Mark Carney, Canadian Prime Minister:
Our government understood before many that America would transform all of its commercial relationships, that it would put a series of tariffs on its closest allies and use economic integration as a weapon. We recognize that sometimes its signature was written in pencil.
Geoff Bennett:
The breakdown threatens to deepen the economic fallout on both sides of the border and raises new questions about the future of North American trade.
For a view from Canada now, we're joined by Peter Armstrong, senior business correspondent for the CBC.
Thank you for being with us.
Peter Armstrong, CBC Senior Business Reporter:
Thanks for having me, Geoff.
Geoff Bennett:
And President Trump, as you well know, has long argued that Canada takes advantage of the U.S. when it comes to trade. What does the data actually show?
Peter Armstrong:
Yes, I mean, it it's an argument that really infuriates Canadians, because, for the most part, that trade deficit that the U.S. runs is only because America decided to buy more safe, friendly, next-door-to-them oil from Canada.
Were it not for oil, there wouldn't be a trade deficit at all. And, in fact, if you look at it and include services, so everything from consulting to software to digital streaming, that trade deficit shrinks to basically nothing. I think it's $40 billion at that point.
So the argument that the trade deficit is what's behind all this, economists will tell you, I run a trade deficit with my dentist. It doesn't make him a bad guy that's trying to rip me off. It means I use the services he provides and he spends my money somewhere else in my community, and it all kind of works out well.
Geoff Bennett:
When the president writes, "We don't need Canada, they need us," economically, how accurate is that? Is Canada more vulnerable in this trade war than the U.S.?
Peter Armstrong:
I mean, yes, Canada is more vulnerable, but that doesn't mean this isn't being felt already by American producers, American businesses, American households, and consumers, right?
Like, just take the auto industry. The automakers in North America have paid out something to the tune of $110 billion in the last 18 months alone in tariffs and costs due to the disruptions. And we've seen a pretty significant drop-off in U.S. made cars coming to Canada. Canada is the number one export market for everything in the United States.
It's the number one export market for cars as well. And a 27 percent drop-off has meant, like, I think it's a $7 billion loss for U.S. automakers. And you look at what else do they need, we provide an awful lot of the oil that gets turned into gasoline for American consumers, right, 25 percent of refinery throughput.
Put another way, the oil that goes into refinery to become gasoline, 25 percent of that comes from Canada. And so it's been this really helpful, really reliable, really friendly relationship for 60, 70 years. And the undoing of that, if that's in fact the goal is to undo the economic ties between these two countries, is not going to come without pain for people on both sides of the border.
Geoff Bennett:
And that remarkable phrase from the prime minister that America's signature was written in pencil, given the depth of the U.S.-Canada relationship, what does it say when a Canadian prime minister is now publicly questioning whether the U.S. can be relied upon?
Peter Armstrong:
Well, a couple of things.
You have to take into account the ferocious anger and sense of betrayal that I think a lot of Canadians are feeling right now. And it's not just this round of tariffs. It's not just the last round of tariffs, and it's not just the constant berating of, we're going to turn Canada into the 51st state, or that they refer to the prime minister as governor, and these other sort of just disrespectful ways of treating your closest trading partner.
But the cumulative effect of all of that really has weight. And then you have to think about the fact that what we're undoing here is the USMCA agreement that was signed into effect during Trump's last term. It's not like this was a deal that was made 40 years ago by some other -- a Democrat or somebody that he disagrees with.
This was made by Donald Trump, by Jamieson Greer, by American officials that are still part of this administration. And they said at the time this is the greatest trade deal in history and it was going to benefit everybody on both sides of the border.
And then literally on day one of the administration, they came in and said, well, that deal's no good anymore. We want to restart everything. So you do have to wonder how much an agreement that we might have made would have been worth and whether at the last minute or in six months or in a year from now the terms of that agreement would have been torn up.
So I do feel some sympathy for the prime minister trying to carve a way through all of that uncertainty to find a deal that's good for both economies, but especially for Canada for his constituents.
Geoff Bennett:
The ferocious anger that you speak of, when Carney describes what's happening in terms approaching an economic war, is that how Canadians broadly see this rupture with the U.S.?
Peter Armstrong:
They do, absolutely.
And to put it very plainly, again, it's not just the tariffs. And it's not just the threats of economic annexation or this -- like, today, the vice president of the United States referred to Canada as a state. This is not something that I think anybody in the United States would accept from any other country talking about your country.
Nobody here is accepting it as something that should be reasonable or taken reasonably here in this part of the country. And they have taken lots of measures to push back, but the ones that seem to get under the skin of the administration the most are the two that have nothing to do with the federal government.
