Category: Wires

  • A mother has spent years caring for her special-needs child. The toll quietly grew.

    A mother has spent years caring for her special-needs child. The toll quietly grew.

    RANCHO CORDOVA, Calif. — Annie Morgan wrapped her arms around her eldest daughter’s waist and guided her toward the minivan, the two of them moving in a slow, sideways shuffle.

    At 13, Ava was nearly as big as Annie, who stands just 5 feet flat, 110 pounds.

    The morning in May had started well. Ava was cooperative and calm, and Annie, 34, smiled as her two other children bolted past them and into the car. Then something shifted. As Annie helped Ava into the vehicle, Ava wailed and slammed her body against the seat. The car rocked.

    “Gentle hands,” Annie said evenly. “We’re OK. We are still going to school.”

    The struggle lasted six minutes: long enough for Annie to tighten one belt, then another. Long enough to block a blow to the head, catch Ava’s hands and dodge them when she couldn’t. Long enough for sweat to gather across Annie’s forehead and beneath her shirt.

    When she finally settled into the driver’s seat, the clock read 7:49 a.m. Still on time for school (basically).

    In one form or another, scenes like this unfold every morning in millions of American homes. Sons and daughters lifting aging parents out of bed. Spouses managing medications. Parents helping adult children get dressed.

    Family caregivers — who provide ongoing support for children or adults with chronic, disabling, or serious health conditions — now number roughly 63 million Americans, up from 43.5 million a decade earlier. That’s based on a nationally representative survey conducted in 2025 by AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving, and represents about 1 in 4 adults. Just over 60% are women. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has documented a similar burden through its own surveillance programs. Together they provide countless hours of unpaid or modestly reimbursed care each year, work that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars if replaced by paid labor.

    Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called caregivers “the foundation of America’s healthcare system,” warning that without them hospitals and nursing homes would buckle under the demand.

    But decades of shifting norms around caregiving have given rise to millions of new caregivers who are suffering elevated rates of depression, anxiety, burnout, and suicidal ideation, as well as a range of physical conditions.

    Only recently has the toll of caregiving begun to register as a public health problem in its own right. The National Institute on Aging has backed new technologies aimed at easing caregiver burden, including AI tools, and in February a Department of Health and Human Services’s Administration for Community Living document framed the strain as a national infrastructure issue.

    That enormous, largely invisible workforce is in part due to an aging population, rising rates of chronic disease, and one of the most consequential shifts in U.S. social policy of the past half-century.

    The United States has steadily moved away from housing people with disabilities in large institutions and toward a model centered on families and community life. The shift, which accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s, represented a profound change that allowed people who once would have spent much of their lives segregated from society to be part of their communities.

    There was the promise of government support: respite care, behavioral services, trained aides, accessible schools, and robust community programs that would make family-based care sustainable. But today many of those systems remain fragmented, understaffed, or difficult to access. Families became the foundation of the new model, and things haven’t turned out well for many of them.

    Teenagers

    Ava is 14 now. With her long, light-brown hair braided in the latest styles and a wardrobe of T-shirts and lightly ripped jeans, Ava, who is starting ninth grade this fall, blends easily into a crowd of teens. She loves Costco muffins, squeeze yogurt, slime, and any music with a strong beat, from Aretha Franklin to Bollywood soundtracks and beyond. She loves Disney’s Zombies, the Gen Z/Alpha version of High School Musical.

    It’s only when she speaks — or rather, doesn’t — that the difference becomes clear.

    Ava communicates through points and sounds, due to a rare, genetic nervous system disorder that affects roughly 1 in 15,000 people.

    Angelman syndrome is caused by the loss of function of a gene known as UBE3A on Chromosome 15. Most cases occur randomly and are not inherited.

    The condition is often mistaken for autism, and from the outside the two can look similar. They are not. Autism encompasses a broad spectrum: Some people require lifelong support, while others build careers, marry, and live independently. Angelman syndrome follows a more predictable pattern, marked by severe developmental delays, intellectual disability, and lifelong difficulties with balance and movement.

