President Donald Trump will resume trade talks with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney after Canada decided late Sunday to rescind its 3% digital services tax on U.S. companies that profit from Canadian customers.
The tax was rescinded "in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States," the Canadian government said.
"Consistent with this action, Prime Minister Carney and President Trump have agreed that parties will resume negotiations with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025," Canada’s Department of Finance said in a news release.
The tax was due to be collected on Monday June 30, but that has now been halted.
Legislation in Canada to rescind the tax is expected to be enacted in the near future.
The tax has been in effect for roughly a year. It impacts companies including Amazon, Meta, Google, and Apple.
Trump terminated the trade talks on Friday because of the tax.
"They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
Trump also posted that Canada is "a very difficult Country to TRADE with" and has imposed 400% tariffs on some dairy products it exports to the U.S.
Canada is currently the largest trading partner of the U.S., so the lack of a deal would impact markets in both countries.
More U.S. exports go to Canada than any other country, and Canada is a major supplier to the U.S. of crude oil, natural gas, and electricity.
Trump knows he has to make a deal with Canada, but he also wants to fight for fairness in the trade between the two countries.
Outside of oil imports, the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, but with the oil included, there is a deficit.
Canada also holds over $300 billion of U.S. debt, but also owes the U.S. a significant amount of money.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued its final -- and for some, controversial -- opinions of the current term, and not long after, the topic of threats to the judiciary reared its head in public debate once more.
As Breitbart reports, Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday cautioned politicians and others to remain mindful of the fact that incendiary words about judges and their rulings can lead to serious threats of violence that, in a worst-case scenario, may even be acted upon.
Speaking at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judicial conference over the weekend, Roberts echoed familiar themes about the risk to judges of heated discourse regarding the exercise of their duties.
Though he refrained from singling out any political figures by name, it was clear to most that many of Roberts’ comments referenced President Donald Trump as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), both of whom have caught his attention in recent years due to their criticism of the judiciary.
Roberts lamented, “It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who’s doing his or her job is part of the problem. And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that.”
He continued, “And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges simply for doing their work.”
The chief justice added, “So I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind."
Roberts, on more than one occasion in recent years, has seen fit to speak out against comments made by Trump critical of particular judges and rulings.
In 2018, Roberts reacted harshly to Trump’s characterization of a jurist who ruled against him as an “Obama judge,” and just this year, he took issue with the president’s suggestion of impeachment for a judge who issued a decision unfavorable to the administration's deportation plans.
It is not just Trump who has drawn Roberts’ ire, however, as the chief justice also took note when Schumer seemed to threaten consequences for any justice who sided with pro-life arguments in a then-pending case before the high court, suggesting that they would “pay the price” for such an outcome.
Likely underpinning Roberts’ position on threats to members of the judiciary is the 2022 arrest of an armed man who traveled to the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with plans to assassinate him due to reports that the abortion precedent of Roe v. Wade was poised for reversal.
In light of recent developments at the high court, it seems unlikely that the political rhetoric -- and potentially dangerous language -- will abate anytime soon.
Last week, the majority opinion in a case dealing with the validity of nationwide injunctions, Justice Amy Coney Barrett laid bare her -- and perhaps other justices’ -- skepticism about Joe Biden-nominated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ability to do her job, as the Daily Wire noted, suggesting that her colleague’s dissent was startlingly unmoored to any consideration of statute, precedent, or “to any doctrine whatsoever.”
As valid as those concerns may well be, in an environment where there is already speculation that Jackson’s ascent to the court could potentially be negated if it was the product of Biden’s allegedly hijacked autopen, the potential for new -- and possibly -- dangerous political battles to open up appears limitless.
Eric Trump, son of President Donald Trump, hinted that he may wade into the political world after all, Newsmax reported. The president has long speculated about the prospect of his adult children joining him in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump was named Time's Person of the Year and sat for an interview in December. When asked about whether his children would follow suit, the then-president-elect said that Eric Trump was a possible contender.
"Eric is very capable, and a very different type [than Don Jr.]," Trump said of his middle son. Now, Eric Trump is also indicating it may be the next move for him.
Donald Trump is TIME's Person of the Year https://t.co/IjP5W2otV5 pic.twitter.com/CVHX9o0DB3
— TIME (@TIME) December 12, 2024
Eric Trump seems to be mulling the possibility, but isn't taking it lightly. In an interview with Financial Times, Eric Trump said that a foray into politics "would be an easy one" considering his father's clout.