It's the provinces that have taken American alcohol off the shelves of liquor stores in eight of 10 provinces. And it's been a really grassroots move by Canadian consumers and households to not travel to the United States while these tariffs are in place. Both of those have come with enormous costs to tourism-heavy regions and to California wines and Kentucky bourbons.
COYNE: It was touching on issues that went way beyond mere tariffs. I mean, the tariff part was problematic enough. And then on top of that - and I don't have the chapter and verse on this but according to the prime minister, there were demands made that would limit our ability to sign trade treaties with other countries and to trade freely with other countries. And that really touches so closely on sovereignty and, particularly, it's our strategy in dealing with this president who was trying to weaponize our dependence on U.S. trade against us. Our strategy is to try to trade more with other countries. So to be told we couldn't do that was just clearly not going to be accepted.
FLORIDO: What has been the reaction in Canada to Prime Minister Carney's decision to reject a deal with the U.S.?
COYNE: Pretty universally supportive. Trade negotiations are always - can be hardball. People understand that. People understand, also, that trade negotiations are usually about trade. They're usually about countries that would like to trade more closely with each other but they have some sensitive sectors that they want to protect.
In this case, I think the perception and the reality in Canada is that the president wants to dominate us, wants to use trade as a weapon to coral us and to make us into something of a vassal state. And that belief is very firmly held across all parties in this country, for the most part, and all regions of the country.
FLORIDO: Even so, you know, Canadian businesses are going to be hurt by this trade war, by retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. How are industries feeling about being sucked into a trade war?
COYNE: Very apprehensive, and rightly so. The auto industry in this country, which is a huge industry in the large province of Ontario, is looking at a very bleak future with or without this deal. But I think even industry was reacting to the particular terms of this deal saying we can't possibly accept that.
FLORIDO: Carney gave a well-received speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, and he talked about a rupture in the world order without mentioning the U.S. directly. Now he is saying, in his words, America has changed. Is his willingness to stand up to Trump defining Carney as a politician, you think?
COYNE: Yes, very much so. And this is a guy, you know, who worked at Goldman Sachs, you know, studied at Harvard, he's part of the business community. He's not your typical, you know, lefty anti-America, if anybody's trying to portray him that way. This is a guy who would like to get deals done. He's been a dealmaker of one kind or another all his life. But I think he also understands the stakes for the country. And I think he understands that this is a moment when he has to lead and has to, you know, summon the will of the country to deal with this existential threat. I think a lot of Canadians would say, at this point, they think he's rising to the challenge.
So here, according to Trump and his officials, is the state of the war with Iran: Iran has been totally defeated and is desperate for a deal — indeed, Trump has announced that a deal is imminent on at least six distinct occasions. Also, because there is no deal, and Iran is intransigent, Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, is preparing what he calls an “economic D-Day,” economic sanctions that will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — a tricky proposition since, according to those same officials, Iran is already on its knees. But whatever.
What you need to know is that this economic campaign will fail as thoroughly as the military campaign.
The U.S. plan, or maybe just a concept of a plan, appears to be “Blockade me? No, blockade you!”
On one side, the U.S. is trying to restore the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz despite Iranian threats. At least some tankers are running the strait “dark,” with their transponders off. Private insurers won’t cover the risks of these runs, so the U.S. government is providing insurance instead. And U.S. military forces are providing some protection against Iranian drones and missiles.
This part of the plan is, dare I say it, not entirely stupid. Clearly at least some oil is making it out. The Trump administration says 8 million barrels a day, which would be a significant amount if true. Unfortunately, that figure is coming from Trump officials, who have zero credibility, so it’s anyone’s guess how big the number really is.
More important, however, is the fact that even a successful re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz matters a lot less now than it would have a few months ago. There are two main reasons ending Iran’s blockade of the Strait, even if possible, will be ineffective.
First is the sheer scale of the U.S. military failure in the Persian Gulf. Not only did U.S. attacks on Iran fail to overthrow the regime, Iranian attacks have forced the U.S. to abandon many of its bases in the region. The loss of these bases, combined with the depletion of U.S. stocks of interceptors and other munitions, means that America is effectively unable to defend its Gulf allies.
So what will happen if Iran feels that its blockade of Hormuz isn’t doing enough damage? It can and will escalate to attacks on oil facilities all around the region. And there’s very little America could do to stop it.
The hottest competition in Washington, D.C. these days is not any political race nor is it the ridiculous “grand prix” that bumped its way across the city’s potholed streets this week as the latest entertainment to soothe Mr. Harp, our president.
No, it’s the ongoing contest among Trump’s Cabinet members to demonstrate who is the worst among them. When Trump spoke of “the worst of the worst” during his campaign, not everyone was clear on the fact that he was referring to his future stable of advisors.
