iran is likely to be much less belligerent, as it will have relations with the Saudis and Emiratis to maintain. The regime will likely be forced to drop many of its revolutionary pretensions, as it already has toward Saudi Arabia: Iran once considered the kingdom illegitimate, but it now goes out of its way to maintain good ties with Riyadh. Although this might sound unthinkable today, ultimately the regime will have to drop its obsession with Israel as well, for the same pragmatic reason that Arab countries have done in the past. The alternative to a deal is an extensive military campaign—most likely, a direct war between Iran and Israel—with unpredictable consequences. The notion that such a confrontation would lead to positive political change in Iran is a fantasy. Just as likely, the regime will hunker down under duress, prolonging its hold on power. This is why even the most pro-Israel figures in the Iranian opposition, such as former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, oppose military strikes on Iran. Iran's population harbors very little hostility to Israel. A group of student activists recently tried to organize an anti-Israel rally at the University of Tehran, but only a couple of dozen people joined them, a small fraction of those who have turned out for rallies in Cairo, Amman, or New York City. But a direct war that costs Iranian civilian lives would easily change this. The future of Iran and Israel does not need to lie in hostility. That's why a deal that keeps Iran from going nuclear and avoids military strikes is the least bad option for everyone. Article originally published at The Atlantic