"The real question is: 'Do you want to drag other members of your family into it?'" Eric Trump posited. He acknowledged that the prospect of a political dynasty for his family comes with many pitfalls.
"Would I want my kids to live the same experience over the last decade that I've lived? You know, if the answer was yes, I think the political path would be an easy one — meaning, I think I could do it," the 41-year-old said.
"And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too," he added. Donald Trump's other children have been tangentially involved in his political career, including his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, who served in his administration.
Donald Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has also been involved in the political world. However, it is Eric Trump and his wife, Lara Trump, who seem the most enthusiastic about a political future.
It seems Eric and Lara Trump are well-positioned for a transition into a formal political role. Lara Trump is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee and helped get her father-in-law elected to the White House.
According to the Associated Press, she stepped down from that role in December and left open the possibility of running for office to replace Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. His seat will up for a vote in the 2026 election season.
"It is something I would seriously consider. If I’m being completely transparent, I don’t know exactly what that would look like," Lara Trump told the AP at the time.
"And I certainly want to get all of the information possible if that is something that’s real for me. But yeah, I would 100% consider it," she added.
President Donald Trump has crafted an impressive political career and overcame numerous obstacles to achieve it. Now, his children can benefit from their father's success, as long as they're willing to endure the hardships that come with it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth excoriated Jennifer Griffin, a former Fox News colleague, when the reporter questioned the success of the U.S. attack on Iran's uranium enrichment, the UK Daily Mail reported. Hegseth has expressed a wider mistrust of the mainstream media.
Last weekend, the U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer to take out Iran's supply of enriched uranium. It was widely believed this was part of a clandestine nuclear program that has now been taken out, though reporters have attempted to undermine that success.
Griffen was one of those reporters who pushed back on the Pentagon's official remarks about the operation. Hegseth, a former Fox News weekend host, was not about to let his former co-worker get away with it, as a video from the briefing shared Thursday demonstrated.
Hegseth fielded questions about the White House's assessment of the operation. Griffin, a longtime Fox News Pentagon reporter, probed the defense secretary about whether all of the enriched uranium at the site was destroyed in the bombing attacks.
"There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that what we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations," Hegseth responded. Griffin pushed back trying to craft a narrative and asked if he had "certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was in Fordow" when the strike happened.
"There were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance? Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?" Griffin persisted.
"Of course, we're watching every single aspect," Hegseth replied. Then he quickly turned to personally admonish Griffin for her coverage that skews against the Trump administration.
"But Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the President says," Hegseth said. Griffin defended herself, noting she "was the first to describe the B-2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission, with great accuracy," and this made her "take issue" with Hegseth's remarks.
While Hegseth retreated briefly from his combativeness, another reporter followed up with a question that played off of Griffin's gripe last week about remarks made following the bombing. After the successful mission, Hegseth thanked "our boys" who made it possible.
Hegseth schooled the reporter in the room that he used the phrase as a blanket term for all of those involved in the mission, regardless of their sex. However, it was Griffin who first needled Hegseth about it on social media.
"We were able to destroy nuclear capabilities. And OUR BOYS in those bombers are on their way home right now," Griffin quoted Hegseth in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday, adding her own emphasis.
"Fox News has learned that at least one of the B2 pilots who took part in the Iran mission was female," Griffin sought to correct the record. This demonstrates that Griffin is at odds with President Donald Trump's Pentagon, or at least with her former colleague.
The mainstream media should be impartial and cover issues from a neutral standpoint. However, something about the Trump presidency has revealed their biases, and perhaps Griffin was just the latest to succumb to the force of such emotions.
Attorneys for disgraced music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs agreed not to use politics or the ongoing conflict with Iran as part of his defense strategy, the UK Daily Mail reported. Combs is facing a slew of charges for sex trafficking as his trial is expected to wrap up this week.
Sources claimed that Combs's team was considering whether to "invoke the recent conflict" in closing arguments. The attorneys contend that the Homeland Security Investigators who raided his Los Angeles home in March "instigated" the case with sensational details.
The 55-year-old's legal team apparently believes HSI should have been focused on Iran instead of his long-rumored deviant behavior. This comes after the U.S. destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons program with a missile strike Saturday that resulted in a temporary escalation.
On Monday, which marked the 28th day of the Diddy trial, Iran retaliated against the U.S. by lobbing missiles at American military bases in Qatar. Judge Arun Subramanian, who is presiding over the case, made it clear that using any of this in court would not be tolerated.