That is no small distinction. We have had some bad Cabinet secretaries in our history. Remember Don Rumsfeld? Remember Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell? What about former Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall, who was at the center of the Teapot Dome Scandal? He was the first Cabinet secretary ever to be convicted of a crime and sent to prison. How about A. Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson’s atrocious attorney general who drummed up Steven Miller-like hatred for foreigners and oversaw mass arrests and deportations during one of America’s first Red Scare eras? Let’s go back further? Grant’s Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just before he was impeached for receiving kickbacks.
When masked agents pounded on the windows of the family vehicle, Army Sgt. Hedar Leonel Turcios Juárez's six-year-old daughter started crying.
She sat, buckled into her car seat, as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ordered the windows rolled down and announced they would be detaining Cristy Maryori Villafranca Trejo - the child's mother and Turcios's wife - for a missed court appearance.
The child watched as the figures handcuffed her mother and removed her from the vehicle.
"It took me a minute to realize what was going on - my heart just dropped," Turcios told Military Times about the encounter. "It was very hard looking at my daughter crying because of what was going on and not being able to do something and keep my family together."
On July 11, ICE detained Villafranca Trejo as the family drove home after a trip to Walmart. Turcios said he observed a vehicle following his family out of their military housing subdivision on the way to the store and then, when the family left Walmart, it reappeared.
He was pulled over shortly after, the sergeant said, as unmarked vehicles boxed in the family's Dodge Durango.
"All I was trying to do was stay calm because my daughter was watching everything that was going on and that was already a lot for her," he said more than a month after his wife was detained. "She's only six, and she was going through a lot. She's still going through a lot right now."
A bakery owner in North Carolina says he denied entry to President Trump’s former Border Patrol commander during an encounter on Sunday.
Manolo Betancur, the owner of Manolo’s Bakery in Charlotte, says he told Gregory Bovino he was not welcome on his property. Bovino was previously one of the faces of Trump’s immigration crackdown, overseeing operations in Minneapolis and Charlotte.
In a statement posted on Instagram, Betancur said he engaged in a “tense conversation” about immigration enforcement in the city and that Bovino asked why the bakery owner regularly carries his U.S. passport.
“Because people are being pursued because of the color of their skin, not because of their nationality,” Betancur responded.
The bakery’s statement also addressed Operation Charlotte’s Web, which saw the U.S. Department of Homeland Security flooding immigration enforcement officers into Charlotte.
“This is bigger than Manolo’s Bakery,” the statement said. “Families are afraid, employees are afraid to go to work, customers are afraid to leave their homes, and small businesses are paying the price.”
The notice of appeal, filed Sunday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, acknowledged that the order requiring Epstein files to be handed over to the court may not even be appealable. Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had given Blanche until August 25 to hand over Epstein-related documents.
Sullivan granted Phang a preliminary injunction on June 25, according to NOTUS.
"By not responding substantively, the Attorney General has conceded Ms. Phang's merits arguments," the judge wrote.
Trump is not facing any criminal charges and has repeatedly denied any and all wrongdoing as it relates to his conduct with Epstein.
The Justice Department (DOJ) has not released the sought-after handwritten FBI notes, which are among the Epstein-related files being sought by former MSNBC host and attorney Katie Phang with her ongoing lawsuit. The agency has justified withholding Epstein-related files by describing them as “duplicative” of material already released.
On Saturday, however, data researcher and writer Rye Howard-Stone released a new report regarding nearly two dozen of the FBI notes – which he claimed had been uploaded by journalist Kaelan Deese of the conservative Washington Examiner. The notes themselves also revealed, according to Phang, that they were not, in fact, “duplicative” of any documents released thus far.
Lieu took to X to publicly call out Blanche.
“Dear [Blanche]: Please tell us the exception under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that allowed you to withhold the below FBI interview notes from the American people,” Lieu wrote Saturday in a social media post on X, tagging Blanche’s account on X and resharing commentary related to the discovery of the FBI notes.
Lawmakers seek answers on glaring quality of life and operational issues aboard not only the USS Lincoln—but the USS Ford and USS Benfold, which recently suffered a dayslong power outage
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA),Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Chris Coons (D-DE), Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao calling for the Department of Defense (DOD) to immediately open an independent strategic review of the extended deployments of the USS Ford and USS Lincoln, as well as the USS Benfold’s four-day power loss.
“We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the recent extended deployments of the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Abraham Lincoln, and the USS Benfold’s recent undisclosed power loss, and what it means for our sailors, Marines, and their families, as well as for the Navy’s overall military readiness,” write Murray and Coons. “Given the serious quality of life and operational concerns that have been documented and the Department’s inability—or refusal—to provide the congressional defense committees with full and accurate information, we request that the Navy initiate an immediate independent strategic review of these deployments, and brief Congress on its findings.”
