Trump fires back at EU over Google's $1B fine, launches probe

Administration News — 2026-07-24 13:06:00 — thehill.com

Trump Attacks EU Over Google Fine, Calls Move “Illegal and Highly Discriminatory”

President Trump on Friday sharply criticized the European Union for its decision to fine Google over alleged violations of digital competition law, labeling the action an “illegal and highly discriminatory practice.” Trump announced that the matter would be the subject of a trade investigation, escalating tensions between the U.S. and the EU on technology regulation.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated, “The European Union is at it again and, as usual, taking direct aim at GREAT American Companies!” His remarks reflect a pattern of disparaging the EU’s regulatory actions as unfairly targeting U.S. businesses, particularly in the tech sector.

Trump’s claim that the EU’s fine constitutes an “illegal and highly discriminatory practice” is part of a broader narrative he has promoted, alleging bias against American firms. However, the European Union maintains that its digital competition laws are designed to ensure fair competition and protect consumers, not to single out foreign companies.

This latest statement continues Trump’s record of making sweeping accusations against international partners without providing evidence for claims of illegality or discrimination. The EU’s actions are based on established legal frameworks, and similar fines have been levied against both European and non-European companies found in violation of competition rules.

Trump’s response underscores his confrontational approach to international economic disputes and his willingness to frame regulatory actions as attacks on American interests. By pledging a trade investigation, he signals a readiness to escalate the conflict, potentially impacting broader U.S.-EU relations.

Conclusion

President Trump’s public condemnation of the EU’s fine against Google and his characterization of the move as “illegal and highly discriminatory” exemplify his tendency to make unsubstantiated claims and to disparage international regulatory efforts. As the trade investigation unfolds, the accuracy of Trump’s assertions and the broader implications for U.S.-EU cooperation will remain closely watched.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5988736-trump-eu-google-fine-investigation/

Donald J. Trump: “President Xi, at our recent meeting in Beijing, China, told me that he would…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-24 10:15:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Claims Xi and Putin Assured Him They Would Not Sell Weapons to Iran

Donald Trump has asserted that both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin personally assured him they would not provide weapons to Iran. In a recent statement, Trump said, “President Xi, at our recent meeting in Beijing, China, told me that he would not, under any circumstances, give or sell Weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran — And that statement included Chinese Companies. Considering our relationship, I take him at his word and, besides, l am doing him very big favors, also.” Trump further claimed, “Likewise, President Putin, despite the horrible War going on in Ukraine (The relationship remains, as it does with President Zelenskyy), told me that he would not sell Weapons to Iran. He understands that I do not sell Weapons to Ukraine, but to NATO Countries. They pay full price, and how those Weapons are distributed, I have no idea.”

Trump’s Assertions on Weapons Sales

Trump’s remarks center on his reported conversations with Xi and Putin, in which he claims both leaders promised not to supply arms to Iran. He emphasizes his trust in their assurances, stating he takes Xi “at his word” and referencing the “very big favors” he claims to be doing for China. Trump also draws a distinction between his own reported arms sales, saying he does not sell weapons to Ukraine, only to NATO countries, and claims ignorance about how those weapons are distributed.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Statements

Trump’s comments present several issues for scrutiny:

• Reliance on Personal Assurances: Trump’s statement relies entirely on his personal relationships and private conversations with Xi and Putin, with no independent verification or evidence provided to support these claims.
• Distribution of U.S. Weapons: Trump asserts, “I do not sell Weapons to Ukraine, but to NATO Countries. They pay full price, and how those Weapons are distributed, I have no idea.” This characterization omits the well-documented U.S. military aid and direct arms transfers to Ukraine, particularly since the Russian invasion in 2022, which have been widely reported and tracked by government disclosures.
• Implications for International Security: Trump suggests that if China or Russia were to provide weapons to Iran, “it would be very bad for them — Certainly not in their best interests.” This statement implies a threat or warning, but again, it is based solely on Trump’s interpretation and not on any public diplomatic or policy measures.

Conclusion

Trump’s latest claims about assurances from Xi and Putin regarding arms sales to Iran highlight his ongoing reliance on personal relationships and private assurances in matters of international security. His statements also misrepresent the nature of U.S. arms transfers, particularly regarding Ukraine. As with many of Trump’s public assertions, these remarks lack independent corroboration and contradict established facts about U.S. military aid. Readers should approach such statements with caution and seek out verified information from official sources.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40232

Democrats seize on AI data center backlash that’s dividing rural Republicans in places like Texas

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-07-24 09:43:00 — www.pbs.org

President Donald Trump has made data centers a top priority, positioning them as essential for the United States to compete against China in the race for artificial intelligence superiority. As reported, Trump’s stance has become a central talking point amid growing backlash over the rapid expansion of energy-intensive data centers, particularly in rural areas like Texas.