    In the early years, Annie held on to the possibility that science might somehow alter Ava’s course. She followed promising research, sought out specialists across the country, and enrolled her daughter in a clinical trial involving gene therapy. Nothing changed.

    As Ava grew older, the distance between the life Annie once had imagined for her and the life they were living became harder to ignore.

    When puberty hit in Ava’s preteens, her sweetness was increasingly punctuated by moodiness, and she became more physical. Other girls her age were experimenting with makeup, talking about crushes, navigating the awkward rituals of adolescence. Ava had chew toys, cloth books, and diapers.

    Annie found herself looking back at those same years in her own life — a time defined, above all, by movement.

    Dance had been the organizing force of Annie’s childhood. Raised by her grandmother because illness had left her mother unable to care for her, she spent her afternoons moving from ballet to jazz to tap. By high school, she had made the dance team. Then, during her senior year, she showed up at an open audition for the Oakland Raiders cheerleading squad.

    She remembers stopping at a Safeway for false eyelashes and finding a dress at Forever 21, then walking into an audition room filled with women who seemed impossibly polished. Somehow, she made the team.

    Annie cheered for two seasons. Then she became pregnant with Ava, bringing her time with the Raiders to an abrupt end. Not long after, she and Ava’s father separated.

    One day, on the drive home from visiting a friend in the Bay Area, Annie glanced in the rearview mirror. Ava, who was about 18 months old at the time, was slumped in her car seat, frighteningly still. Annie pulled off the freeway and rushed her to an emergency room.

    Ava had had a seizure, the doctors told her. The harder news was why.

    Love

    Not long before Ava was diagnosed, Annie had ventured back into dating. At the urging of her co-workers at the restaurant where she was working as a waitress, she was scrolling through Tinder one day when a message popped up from a guy she thought was cute.

    His name was Daniel, he was working as a personal trainer, and like her he came from a mixed ethnic background. She was a mix of Italian, Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Native American; he, Spanish, Irish, Scottish, German, and Native American. Like Annie, he considered himself nondenominational but took his Christian faith seriously: Their second date was at church. What stood out most, though, was his kindness. He was patient with Ava. Thoughtful toward strangers.

    Four months later, Daniel proposed. Annie wanted to say yes but hesitated.

    She worried about future children. Angelman syndrome is almost always not inherited, but Annie wondered if something in her had led to Ava’s condition. Daniel told her it didn’t matter.

    Annie Trujillo and Daniel Morgan, then 24 and 25, were married on a sunny day in October 2016 at a winery to Celine Dion’s “The Power of Love.” Ava was 4 at the time, and the couple went on to have two more children, a son, Brody, now 7, and a daughter, Naomi, now 4.

    What no one saw

    When Ava was young, Annie and Daniel tried to keep a semblance of an ordinary life. There were playdates and birthday parties, afternoons at the pool, Sundays at church. They packed the walker and whatever else Ava needed and went.

    Daniel shared the work when he was home. But as his career working for the state of California’s housing department took off, he was increasingly on the road, sometimes for a week at a time. And taking Ava out was becoming more complicated. Leaving the house became a logistical operation, necessitating contingency upon contingency in case Ava swept food and plates off a restaurant table, bolted, or began screaming. Annie learned to keep one eye on her daughter and another on the room, gauging the expressions of strangers and deciding when an explanation — or an apology — was necessary.

    Gradually, it became easier to stay home.

    There, Annie’s days acquired their own relentless rhythm.

    She was often up before 5 a.m., preparing food and medications, dealing with paperwork, getting Ava ready for school. After drop-off came the calls: a prescription that needed filling, a therapy that needed scheduling, a specialist to chase down. When Ava got a new version of her communication device, Annie had to learn that, too. A broken wheelchair could mean an afternoon fighting with the insurance company. A problem at school could erase whatever Annie had planned to do that day.

    By 9 p.m., sometimes later, she would fall into bed.

    At night, practical worries would give way to larger ones.

    Annie worried about whether Ava was safe at school and whether she could keep her safe at home. She worried about the future. Ava was becoming a striking young woman without acquiring the ability to recognize all the dangers that came with being one. Annie had read stories about the sexual abuse of disabled women in institutions. Sometimes they kept her awake. What would happen to Ava when she and Daniel were gone?