Combs is in the midst of a trial for charges of sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution, racketeering, and others. News of the novel strategy of including politics in the courtroom comes as Combs officially announced on Tuesday that he will not testify.
Marc Agnifilo, Combs's defense attorney, verified that he "discussed at length" the implications either way and that Combs made his decision accordingly. Combs confirmed it was his decision guided by his attorneys' legal advice, and the judge accepted it.
As for the prospect of using the Iran conflict in a last-ditch effort to defend himself, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey threatened to "object during defense summation" if it were invoked. "I really don't want to do that," Comey said, according to Fox News.
"So I just wanted to put on the record that we think it would be objectionable and crossing a line for any summation to bring us politics or current events or the propriety of this prosecution and the use of government resources," Comey added. The prosecutor warned the defense not "to cross over those lines" and promised to speak up if they did.
"I would object in the middle of his summation and ask the Court to instruct the jury to disregard any comments like that. So I just wanted to state that in advance of summations and the hope that it's not necessary," Comey clarified.
The judge noted "an agreement by the defense not to engage in any of that type of argument" that brought in the conflict in Iran. Subramanian had asked Combs's defense attorney whether there was "anything to worry about here" with this tactic.
"Nothing to worry about, Judge," Diddy's defense lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, responded. That response has shut down the possibility of the Iran conflict being part of the defense, but it only adds to the impression that the high-stakes case is about to implode on Combs.
Attorneys for Combs have an uphill climb if they hope to get him acquitted. While some charges may not stick, there are just too many piling up that seem to be well established by the prosecution.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Slavik charged that Combs believed "fame, wealth, and power put him above the law" when committing his alleged misdeeds and forcing others to do the same. "He wouldn’t take no for an answer," Slavik said, which is at the heart of this trial.
Defense attorneys for Combs have a tough road ahead if they wish to convince the jury of his innocence. It seems they're grasping at straws, and all of the fame, fortune, and excuses in the world won't be enough to get Combs out of trouble.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is predicting more wildfires because of President Donald Trump's policies, the Daily Caller reported. The state is about to go into its hot, dry season that often sparks off these fires no matter who is president.
Newsom has mismanaged his state into several crises, including wildfires. However, the California Democrat is blaming Trump for these preventable natural disasters rather than proactively preparing.
"Donald Trump isn’t just threatening CA’s disaster aid, he’s also pushing for dangerous cuts ahead of wildfire season. A 63% REDUCTION in the U.S. Forest Service’s budget. A 30% REDUCTION in workforce — 10,000 employees … He is literally playing politics with people’s lives," Newsom posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.
Donald Trump isn’t just threatening CA’s disaster aid, he’s also pushing for dangerous cuts ahead of wildfire season —
A 63% REDUCTION in the U.S. Forest Service’s budget. A 30% REDUCTION in workforce — 10,000 employees.
The agency is the nation’s largest firefighting entity.… pic.twitter.com/YrVKfyaBPv
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 20, 2025
For decades, legal roadblocks have hindered the effective implementation of forest management techniques in the name of environmental conservation. Fallen trees, dead leaves, and other materials pile up on forest floors.
Measures like controlled burns or cleanouts are tied up in litigation as the material dries out and becomes kindling waiting for a spark. Like most things Democrats have destroyed in the process of trying to help, this has been done to millions of acres of wilderness.
Meanwhile, Newsom and his ilk are looking to blame the inevitable results on Trump's climate change policies and cuts. In a second post made on Saturday, the governor said Trump was engaged in "sabotage" because an article claimed that 20% of the National Guard troops the president deployed were fighting wildfires.
This adds to the predictions Newsom made last month ahead of fire season. He stated that the cuts the Trump administration made to the bloated bureaucracy, including the Forest Service, would create "rampant uncertainty ahead of peak wildfire season."
Other Democrats are making similar predictions, including California Sen. Alex Padilla. In February, Padilla claimed Trump's "flagrantly illegal" budget cuts to conservation agencies would "jeopardize communities that depend on a robust federal response to our wildfire crisis."
Of course, wildlife expert and author Bob Zybach could see right through these accusations. "The problem isn’t all these massive numbers of wildfires," Zybach, who has run the Oregon Websites & Watersheds Project for nearly 30 years, told the Daily Caller.
"The problem is the financial end of it. It’s not Trump, it’s the people, the litigants, who keep suing to shut down the timber industry which has allowed the fuels to build up," Zybach charged.