Trump’s Position on Data Centers

According to the excerpt, Trump has explicitly prioritized the development of data centers, framing them as critical infrastructure for national competitiveness in AI. This position comes as tech giants, including Google, invest billions in new facilities across Texas and other states. Trump’s advocacy is cited as a driving force behind the push for more data centers, despite mounting concerns from local communities about environmental impacts, secrecy, and rising utility costs.

Community Concerns and Political Fallout

The expansion of data centers has sparked bipartisan opposition, uniting both conservatives and liberals who fear the loss of rural land, increased pollution, and higher water and electricity consumption. Critics argue that the projects often proceed with little transparency, leaving residents in the dark about potential risks. In Texas, where the state is set to become the largest global data center market by 2030, these concerns are especially acute.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Framing

While Trump presents data centers as a strategic necessity for AI and economic growth, the excerpt highlights significant local opposition and skepticism about the benefits. Many residents and local officials question whether the promised advantages outweigh the negative impacts on rural communities, water resources, and landowner rights. The secrecy surrounding these projects and the lack of clear regulations have further fueled distrust.

Conclusion

Trump’s prioritization of data centers underscores a broader debate about the costs and benefits of rapid technological expansion. As communities across Texas and beyond grapple with the consequences, the issue has become a rare point of bipartisan concern, challenging the narrative that such projects are universally beneficial. The controversy illustrates the complexities of balancing national ambitions with local realities, and raises important questions about transparency, regulation, and who truly benefits from the AI gold rush.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/democrats-seize-on-ai-data-center-backlash-thats-dividing-rural-republicans-in-places-like-texas

Senate Republican: American public 'growing weary' with Iran war

Administration News — 2026-07-24 07:35:00 — thehill.com

President Trump’s Timeline on Iran War Questioned as Conflict Drags On

President Trump initially assured the American public that the military conflict with Iran would last “four to five weeks,” but the engagement has now stretched to nearly five months, according to Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). Capito noted that “the American public is growing weary” with the ongoing conflict, highlighting the gap between Trump’s early predictions and the current reality.

Fact-Checking Trump’s War Timeline

Trump’s statement that the conflict would be resolved in a matter of weeks has proven inaccurate as the situation persists well beyond his projected timeframe. This discrepancy raises questions about the administration’s planning and communication regarding military operations. The prolonged duration has led to increased scrutiny from lawmakers and the public alike.

Public Sentiment and Political Fallout

Capito’s remarks underscore a growing frustration among Americans who expected a swift resolution based on Trump’s assurances. The extended conflict not only challenges the credibility of Trump’s initial statements but also places additional pressure on his administration to justify the ongoing military presence.

Conclusion

President Trump’s early prediction that the Iran conflict would be short-lived has not matched the reality on the ground. As the war continues into its fifth month, public patience is wearing thin, and questions about the accuracy of Trump’s statements remain at the forefront of the national conversation.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5987854-shelley-moore-capito-gop-iran-war-public/

Trump keeps finding a way to implement his tariff policy : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-07-24 04:00:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Defiant After Supreme Court Tariff Defeat, Vows “Great Alternatives” Despite Economic Fallout

On the day the Supreme Court struck down a major portion of his tariff program, President Donald Trump responded with anger and a vow to press forward with new tariffs. “Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” Trump declared at a White House press briefing on February 20. “We have alternatives, great alternatives.”

Trump’s comments came after the Supreme Court ruled that his preferred method for imposing tariffs—using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—was unlawful. Despite this legal setback, Trump and his administration quickly pivoted to other legal avenues to maintain and expand his tariff regime. In the days following the decision, the administration rolled out a new set of tariffs, imposed fresh fees on Canadian imports, and threatened future tariffs on pharmaceuticals.

Sweeping New Tariffs and Global Condemnation

At 12:01 a.m. on Friday, a global 10 percent tariff instituted by Trump expired, only to be replaced by a new two-tiered tariff system targeting goods from the U.S.’s 60 largest trading partners—including the European Union. The administration claimed these tariffs, set at 10 and 12.5 percent, were necessary to combat imports made with forced labor. However, the scope of the tariffs is sweeping, affecting countries responsible for more than 99% of U.S. imports, though some categories like energy and many foods are exempt.

