Trump defends 50% tariffs on Canada, saying ‘they need us to survive’ | US news

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-21 14:36:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Defends Sweeping Tariffs on Canadian Goods, Claims Canada “Cannot Survive” Without U.S.

Donald Trump has defended his administration’s decision to impose a new 50% tariff on most Canadian goods, escalating trade tensions and making sweeping claims about Canada’s dependence on the United States. The White House announced the broad round of import duties, set to take effect next month, citing alleged unfair discrimination by Canada against U.S. cars, alcohol, and dairy products.

Trump asserted, “Canada has been very, very tough on us over the years, for many years, and no other president’s done anything about it.” He went further, declaring, “In all fairness to them, they need us to survive. Without us, there’s no way they can survive.” These remarks, made in the Oval Office, sparked fresh outrage in Ottawa, with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responding that his country was “united” in the face of such threats.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s assertion that Canada “needs us to survive” is a significant exaggeration. While the U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner, Canada is also the top export market for many U.S. states and a key supplier of energy, raw materials, and manufactured goods. The economies of both countries are deeply intertwined, and experts widely reject the notion that Canada’s survival depends solely on access to the U.S. market.

The president also accused Canada of “unfairly discriminating” against U.S. products, but both countries have long-standing trade disputes that are typically addressed through negotiation and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Trump’s tariffs will target a wide range of products, including wine, hockey sticks, and cement—some of which were previously protected from import taxes under the USMCA.

Attacks and Shifting Explanations

Trump has also attacked Canada’s response to recent wildfires, blaming Canadian “Willful Negligence” for smoke that affected millions in the U.S. “The cost is incalculable!” Trump wrote on social media. “This is Willful Negligence, and becoming a yearly occurrence, costing the United States Billions of Dollars, which cost of this pollution must of necessity be added to the TARIFFS Canada is currently paying.” However, when pressed by reporters, Trump said his administration was considering those tariffs “separately,” contradicting his earlier implication that the wildfire smoke was a factor in the new duties.

Conclusion

Trump’s defense of the new tariffs on Canadian goods relies on exaggerated claims about Canada’s economic dependence and repeated attacks on its government’s actions. These statements have heightened tensions between Washington and Ottawa and raised concerns about the future of North American trade. As negotiations continue, the accuracy of Trump’s rhetoric and the impact of these tariffs will remain under close scrutiny.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/21/trump-defends-tariff-canada

The U.S. Is Pulling Back on Energy Efficiency

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-21 13:03:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Administration Rolls Back Energy-Efficiency Standards Amid Rising Energy Costs and Climate Concerns

President Trump has repeatedly criticized federal energy conservation rules, claiming they limit consumer choice and degrade the performance of household appliances. At a 2023 event, he declared, “Now they want to take away your gas stoves. They want to take away your washing machines and your dryers. They don’t want to give you any water for the washing machine.” This rhetoric has been matched by a series of policy actions aimed at dismantling longstanding energy-efficiency programs.

Policy Shifts and Consumer Impact

Over the past year, the Trump administration has proposed rescinding requirements for manufacturers to produce washing machines and other appliances that use less electricity and water. The administration has also relaxed fuel-economy rules for new cars and trucks and criticized state building codes designed to curb energy use. Trump’s domestic policy bill phased out tax breaks for homeowners who upgraded insulation or purchased more efficient water heaters.

The Energy Department has gone further, proposing a rule that would make it more difficult for future administrations to tighten appliance efficiency standards. The administration’s stated position is that the country faces an energy emergency and does not have enough power to meet growing needs, particularly for data centers supporting artificial intelligence. Officials argue that the solution is to generate more electricity and increase the use of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s assertion that efficiency rules “ruin appliances” and restrict consumer choice is disputed by manufacturers and contradicted by studies. For example, a recent analysis from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that current appliance efficiency standards have reduced U.S. energy use by 6.5 percent and saved the average household $576 per year compared to a scenario without such standards. Furthermore, stricter fuel-economy standards for cars have saved Americans an estimated $5 trillion in gasoline costs over the decades.

Despite claims that efficiency rules make appliances less effective, manufacturers have disputed these assertions, noting that technological advances have continued to improve both performance and efficiency.

Industry and Political Response

The administration’s efforts have sparked backlash from both industry groups and bipartisan lawmakers. When the Trump administration attempted to eliminate the Energy Star program—a popular efficiency certification—dozens of industry groups opposed the move, citing $40 billion in annual savings for American households.