Zybach said this is more than just a state problem, as federal regulations under then-President Bill Clinton massively hindered proper forest management long before Newsom. "In the 1970s and ’80s, California and Oregon didn’t have these fires," Zybach said.
"Then we put in the Clinton plan, the Northwest Forest Plan … I was on the cover of the national magazine Evergreen in 1994 and said, ‘If we put in the Clinton plan, we’re going to have catastrophic wildfires.’ And my predictions were accurate," Zybach noted.
These fires happen every year, and Newsom can spend this time preparing resources. Instead, Newsom and his cronies are too busy blaming Trump for a problem that has been brewing for decades and is made worse by climate change hysteria.
The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's ruling to give President Donald Trump's administration the ability to deport criminal illegal aliens to a third country, the BBC reported. The 6-3 decision on Monday fell along ideological lines among the justices.
The administration was sued after deporting certain illegal immigrants to places other than their countries of origin. The lower court demanded that the government provide a "meaningful opportunity" for illegal immigrants to have input in the matter.
The case involved eight migrants whom the administration called "the worst of the worst" offenders. These criminals from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Vietnam, deported last month, are now en route to South Sudan.
BREAKING 🚨 The Supreme Court hands Trump a MASSIVE Victory. Trump can resume deportations to third World countries like Sudan without notice
6-3 with Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson dissenting
THIS IS HUGE 🔥 pic.twitter.com/oq3ZbeUkbm
— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) June 23, 2025
Predictably, it was Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor who dissented from the majority. They called the practice "rewarding lawlessness," even as they sided with the criminal illegal immigrants.
In the initial decision handed down by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, he claimed these migrants who felt they would be killed or tortured would have the right to plead their case. Murphy, a Biden appointee, believed they had that right to voice concerns even if they had already exhausted their other legal appeals.
The dissenting justices called the deportations to a third country a "gross abuse" by the administration. Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion and railed against the measure.
"Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable," Sotomayor wrote.
While awaiting the decision, the migrants were kept at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. Now these deportees, who are considered serious criminals so bad their countries of origin won't take them, are headed for a place where their return won't be refused.
Despite the handwringing, it's clear that this is a positive move for Trump's mission of making America safe from illegal immigration. Sending migrants to a third country has many benefits, not the least of which is deterrence against future lawbreaking.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin touted the decision in a statement Monday. "The Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the safety and security of the American people," McLaughlin said.
"The Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and now, the Trump Administration can exercise its undisputed authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare," she noted. McLaughlin also chastised the justices for their lack of concern for America's safety.
"If these activist judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets. DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them. Fire up the deportation planes," McLaughlin said.
Figuring out how to deport and keep out illegal immigrants is imperative to America's security. This decision by the high court is the right one with those goals in mind.
Sources close to former Vice President Kamala Harris say she is seriously considering a run for governor in California in 2026, but hasn't made a final decision yet.
The sources told The Hill that Harris doesn't consider herself done with public service and that she has a "glimmer in her eye" when she talks about the possibility of running for governor.
“She has a lot of people in her ear telling her that it makes the most sense and she can do the most good,” one source said.
Another source pushed back on the idea that she's seriously considering a gubernatorial run, saying that the frequent conversations about doing so are happening because the time for making a decision is fast approaching.
Harris plans to take some time off in July for self-reflection, and has made a self-imposed deadline at the end of the summer when she will make a final decision, other sources said.
The Democrat primary field is already crowded and includes former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was also Health and Human Services Secretary under former President Joe Biden.
Harris has an early polling advantage, however.
Emerson College poll results in April showed her with 50% support from California voters, and Politico/UC Berkeley Citrin Center also showed she was the frontrunner in the race.
Despite the early polling lead, some analysts don't think she's necessarily a shoo-in for the race.
“She would start out, at least initially, as the front-runner. There’s no doubt about it because she has 100 percent name ID in California,” California-based Democratic strategist Gary South said. “I think there are real mixed feelings about her among California Democrats, and I think those mixed feelings would grow if she actually got into the race.”
“She doesn’t come into this as an 800-pound gorilla,” he added.
Questions have plagued her as well as Becerra about their awareness of Biden's decline and why they didn't intervene, and those questions would follow her into any political race she decided to enter.
“Voters deserve to know the truth, what did Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra know, when did they know it, and most importantly, why didn’t either of them speak out? This cover up directly led to a second Donald Trump term,” Villaraigosa wrote last month already in an attempt to weaken his potential rivals.