The administration was also broad in its condemnation of other nations. A U.S. Trade Representative fact sheet asserted, “The United States is the only country in the world to adopt, and effectively enforce, a ban on imports made with forced labor.” Critics, however, questioned the administration’s true motivations. At a Senate hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) accused the administration of dishonesty, saying, “Donald Trump dug up a zombie law to make things even more expensive for Americans,” and argued that the new tariffs were a reconstruction of previously illegal tariffs “under the guise of addressing forced labor.”

Legal Maneuvering and Threats of More Tariffs

While some new tariffs required lengthy investigations, Trump demonstrated he could still act quickly, as seen when he signed proclamations for new 50% tariffs on certain Canadian goods using a 1930 law never before applied to tariffs. Trump has also repeatedly threatened tariffs that never materialized, including a recent threat to cut off all trade with Spain over military base access during the U.S.-Israel-initiated war in Iran.

The administration’s patchwork of tariffs, implemented under various statutes, has created a complicated landscape for importers. Experts warn this complexity could pose challenges for businesses and the broader economy.

Public Backlash and Economic Uncertainty

Despite Trump’s insistence on the long-term benefits of tariffs—primarily boosting U.S. manufacturing—public opinion has soured. Polls show Americans increasingly frustrated with the higher costs resulting from import taxes, and approval of Trump’s economic management has declined. Notably, the promised manufacturing employment boom has not materialized; sector employment remains below levels seen when Trump took office.

Conclusion: A Risky Gamble

President Trump remains steadfast in his commitment to tariffs, even as legal, economic, and political challenges mount. His willingness to use new legal justifications and to threaten further trade actions underscores a determination to pursue protectionist policies, regardless of public disapproval or expert warnings about economic risks. As Americans weigh the impact of these policies, the future of Trump’s tariff strategy—and its consequences for the U.S. economy—remains uncertain.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/24/nx-s1-5905783/trump-tariff-trade-global-canada

‘Forced labour’ rationale for Trump tariffs met with bewilderment | Trump tariffs

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-24 03:22:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump’s New Tariffs Spark Global Backlash and Raise Questions Over Forced Labor Claims

Donald Trump has triggered widespread anger and confusion among U.S. allies and trading partners by imposing a new wave of tariffs on more than 80 countries. These tariffs, which replace a previous blanket 10% duty that Trump imposed in February—many of which the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled illegal—now range from 10% to 12.5% and target major economies including the UK, Mexico, Canada, Australia, India, China, and the entire European Union.

Trump’s administration has justified the new tariffs under section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, claiming that dozens of countries have failed to enforce bans on goods produced by forced labor. However, this rationale has been met with skepticism and outright rejection by many U.S. trading partners and international officials.

Global Markets React

The announcement of the tariffs sent shockwaves through Asian financial markets. Japan’s Nikkei 225 dropped 3.1%, China’s SSE Composite fell 1.4%, and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index plummeted 11.4%. South Korea’s Kospi, heavily weighted toward semiconductor companies, slumped 6.2%. European markets also saw volatility, with Germany’s Dax initially falling 8% before recovering, and France’s Cac 40 and the UK’s FTSE 100 experiencing smaller fluctuations.

International Criticism and Doubts

Officials from affected countries have sharply criticized the U.S. rationale. The EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, dismissed the forced labor justification, arguing that European labor laws are robust and that the bloc has honored its commitments under a 2025 transatlantic trade agreement. Kallas called the tariffs a “negative surprise” and said the EU would seek clarification from Washington.

Australia and Brazil labeled the tariffs unjustified, while Norway’s foreign minister said there was no basis for tariffs against Norway, given its strict rules against forced labor. New Zealand’s prime minister, Christopher Luxon, described the move as “extremely disappointing” and said the U.S. had not provided “meaningful evidence” to support its claims.

China, Japan, and South Korea were among those hit with the higher 12.5% tariff. Japan’s government expressed regret, insisting its trade practices comply with international rules.

Critics Question Trump’s Motives

Critics in the U.S. and abroad argue that the Trump administration’s forced labor justification is a pretext for rebuilding Trump’s tariff wall after the Supreme Court struck down many of his earlier duties. Richard Neal, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said, “Today’s forced labour justification is too convenient to be taken seriously. Forced labour is a real and pervasive problem in our supply chains and demands serious enforcement. It should never be cheapened into a pretext for a tariff policy built on dubious legal theories and personal grievances.”