The lawmakers note that a variety of serious quality of life issues have been documented aboard these aircraft carriers, and servicemembers and their families deserve better: “This administration has tried to downplay or paper over these reports, but the fact is our servicemembers and their families have reported alarming concerns that deserve redress and accountability.”
Murray and Coons call on DOD to immediately conduct a review of these issues and to provide, in the meantime, responses to a series of questions about the extended deployments by September 1, 2026.
Full text of the letter is available HERE and below:
Dear Secretary Hegseth and Acting Secretary Cao:
We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the recent extended deployments of the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Abraham Lincoln, and the USS Benfold’s recent undisclosed power loss, and what it means for our sailors, Marines, and their families, as well as for the Navy’s overall military readiness. Given the serious quality of life and operational concerns that have been documented and the Department’s inability—or refusal—to provide the congressional defense committees with full and accurate information, we request that the Navy initiate an immediate independent strategic review of these deployments, and brief Congress on its findings.
While the reporting that the Lincoln is now on its way home is welcome news, we still have many unanswered questions about the quality of life issues reported on these ships. This administration has tried to downplay or paper over these reports, but the fact is our servicemembers and their families have reported alarming concerns that deserve redress and accountability. Our military family members with loved ones serving on these ships deserve honest answers, and the Pentagon’s denials to date are an insult to the service of these sailors and Marines.
These firsthand accounts from the Ford, Lincoln, and Benfold have included mental health and morale concerns, supply issues for basic necessities such as food, clean water and hygiene items, air conditioning, and cleanliness and sewage issues in bathrooms. There have also been reports of long lines at the mess halls and ship stores and disrupted and lost mail service. After working long shifts on duty during combat operations, our sailors and Marines should not have to worry about basic day-to-day functions, whether they’ll have a full meal, or be able to communicate with their family members.
It also appears that the Navy was inadequately prepared for predictable risks associated with the Iran war, and we are deeply concerned about the implications for future operations or management of a peer conflict. Among these concerns is the availability of replacement carrier groups across the combatant commands and the disruption of the Navy’s supply chain in the Middle East. We are also concerned about the future unbudgeted maintenance costs for the Ford and Lincoln and the length of time required to complete these repairs, which have not yet been outlined to Congress despite our requests.
We insist you immediately direct an independent strategic review of the extended deployments of the Ford and Lincoln, and the Benfold’s four-day power loss. This review should be conducted by senior civilian executives and former military officers. It should examine readiness issues relating to operations, manning, quality of life, including mental health, and culture on the ships as well as communications with the crews’ families. The review should provide recommendations in these areas to improve future extended deployments for sailors and Marines serving on carriers and all other Department of the Navy vessels.
As you begin this investigation, please also provide responses to the following questions:
- Will the Lincoln make a port call along its voyage home, allowing sailors and Marines to enjoy critical relief from intense combat operations?
- When is the next town hall and virtual meeting scheduled for families of the sailors and Marines serving on the Lincoln? Will these outreach meetings continue on a regular basis until the carrier arrives home?
- What homecoming support resources have been provided to the sailors and Marines on the Ford and their families since returning home? Will the same or additional resources be provided to the sailors and Marines on the Lincoln and their families?
- What mental health and sexual assault prevention and response resources are available to the sailors and Marines on the Ford and Lincoln?
- When will the congressional defense committees receive the final command investigation report from the extensive laundry fire on the Ford, which destroyed berthing quarters?
- What actions has the Navy taken to address and prevent future power issues on the Benfold?
- What steps is the Navy taking to prevent similar quality of life issues on the USS George H.W. Bush and USS George Washington and other ships currently deployed in the Middle East and globally?
- What were the Navy’s operational and contingency plans for deploying the Ford first to the Caribbean for Operation Southern Spear and then immediately to the Middle East?
- What were the Navy’s contingency plans for supply chain disruption and being forced to remain at sea rather than docked at an ally’s port?
- What is the maintenance schedule for the Ford and Lincoln? What are the costs associated with these repairs?
- What is the Navy’s contingency plan to meet force requirements, including during any potential conflict, while two carriers are undergoing unplanned maintenance?
We request a written response to these questions and establishment of an independent strategic review by September 1, 2026. Thank you for your prompt attention to these important issues.
Sincerely,
###
-
-
Chump refuses to face the truth7 hours ago
-
Chump and his wig7 hours ago
-
Shelley Fabares7 hours ago
-
-
The rats7 hours ago
-
Mushroom Bolognese in the Kitchen7 hours ago