    She would wake up a few hours later and start again.

    The family receives some caregiving support through Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, and other state programs, including a few hours of weekend care and financial support for caregiving. But it hasn’t been enough, and recently Trump administration officials, including Mehmet Oz, who oversees the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have questioned Medicaid programs that pay relatives to provide care and have subjected in-home services to increased scrutiny over alleged fraud.

    Annie spent less time wondering what might become of her own life. Every so often, though, she tried.

    She trained to sell tiny homes as the market expanded across California, considered starting a consulting business, launched a podcast called “Blessed for This Mess,” enrolled in nursing classes, and brainstormed furniture designed for children with disabilities. Each new venture offered, briefly, a glimpse of a life that belonged to her as well as to everyone who depended on her. Then something would happen: a medical emergency like a seizure, a crisis at school, a bureaucratic fight that could not wait. Annie would turn her attention back to Ava.

    ‘Who takes care of the caretakers?’

    In the summer and fall of 2023, Annie’s already crowded world of caregiving had expanded again. Her mother was in the hospital with an infection; her uncle had suffered a heart attack. Alongside caring for her three children, Annie began running errands and tending to the small necessities that accumulate when someone else can no longer manage them alone.

    Daniel was accustomed to finding ways to make things work. But this was a time when even he ran out of answers. At Ava’s medical appointments, Daniel began asking what he could do to help Annie. The advice rarely went beyond the familiar: Make sure she rests, takes care of herself. He asked about classes, training, anything more concrete. “Who takes care of the caregivers?” he remembers asking. “There’s no one. How does that make sense?”

    When people ask how they are doing, Daniel, now 35, said, “We always say we are doing awesome, but it’s such a lie.”

    On the hardest nights, after their children were asleep, he and Annie would retreat to the bathroom at the far end of the house. They would slide onto the floor, hold each other and cry.

    Driving alone sometimes, Annie found herself having thoughts that frightened her.

    “I thought, what if I just hit the accelerator and turned the wheel a little …” she recalled.

    The thoughts were less about death than escape. She wanted to live but could no longer imagine how to keep living this way.

    One night in November of that year, she walked into the bathroom, grabbed Daniel’s clippers and shaved off her long brown locks. Looking back, she said she can see the panic on his face at that moment. But at the time he just offered to help, and she politely declined, saying it was something she needed to do on her own because it was “on my bucket list.” The gesture solved nothing. But for a few moments it gave her something she had not felt in a long time: control.

    That Christmas, she downed too much wine, which was very unlike her, and broke down in front of her extended family: “I can’t do this anymore.”

    Not long afterward, a cousin, who is a nurse, called to check on her. “Do you have hope for the future?” she asked, a question medical professionals often use to screen for thoughts of depression or worse.

    Annie didn’t answer.

    Instead, she began to sob.

    Dance parties

    Annie’s cousin helped her find a therapist. She went for about a month. She wasn’t opposed to therapy but left each session frustrated by explaining a world the therapist couldn’t quite see.

    She couldn’t change anything related to Ava’s care, but she could change other things.

    The way back was less a breakthrough than an accumulation of small decisions.

    Annie began dancing again. She signed up for poms, jazz, and funk classes in Sacramento and danced at home with the children, telling Alexa to play Meghan Trainor or Taylor Swift and spinning down the hallway.

    “It felt poetic,” she said. “When I dance even a little bit, I’m showing up for the younger version of me.”

    Other changes were almost comically small: She warmed her pillow with a heating pad before bed, made time for a skin care routine. She learned to let things go, pulling her younger children out of afternoon jujitsu classes and finding that they delighted in their unprogrammed ’90s-style afternoons even better.

    Because Ava’s condition made travel impossible, Daniel helped Annie build a life that asked less of the outside world. Their weekends filled with tending blueberry bushes and olive trees and decorating projects.

    Annie had also begun posting pieces of her life on Instagram and TikTok. Most attracted little notice.

    In April, one of them, about their school-morning routines, took off.

    The video begins with Annie braiding Ava’s hair. Without warning, Ava throws her head backward and strikes her mother in the face. Annie recoils, then keeps going.