Former U.S. trade official Ryan Majerus noted that the Trump administration had been searching for ways to aggressively deploy tariffs and that these new measures were designed to be more resistant to legal challenges.

Impact on U.S. Allies

The tariffs have strained diplomatic relations. In Canada, officials canceled a joint celebration for the opening of the new Gordie Howe International Bridge after Trump abruptly announced a 50% tariff on Canadian goods entering the U.S. The UK government, however, said its tariff rate remained unchanged at 10%, citing U.S. recognition of the UK’s efforts to combat forced labor in supply chains.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs has not only rattled global markets but also drawn sharp criticism from allies and trading partners who question the validity of the forced labor justification. The move follows a pattern of aggressive trade actions that have often been met with legal and diplomatic challenges. As the Trump administration continues to investigate other economies for alleged industrial overcapacity, further trade tensions appear likely, leaving the international community bracing for more uncertainty.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/24/trump-tariffs-forced-labor-us-trading-partners-react

Donald J. Trump: "RT: https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/11697224154246815…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-23 20:00:00 — trumpstruth.org

In a recent post on Truth Social, former President Donald Trump declared, “Very good!!! President DJT.” This statement, while brief, reflects his ongoing pattern of self-praise and affirmation.

Throughout his political career, Trump has frequently made claims that have been scrutinized and debunked by fact-checking organizations. For instance, during a 2023 rally in Waco, Texas, he asserted, “Every promise I made to you as a candidate, I fulfilled as your president. Promises made, promises kept. I promised to end NAFTA and I did.” However, PolitiFact’s analysis revealed that while he did renegotiate NAFTA, many other campaign promises were not fulfilled. Approximately half of his tracked promises were rated as broken, including commitments to bring back manufacturing jobs, achieve 4% annual economic growth, and repeal the Affordable Care Act. (politifact.com)

In the same rally, Trump claimed, “We are a nation that is consumed by the radical left’s Green New Deal. Yet everyone knows that the Green New Deal will lead to our destruction.” This statement is misleading, as the Green New Deal was a nonbinding proposal that never became law. Introduced in 2019, it faced significant opposition and did not progress through Congress. (politifact.com)

Trump has also made numerous false statements regarding immigration. He alleged that Vice President Kamala Harris “let in 13,099 convicted murderers,” a claim that distorts Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. The figure represents noncitizens convicted of homicide over the past 40 years, not individuals admitted during the Biden-Harris administration. (politifact.com)

These examples underscore a consistent pattern in Trump’s rhetoric: making bold assertions that often lack factual accuracy. While his recent Truth Social post is succinct, it aligns with his history of self-congratulatory statements that may not always be supported by evidence.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40225

What to know about Trump’s new tariffs on more than 80 countries | Trump tariffs

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-23 20:56:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Pushes New Tariffs Despite Supreme Court Ruling Against His Trade Policies

Donald Trump has continued to push his aggressive tariff agenda, imposing a new wave of duties on more than 80 countries just as a temporary levy on global imports was set to expire. The latest tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, took effect Friday morning and include major US trading partners such as Canada, Mexico, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, India, and the European Union.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the United States has been paying more than its fair share in tariffs and has argued that higher duties are necessary to boost American manufacturing and jobs. However, these assertions have been widely challenged by economic experts and fact-checkers. The New York Federal Reserve estimated that 90% of the economic burden from tariffs has been passed on to US consumers and businesses, contradicting Trump’s repeated claims that tariffs benefit Americans.

The Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump had illegally used his executive power to implement his global trade policies, finding that the 1977 law he invoked did not justify the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. The court made clear that the power to enact tariffs during times of peace belongs solely to Congress, not the president.

Despite this ruling, Trump’s administration has sought alternative legal justifications to keep tariffs in place. After the court’s decision, Trump immediately issued a 150-day 10% global tariff under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the latest tariffs are being imposed under section 301 of the same act. Legal experts have warned that these new tariffs are likely to be challenged in court and could be overturned as another example of presidential overreach.

Trump’s insistence that tariffs are necessary for American prosperity is also at odds with public opinion. A recent Harris Poll found that 72% of Americans believe tariffs have had a negative impact on consumers, including 64% of Republican voters. Even as the administration maintains that tariffs have helped Americans, the government has been forced to pay back tens of billions of dollars in tariff revenue to companies since the Supreme Court ruling.