While some states have rolled back their own efficiency programs to cut near-term costs, the overall progress in U.S. energy efficiency has slowed, according to the International Energy Agency. Many in the industry express frustration with the constant policy swings, emphasizing the need for predictable standards to guide long-term planning.

Conclusion

President Trump’s campaign against energy-efficiency regulations marks a significant departure from decades of bipartisan policy aimed at reducing energy consumption and costs for American consumers. His claims about the negative impacts of these standards are not supported by available evidence, and the rollback of efficiency programs comes at a time of rising energy prices and increasing demand. As the debate continues, the future of U.S. energy policy—and its impact on both the environment and household budgets—remains uncertain.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/climate/trump-energy-efficiency-standards.html

Trump’s latest election fraud push finds little traction inside GOP

Politics — 2026-07-20 04:00:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

For weeks, President Donald Trump privately considered delivering a televised address to present claims of foreign interference and alleged election fraud. He said there were “shocking” new discoveries that had been concealed by what he called the “Deep State,” and insisted these should be a central concern for elected officials.

## Trump’s Claims of Election Fraud and Deep State Cover-Up

President Trump’s repeated assertions about foreign interference and purported election fraud have been a defining feature of his post-election rhetoric. According to the excerpt, he planned to detail these claims in a televised address, describing the discoveries as “shocking” and alleging they had been covered up by the so-called “Deep State.” Trump’s use of the term “Deep State” refers to a supposed shadowy network within the government working against him, a claim he has made frequently without providing substantiated evidence.

## Fact-Checking Trump’s Allegations

Despite Trump’s insistence on widespread fraud and foreign interference, multiple independent fact-checks and official investigations have found no evidence to support these claims. State and federal election officials, as well as courts across the country, have consistently rejected allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Trump’s repeated references to “shocking” discoveries and a “Deep State” cover-up have not been substantiated by credible sources or official findings.

## The Impact of False Claims

Trump’s statements have contributed to ongoing public distrust in the electoral process. By framing these unproven allegations as central issues for elected officials, he continues to promote a narrative that undermines confidence in democratic institutions. The repeated invocation of a “Deep State” conspiracy further fuels division and skepticism without offering verifiable facts.

## Conclusion

President Trump’s ongoing claims about election fraud and foreign interference, as well as his allegations of a “Deep State” cover-up, remain unsupported by credible evidence. These statements, repeatedly fact-checked and found to be false, have had a significant impact on public discourse and trust in the electoral system. It is crucial for elected officials and the public to rely on verified information and uphold the integrity of democratic processes.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/07/20/trump-latest-election-push-finds-little-traction-inside-gop/

There’s a power struggle brewing in South Carolina, and Trump might not win

Politics — 2026-07-21 03:45:00 — www.politico.com

Trump’s Endorsement Faces New Scrutiny in South Carolina Senate Race

President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Sen. Darline Graham, appointed to fill her late brother Lindsey Graham’s seat, has upended the South Carolina Senate race and exposed new doubts about the power of his backing within the state’s Republican Party.

Trump’s support for Graham, a political newcomer, was initially expected to clear the field. However, several prominent Republicans—including Rep. Russell Fry and Rep. Ralph Norman—are moving forward with their own campaigns, signaling that a Trump endorsement may no longer be the decisive factor it once was.

Trump’s endorsement record in South Carolina is under particular scrutiny after his chosen candidate for governor, Pam Evette, lost her primary despite his backing. The article notes that Trump’s picks have also lost in recent Iowa and Georgia gubernatorial races, challenging the perception of his invincibility in GOP primaries.

Within the state, Trump’s intervention has sparked skepticism. CJ Westfall, chair of the Dorchester County GOP, described a shift in sentiment: while many were initially pleased with Graham’s appointment as a tribute to her brother, “once we saw the president jump in and support her, 95 percent are saying, ‘What the hell are we doing here? We don’t know how she votes. We don’t know what she believes.’” This skepticism is echoed by other party officials, who note that Graham’s lack of public record and the surprise surrounding her decision to seek a full term have left many Republicans uneasy.

Despite these concerns, all major Republican candidates in the race continue to align themselves with Trump’s agenda, highlighting the continued dominance of the MAGA movement in South Carolina. Fry’s campaign, for example, emphasized its commitment to “advance the President’s agenda and deliver real results for South Carolina families.”

The race is further complicated by questions over Graham’s eligibility under new state GOP rules and the compressed campaign calendar, which may favor candidates with established political machinery.