Her devastating loss to Trump in 2024 could also become an issue in her campaign, analysts said.
A business visionary responsible for creating one of America's most ubiquitous corporate enterprises back in the 1970s has passed away at the age of 80.
As the New York Post reports, FedEx founder and former CEO Frederick Smith has died, news revealed in a memo posted on the company's website by current CEO Raj Subramaniam.
While an undergraduate student at Yale University, Smith came to the conclusion while writing a paper for a business course that the burgeoning computer industry would spur the need for a nimble, reliable logistics and delivery system.
Seeing the potential for unlimited growth in this realm, Smith set about creating the shipping and delivery system that would become a household name, launching Federal Express in 1973.
Smith's innovative idea relied on the notion that a hub-and-spoke network would be far more efficient than a point-to-point model.
For that, both airplanes as well as trucks would be necessary, and therefore, he would need to raise massive amounts of capital to get the network up and running, a challenge he accepted and at which he succeeded.
Though his new company ran at a loss for its first 26 months, Smith's venture, now known as FedEx, boasts an estimated value of more than $16 billion and operates a fleet of 705 airplanes, in excess of 200,000 vehicles, and 5,000 facilities of its own.
Despite being the scion of a prominent and well-to-do southern family, as well as a graduate of an Ivy League University, Smith pointed to his military service as perhaps the greatest key to his success, as the Associated Press notes.
Smith joined the Marines after completing his studies at Yale, going into the service as a second lieutenant and leaving as a captain after two tours in Vietnam.
While in the Marines, Smith was decorated not just for his bravery but also for combat wounds sustained.
It was his time in the armed forces, Smith said to the AP in a 2023 interview, not his time at Yale, that fueled his success with FedEx.
His appreciation for the military was made evident by his recent gift to the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation for the purpose of endowing a fund for the sons and daughters of Navy veterans pursuing STEM-related studies.
In informing FedEx staff of Smith's passing, Subramaniam stated, “Fred was more than just the pioneer of an industry and the founder of our great company. He was a mentor to many and a source of inspiration to all.”
Those sentiments were echoed by U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), who declared, “Memphis has lost its most important citizen, Fred Smith. FedEx is the engine of our economy, and Fred Smith was its visionary founder. But more than that, he was a dedicated citizen who cared deeply about our city,” and that is a legacy of which any Tennessean -- or American -- would be proud.
President Donald Trump took a swipe at Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over her "wrong" assertion that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons, Newsmax reported. This was the second time in the same week that Trump publicly contradicted her.
Israel and Iran are locked in a war that's escalating by the day. Israel contends that Iran has been enriching enough uranium to build a bomb, thus justifying its preemptive action.
The White House has gone with the messaging that Iran simply "cannot have a nuclear weapon," as it's clear that the administration may be looking to get the U.S. more involved. Meanwhile, Gabbard has consistently reported that intelligence suggests Iran does not have the bomb.
This undermines the messaging coming from the White House, so the press has asked Trump about it. Twice this week, the president made it clear that he doesn't believe his director of national intelligence and will likely move based on his own suspicions about Iran.
Trump took questions from the press after landing in New Jersey on Friday. The president, who notoriously opposed the Iraq War, is beginning to make arguments suspiciously like the "weapons of mass destruction" line that justified that war.
A reporter first asked Trump about the similarity, but the president argued that it's different this time. "What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community had said they have no evidence that they are at this point," a reporter asked.
"Well, then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?" Trump replied.
When the reporter clarified that it is his "director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard," Trump did not hesitate to double down on his assertion. "Well, she’s wrong," Trump said.
Friday's comment was just the latest that broke with Gabbard. The national security director's testimony before Congress in March noted that Iran's "Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003."
On Tuesday, Trump was asked about her assessment and contradicted her statements from that testimony. "I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one," Trump said.
For her part, Gabbard maintains that Trump is not in disagreement with her. "President Trump was saying the same thing that I said in my annual threat assessment back in March in Congress," Gabbard claimed when asked to respond to Trump's earlier comment.
"Unfortunately, too many people in the media don’t care to actually read what I said," Gabbard added. However, it's difficult to believe that the two are in lock step after Trump was caught telling the world that Gabbard is wrong.
There is a great deal of conflicting messaging surrounding this conflict as it continues to unfold. The one saving grace is that Trump has historically been averse to war, and it's likely he will do all he can to keep the U.S. out of harm's way.