In summary, Trump’s latest round of tariffs continues a pattern of overstating the benefits of his trade policies while disregarding both legal constraints and the economic reality faced by American consumers and businesses. The move underscores his willingness to defy court rulings and public sentiment in pursuit of his trade agenda.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/trump-tariffs-what-to-know

Number of U.S. Troop Deaths in Iran War Appears Lower on Pentagon Website

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-23 19:15:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Continues to Cite Inflated U.S. Troop Deaths in Iran War Amid Pentagon Data Discrepancies

Donald Trump has repeatedly cited a higher number of American troop deaths in the ongoing war in Iran, even as the Pentagon revised its official casualty figures downward this week. On Thursday, Trump compared the toll from previous American wars to the current conflict, stating that “even one death is too many, but it’s 18.” This figure echoed the Pentagon’s initial report on Wednesday, which listed 18 service members killed, but was later updated to 14 after the Defense Department removed four deaths that occurred after Trump declared a cease-fire in April.

The Trump administration’s handling of casualty data has drawn scrutiny. Three military officials, speaking anonymously, said the administration decided to exclude the four most recent deaths—three in Jordan and one in northern Iraq—from the tally because they occurred after the cease-fire. The Pentagon’s acting press secretary, Joel Valdez, attributed the changes to “temporary data disruptions” and “site anomalies,” insisting the discrepancies would be resolved quickly.

Despite the revised figures, Trump has continued to reference the higher death toll in public remarks. On Wednesday, he attended the return of four fallen service members at Dover Air Force Base, calling them “great heroes” and linking their sacrifice to the administration’s stance on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. “All of them said, very strongly, that we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon, so we’re going to honor them,” Trump told journalists.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of lacking transparency about the war’s conduct and downplaying casualties. Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who commanded U.S. forces in Europe, said, “The administration seems to have a real hard time being honest about what is going on—not just about casualties, but about the whole war in general.” He argued that minimizing deaths signals “an unwillingness or inability to aggressively learn from mistakes.”

The Pentagon has also faced criticism for withholding information about recent Iranian strikes that injured dozens of U.S. troops and damaged military equipment. Defense officials maintain they are legally required to report deaths, but not injuries, while Democratic senators and other critics argue the public deserves fuller disclosure.

Trump has previously blamed his predecessors for American military deaths, telling podcaster Lex Fridman in 2024 that the 13 service members killed in the Kabul airport attack in 2021 “died because of Biden and because of Kamala. They died just like if they pulled the trigger.”

As the administration prepares to release a review of the Afghanistan withdrawal, the debate over casualty reporting and accountability continues. The shifting numbers and Trump’s public statements highlight ongoing concerns about transparency and the politicization of military sacrifice.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/23/us/politics/iran-troop-deaths.html

Trump to impose new double-digit tariffs on imports from 60 countries

Administration News — 2026-07-23 17:14:00 — thehill.com

President Trump to Impose Sweeping Tariffs on Imports from 60 Countries

President Trump will impose double-digit tariffs on imports from 60 countries over forced labor violations, according to an announcement from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The action, as described in a fact sheet released by Greer’s office, will cover 99.4 percent of U.S. imports and apply to Washington’s top trading partners. The tariffs are being brought under Section 301.

Scope of the Tariffs

The move represents one of the broadest tariff actions in recent history, targeting nearly all imports into the United States. By invoking Section 301, President Trump is using a legal mechanism that allows for trade restrictions in response to unfair trade practices, in this case citing forced labor violations.

Fact-Checking the Claims

The fact sheet from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office states that the tariffs will affect 99.4 percent of U.S. imports, a figure that underscores the sweeping nature of the policy. However, the excerpt does not provide additional details or evidence regarding the specific forced labor violations cited or how the administration determined which countries would be affected.

Impact on U.S. Trading Partners

The tariffs will apply to Washington’s top trading partners, though the excerpt does not specify which countries are included among the 60 targeted. The broad application of these tariffs could have significant economic implications for both U.S. businesses and international trade relationships.

Conclusion

President Trump’s decision to impose double-digit tariffs on imports from 60 countries marks a significant escalation in the administration’s use of trade policy to address labor violations. While the fact sheet outlines the scope of the tariffs, further details on the evidence supporting the forced labor claims and the selection of targeted countries remain unclear. This sweeping action is likely to spark debate over its effectiveness and potential consequences for the U.S. economy and global trade.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5987343-trump-tariffs-imports-forced-labor-section-301/