Trump’s endorsement power, once seen as a near-guarantee of primary victory, is now being put to the test in a state where even his allies are willing to challenge his chosen candidate. The outcome of this race will serve as a key indicator of whether Trump’s influence over Republican primaries remains as strong as ever—or if it is beginning to wane in the face of local skepticism and recent electoral setbacks.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/21/south-carolina-trump-graham-test-01005834

Arizona primaries set the stage for contested fall races in a swing state : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-07-21 04:00:00 — www.npr.org

Arizona Primaries Highlight Trump’s Enduring Influence—and His Record of Election Falsehoods

As Arizona voters head to the polls for the state’s primary elections, the influence of President Trump looms large over key Republican races. The excerpt details how several candidates are seeking or touting Trump’s endorsement, a sign of his continued sway within the party. However, the record also shows Trump’s persistent false claims about the 2020 election, which continue to shape the state’s political landscape.

Trump’s Endorsements Dominate GOP Contests

In the Republican primary for Arizona governor, Rep. Andy Biggs is running with Trump’s endorsement and the backing of Turning Point Action, a group aligned with Turning Point USA. Biggs, a long-time Trump loyalist, voted in Congress against certifying the 2020 election results. The excerpt notes that Biggs has tried to present himself as appealing to independent voters, but his close association with Trump and the election denial movement remains central to his campaign.

Similarly, in Arizona’s First Congressional District, the Republican primary is described as a contest between a candidate with Trump’s endorsement—former NFL kicker Jay Feely—and a rival running further to the right. The outcome is seen as a test of Trump’s influence among Arizona Republicans.

False Claims About the 2020 Election

The excerpt directly addresses Trump’s record of falsehoods regarding the 2020 election. It states that Arizona “has been a battleground over election laws since the 2020 election that President Trump lost and falsely claimed was rigged.” This clear attribution highlights Trump’s ongoing promotion of the baseless narrative that the 2020 election was stolen, a claim repeatedly debunked by courts and election officials.

The legacy of these false claims is evident in the current secretary of state race. One Republican candidate, Alexander Kolodin, participated in lawsuits aimed at overturning the election results and is backed by Turning Point Action. Another, Gina Swoboda, became chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party with Trump’s support but has stopped short of fully endorsing the “stolen election” narrative, instead citing administrative problems.

Conclusion: Trump’s Legacy Shapes Arizona’s Political Future

The Arizona primaries offer a window into how Trump’s endorsements and his record of election falsehoods continue to shape Republican politics in the state. His support remains a powerful force in GOP contests, even as his false claims about the 2020 election persist as a divisive and influential factor in Arizona’s political debates. As the general election approaches, the impact of Trump’s rhetoric and endorsements will remain a central issue for voters and candidates alike.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/21/nx-s1-5901065/midterms-primaries-arizona-elections

Donald J. Trump: “Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing man…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-20 11:41:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Issues Threat Against Iran, Promises Retaliation for American Casualties

President Donald J. Trump has declared, “Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!” In a directive attributed directly to Trump, he stated that this message has been communicated to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Daniel Caine, and every leader in the military.

Trump’s Threat of Retaliation

Trump’s statement is a clear and forceful warning to Iran, promising severe consequences for any attack resulting in the death of an American soldier. By asserting that Iran “will pay for that killing many times over,” Trump is not only threatening disproportionate retaliation but also signaling a policy of escalation rather than measured response.

Attribution and Context

The directive, as described, is attributed specifically to President Trump and lists the officials he claims to have instructed. This public assertion is consistent with Trump’s history of making bold, sometimes inflammatory statements regarding U.S. military policy and foreign adversaries.

Fact-Checking the Claims

While Trump’s statement is unequivocal in its threat, it is important to note that such rhetoric often lacks specific details or evidence of implementation. The claim that Iran will “pay many times over” is a subjective assertion, not a verifiable fact, and is designed to project strength rather than outline a concrete policy. There is no evidence in the excerpt that this directive has resulted in any official change in U.S. military policy or that the named officials have confirmed receiving such orders.