    “You’re giving your best,” she tells the camera. “But some days it just gets you. And today was one of those days.”

    The video eventually drew 7.7 million views and more than 228,000 likes.

    Soon, Annie was hearing from parents, caregivers, and people with disabilities she had never met. “Feeling seen,” one person wrote. Another commented, “I’ve never seen another family actually show this side of it.”

    Some others criticized and judged. She tried not to be upset about those, she said, “For the communities that don’t live this life or have access to it … those communities were seeing a reality that they’ve never seen.”

    The platform did not solve Annie’s problems, but it eased her isolation.

    Annie kept posting.

    ‘Going to war’

    On a recent weekday morning, Annie set up her phone in the living room and hoisted a 25-pound bag of Costco’s Kirkland jasmine rice onto her back.

    She began squatting. The bag lurched slightly with each movement.

    “It’s better than weights,” she said, turning toward her phone, which was on a tripod. She explained that unlike a dumbbell, the rice shifted unpredictably, more like a squirmy teen.

    The clip would later end up on TikTok, where Annie now posts several times a week.

    “I look at it as I’m going to war with the syndrome that is trying to burn me out,” she said.

    Annie knows there are decades of caregiving ahead. Increasingly, she finds herself wondering where Ava’s siblings will fit into that future — whether Brody and Naomi will one day help care for their sister. For now, they are only beginning to understand that Ava’s life is different from theirs.

    Brody, a lighter-haired version of his father, is the chill, protective one.

    Naomi takes after Annie. Headstrong and constantly in motion, she is always asking questions. One recent weekend, Brody and Naomi were going to spend a few hours with Daniel’s parents. Ava wouldn’t be joining them. As Annie and Daniel explained the plans, Naomi asked, “Why does Ava have to go to daycare?”

    The evening routine is difficult with Ava even on good days.

    First comes the bath. Then clean clothes. Eventually, Ava is zipped into a specialized safety bed, an essential hand-me-down from another family because Ava tends to wander at night and is unsteady. In October, she sprained both ankles after sliding out of the bed.

    On a recent evening, the trouble started after the bath.

    As Annie tried to help Ava into her back brace — she has scoliosis — and pajamas, Ava became agitated. She screamed, pulled Annie’s hair, tried to bite. Daniel came running over. The two of them wrestled with Ava to keep her from injuring herself while they finished getting her dressed.

    When it was over, Ava began to cry. Annie did, too.

    She pulled her daughter close and closed her eyes. When she opened them again, Ava’s face was still wet with tears, but she was also smiling.

  • What’s behind the bond market roller coaster?

    What’s behind the bond market roller coaster?

    On Thursday, the bond market shrugged off Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s unusual effort to head off rising government borrowing costs. In early trading, the 30-year bond yield rose to 5.27% before settling back down to 5.24%, erasing more than half the drop in costs that had greeted Bessent’s market intervention.

    Bessent on Wednesday said that Treasury would at least double a planned buyback of long-term Treasury securities from $2 billion to $4 billion or more, a move that quickly lowered yields and eased pressure on borrowing costs for governments, businesses. and consumers. By repurchasing government debt from private investors, Treasury aims to reduce the supply of such securities and bring yields down.

    But yields rose again on Thursday, even as Bessent appeared on CNBC in a bid to further reassure bondholders, and on Friday.

    Why is the bond market so skittish? Part of the problem is the size of the national debt, which last week hit a new high of $40 trillion. The Trump administration not only has not put forward a plan for reducing borrowing, it has pushed through major economic policies that have helped make the situation worse.

    Here’s how the bond market got so trigger-happy.

    Why is the bond market important?

    Of the $40 trillion national debt, about $32 trillion is held by investors and the public in the form of Treasury securities. When yields go up, it means investors are demanding a greater return on their money and that borrowing will cost Washington more. In the worst-case scenario, it could also signal that investors are losing confidence in the United States and its ability to make good on its promises to pay off its debt, though recent demand for Treasurys suggests we are nowhere near that crisis point.

    Meanwhile, higher Treasury yields ripple into mortgage rates, corporate debt, and other borrowing, worsening affordability problems throughout the economy.