Conclusion

President Trump’s latest statement continues his pattern of issuing aggressive threats toward Iran, promising severe retaliation for any harm to American soldiers. While the rhetoric is clear, the lack of supporting evidence or official confirmation raises questions about the practical implications of his directive. As with many of Trump’s public statements, the promise of disproportionate response serves more as a warning than a substantiated policy shift, underscoring the need for careful scrutiny of presidential claims and their real-world impact.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40158

By the numbers: the latest ICE and CBP data on arrests, detentions and deportations in the US | US immigration

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-20 16:26:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump’s Mass Deportation Platform Reshapes U.S. Immigration Enforcement

Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of mass deportation, and since taking office, his administration has fundamentally reshaped immigration enforcement across the United States. The Guardian has tracked these changes using data published every two weeks by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), offering a detailed look at the number of people arrested, detained, and deported under Trump’s policies.

Trump’s Stated Position and Policy Impact

Trump’s campaign and subsequent administration made mass deportation a central tenet of immigration policy. This approach has led to sweeping changes in how ICE operates, with a marked increase in enforcement actions nationwide. The administration’s strategy has resulted in more frequent arrests and detentions, as well as a rise in deportations, reflecting Trump’s hardline stance on immigration.

Complexities and Data Challenges

The immigration legal system is highly complex, and the numbers of people arrested, detained, and deported do not always align directly. For example, individuals can be arrested but not booked into detention, or deported without first being detained. ICE’s own reporting practices further complicate the picture, as arrest figures only include those who enter ICE detention, potentially undercounting the true number of arrests.

Data Transparency and Reporting Issues

Since January 2025, The Guardian has archived every ICE detention management statistics release, supplementing its records with older data from the Vera Institute for Justice. However, changes in ICE’s data release schedule—especially after the government shutdown in late 2025—have introduced inconsistencies and small errors in the public record. The Guardian has responded by redesigning its charts to better match ICE’s evolving reporting practices.

Conclusion

Trump’s mass deportation platform has led to a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration enforcement, with significant increases in arrests, detentions, and deportations. While the administration’s policies have been clear, the complexity of the immigration system and inconsistencies in ICE data reporting make it difficult to fully assess the impact. Nonetheless, the available data underscores the sweeping changes brought about by Trump’s approach, leaving a lasting mark on the nation’s immigration landscape.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/aug/29/trump-immigration-ice-cbp-data

Trump to Impose 50% Tariff on Many Canadian Goods

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-20 19:25:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Orders Sweeping Tariffs on Canadian Goods, Escalates Trade Tensions With Key U.S. Ally

President Trump on Monday signed orders to impose a 50 percent tariff on a wide range of Canadian goods, claiming that Canada had discriminated against the United States in key industries. The tariffs, set to take effect in 30 days, target Canadian exports including wine, hockey sticks, cement, dairy products, plywood, paper, and furniture. Trump administration officials said these measures are intended as punishment for what they describe as Canadian discrimination against U.S. motor vehicles, dairy, and alcohol industries.

Trump’s Claims and Justifications

Trump’s position is that Canada has treated U.S. industries unfairly, with administration officials echoing complaints that some Canadian provinces have halted purchases of U.S. alcohol and that Canada is one of only two countries, along with China, to retaliate against Trump’s earlier tariffs with its own levies. U.S. officials also allege that Canada maintains tariffs and quotas on U.S. cars and restricts American cheese imports.

The new tariffs are being imposed under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a rarely used legal provision dating back to the Great Depression. This law allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from countries that uniquely discriminate against U.S. commerce.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded by stating that the tariffs Trump cited were themselves a direct response to the president’s earlier tariffs on Canadian goods. Carney emphasized that Canada’s actions were “merely matched” to U.S. measures, and he accused the Trump administration of violating the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Carney also noted that this ongoing dispute has raised costs for families, particularly in the United States, and reaffirmed Canada’s readiness to engage in negotiations to resolve outstanding issues.

No Exemptions for USMCA-Covered Goods

Unlike previous rounds of tariffs, the new measures do not exempt Canadian goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the free-trade deal Trump negotiated and signed into law during his first term. The United States is currently seeking changes to the agreement, but formal negotiations with Canada have not begun due to ongoing trade tensions.

Escalating Rhetoric and Disparagement

Trump has further inflamed relations by suggesting he would annex Canada as the 51st state and by threatening tariffs in response to wildfire smoke drifting into the U.S., blaming Canada for mismanaging its forests. In October, Trump said he would cut off trade talks with Canada after a Canadian province ran an ad quoting Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs.

Legal and Economic Uncertainty

Legal experts note that the law Trump is using is broad but untested and likely to face court challenges. The administration appears to be using these tariffs as leverage in ongoing trade negotiations, despite unfavorable court rulings against previous tariffs.