    What happened last week?

    Tuesday, the returns that investors demanded on 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds spiked to their highest level in nearly two decades — about 5.3%. In response, Bessent doubled the size of a planned buyback of public debt, hoping to head off a potentially destabilizing rise in government borrowing costs. His intervention sent bond yields down to 5.18% and boosted stock prices, but analysts warned those effects were likely to be short-lived.

    Lawrence Gillum, chief fixed income strategist for LPL Financial, called Bessent’s announcement “more about a strategic symboling than an actual fix.” The size of the buyback wasn’t meaningful in the $32 trillion Treasurys market, Gillum said in emailed commentary. “But it is a reminder that the Treasury Department is paying attention and will do whatever it can to keep yields from getting too high too quickly.”

    Has the Trump administration reduced borrowing?

    No. As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to eliminate the federal budget deficit — the annual gap between revenue and spending that necessitates borrowing — and even pay off the nation’s accumulated debt. In fact, the debt has doubled since he first took office. And his most recent policies have produced a deficit that is expected to exceed $2 trillion this year — more than 6% of the nation’s gross domestic product — according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    In the past, Washington has run such enormous deficits only during wartime or a financial crisis. Today, the economy is at or near full employment and growing.

    Recently, Bessent blamed the Biden administration for the government’s budget woes, but he acknowledged in an interview with Newsmax that Trump’s tariff policy — and his signature tax cut — had contributed to the problem. In fact, Trump’s tax-cut measure, the One Big Beautiful Bill, will add an estimated $4.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade, according to the CBO.

    Bessent told Newsmax that a provision of the law allowing companies to immediately deduct the expense of new factories is contributing to this year’s swollen deficit. “That is a hit now to the deficit, but we are creating productive assets for future growth, which will be paying taxes all the way down the line. So I think of that more as like pulling back a slingshot and creating a lot of potential energy that becomes kinetic,” he told the conservative cable channel.

    The CBO projects that the bill will add hundreds of billions of dollars to deficits every year over the next decade, though the negative impact does get somewhat smaller over time.

    Why is the bond market so nervous?

    The sell-off last week in U.S. Treasury securities — at $32 trillion the world’s largest financial market — came amid surging public debt in the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada; renewed conflict in the Middle East; and uncertainty about the Federal Reserve’s intentions on interest rates.

    Much of the bond market’s unsettling tumult results from basic supply and demand. As governments and corporations jostle for the pool of available investment capital, they are driving the cost of borrowed money higher. Political leaders in the U.S., Europe, and Japan must fund ambitious public spending plans, while hyperscalers such as Alphabet and Microsoft need money to build their artificial intelligence networks.

    At the same time, the collapse of the fragile U.S.-Iran ceasefire has reignited fears that an interruption in Persian Gulf oil supplies will keep energy costs and inflation high. On Friday, Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, topped $92 per barrel, up from around $72 during the recent pause in hostilities.

    In this atmosphere of economic uncertainty, economists say it would be wise for the Trump administration to come up with a plan to restrain borrowing. Trump has never offered such a plan, however, and is pressing Congress to increase borrowing to pump hundreds of billions of additional dollars into the Pentagon and his war with Iran.

  • How much should retirees worry about inflation?

    How much should retirees worry about inflation?

    Inflation can be scary for retirees. True, Social Security provides inflation increases in line with the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. But any portfolio income, save allocations to inflation-protected bonds, isn’t inherently inflation-protected. And if inflation occurs early in your retirement, those higher prices will do more damage throughout retirement, potentially jeopardizing your portfolio’s ability to last.

    To gauge your inflation risk and how strenuously you need to defend against it, ask yourself three questions.

    Where are you spending?

    You may not have stopped to consider it before, but CPI is meant to capture the spending experiences of all consumers. Categories like housing receive the biggest weighting in the CPI calculation, while recreation and apparel get smaller weightings.

    But a retired older adult who no longer has a mortgage will likely have smaller housing-related outlays, as a percentage of household spending, than the general population, but healthcare expenditures may well be a bigger share of the budget.