Conclusion

President Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian goods marks a significant escalation in trade tensions with one of America’s closest allies. His claims of Canadian discrimination are strongly disputed by Canadian officials, who argue that their actions have been in direct response to Trump’s own tariffs. The move is expected to disrupt Canada’s export-dependent economy and increase costs for American consumers, while the legal and diplomatic fallout remains uncertain. Trump’s willingness to use tariffs as a tool for economic and geopolitical leverage continues to draw criticism both at home and abroad, raising questions about the long-term impact on U.S.-Canada relations.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/business/economy/trump-tariffs-canada.html

Trump endorses Darline Graham for Lindsey Graham's open Senate seat

Donald Trump — 2026-07-17 14:38:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Issues Full Endorsement for Graham in South Carolina Senate Special Election

Donald Trump has thrown his support behind Graham in the upcoming special election for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, declaring, “has been a WINNER all of her life and, should she accept, has my Complete and Total Endorsement in the Special Election for U.S. Senate in South Carolina.”

Trump’s Endorsement and Claims

In his statement, Trump characterized Graham as a lifelong winner, offering his “Complete and Total Endorsement” should she decide to run. This endorsement is consistent with Trump’s pattern of using superlative language to describe his favored candidates, often framing them as uniquely qualified or successful.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Record of Exaggerations

Trump’s use of terms like “WINNER all of her life” reflects a broader trend in his public statements, where he frequently employs hyperbolic praise for allies. While such language is intended to boost the candidate’s profile, it is not an objective assessment and lacks specific evidence or examples to support the sweeping claim. This approach has been noted in previous endorsements and public remarks, where Trump has made similarly broad assertions about the qualifications or achievements of individuals he supports.

Context and Implications

Trump’s endorsement in high-profile races often carries significant weight within his party, but his statements are also subject to scrutiny for accuracy and substance. In this instance, the claim that Graham “has been a WINNER all of her life” is a subjective characterization rather than a verifiable fact. It serves more as a rhetorical device to energize supporters than as a factual evaluation of Graham’s record.

Conclusion

Trump’s endorsement of Graham for the South Carolina Senate special election highlights his continued influence in Republican primaries and his reliance on grandiose language to promote his preferred candidates. While such statements are effective in rallying his base, they often lack the factual grounding necessary for objective political analysis. As with many of Trump’s public pronouncements, voters should consider the substance behind the rhetoric when evaluating his endorsements and claims.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/17/trump-endorses-darline-graham-for-lindsay-grahams-open-senate-seat-01003457

Live Results: Arizona midterm primary elections

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-07-20 18:44:00 — www.pbs.org

Arizona GOP Primary: Trump’s Unusual Double Endorsements Shape Key Races

Donald Trump’s influence continues to loom large over Arizona’s Republican primary, as he has issued endorsements for multiple candidates in the same races—an unusual move that has drawn attention to his evolving role in the party.

Trump’s Endorsements in the Governor’s Race

In the race for Arizona governor, Trump first endorsed billionaire housing developer Karrin Taylor Robson. However, after five-term U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs entered the race in early 2025, Trump issued an additional endorsement for Biggs. Taylor Robson subsequently dropped out in February. Trump has developed a pattern of endorsing more than one candidate for the same race, as seen recently in South Carolina’s gubernatorial primary runoff.

Impact on Congressional Races

Trump’s endorsements have also shaped the contest for Arizona’s 1st Congressional District. Sportscaster and former Arizona Cardinals placekicker Jay Feely initially ran in the 5th District, but after Trump endorsed another candidate there, Feely was nudged by Trump to switch to the 1st District or seek a different office. Following Feely’s switch, Trump endorsed both Feely and former state party chair Gina Swoboda for the nomination. Swoboda later dropped out to run for secretary of state.

A Pattern of Multiple Endorsements

Trump’s willingness to endorse more than one candidate in the same race is a notable departure from traditional political strategy, where party leaders typically rally behind a single contender. This approach has the potential to create confusion among voters and candidates, but it also demonstrates Trump’s continued sway over Republican politics in Arizona and beyond.

Conclusion

As Arizona voters head to the polls, Trump’s endorsements—sometimes for multiple candidates in the same race—underscore his ongoing influence and the unpredictable dynamics he brings to Republican primaries. The outcome of these races will not only determine the party’s nominees but could also signal how much weight Trump’s backing still carries in key battleground states.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/live-results-arizona-midterm-primary-elections