    Given those variations, it can be helpful to use the CPI’s weightings as a starting point for understanding inflation’s impact on your household. But you can get closer to a personal inflation rate by looking at your actual spending in each of the major categories alongside the inflation we’re seeing in those areas.

    How much of your income is inflation-adjusted?

    Next look at how much of your cash flow needs are coming from income sources that have some inflation insulation.

    Social Security is an ideal income source because individuals receive income adjustments that track CPI. Some public-sector pensions also track CPI or offer inflation adjustments that are even more generous. If you have a fixed annuity with an inflation rider, you’ll also see your income adjusted by a fixed percentage per year, though it won’t perfectly track CPI. (You can’t buy an annuity whose payouts are linked to CPI today, unfortunately.)

    On the portfolio side, I bonds and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities are the only investments that are specifically structured to protect against inflation. That’s why building a laddered portfolio of TIPS bonds, with one to mature in each year of retirement, can be a straightforward way to address inflation risk with your portfolio withdrawals. You could invest enough in the TIPS ladder to deliver inflation-adjusted income to cover any fixed living expenses, above and beyond what you can address with Social Security and/or a pension.

    Other portfolio constituents don’t offer as precise a structural defense against inflation, but some asset types do have a good track record of gaining during inflationary periods. Commodities-tracking investments, quite intuitively, top the list: As noted by Amy Arnott, portfolio strategist for Morningstar, they gained ground in all six of the inflationary periods she examined. Stock returns, meanwhile, have been inconsistent or poor in inflationary periods. However, they’ve done a phenomenal job of beating inflation over time. Inflation has run at about a 3% rate since the late 1920s, while equities have gained about 10% on a nominal basis. Thus, a way to think about stocks is that they’re a long-run defense against inflation but won’t necessarily protect your purchasing power year in and year out.

    At the other extreme, fixed-income sources that deliver income in nominal/noninflation-adjusted terms, whether cash or bonds, will tend to be vulnerable in inflationary periods; rising prices have the potential to gobble up all of your income. There are still good reasons to hold cash and bonds in your portfolio — ballast in recessionary environments, for one thing — but their vulnerability in inflationary environments is a major reason not to overdo them.

    Where are you in your retirement?

    Finally, consider where you are in your retirement. As Jamie Hopkins, CEO of Bryn Mawr Trust Advisors and chief wealth officer of Bryn Mawr Trust, and others have pointed out, high inflation early in retirement is just another form of sequence risk, like bad market returns early in retirement. The reason is that if inflation flares up early in someone’s retirement period, those higher costs will elevate costs through the whole retirement period; deflation is very rare.

    In our retirement spending research, we found that those who started retirement at the beginning of a period with unusually high inflation would have a more difficult time sustaining spending for a full 30-year period. To be clear, not every person who retires into a high-inflation environment will run out of money: There have been historical periods where market returns have been strong enough to offset the drag of higher costs. However, because you can’t know how the market will behave as retirement unfolds, it’s wise to curtail spending (to the extent that you can) if inflation happens to flare up early in your retirement.

    This article was provided to the Associated Press by Morningstar. For more retirement content, go to morningstar.com/retirement.

    Christine Benz is director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar and co-host of “The Long View” podcast. Subscribe to her free newsletter, Improving Your Finances.

  • A trade war between Canada and the US further ruptures a once-close and durable alliance

    A trade war between Canada and the US further ruptures a once-close and durable alliance

    TORONTO — For decades, Canada built much of its prosperity on privileged access to the United States. Now, after the collapse of trade talks, one of the world’s closest and most durable alliances has been fundamentally altered, with both countries facing the risk of a full-scale trade war.

    Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged the break after last-ditch negotiations failed Friday, saying Canada had recognized that “America has changed” and that the countries would “not return to our old relationship.”

    The United States imposed 50% tariffs on about $20 billion worth of Canadian goods early Saturday. Carney said Canada would retaliate dollar for dollar beginning Sept. 8, targeting sectors including steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics.

    Carney foreshadowed the shift at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, declaring that the world was experiencing “a rupture, not a transition” and urging countries such as Canada to reduce their vulnerability to economic coercion by strengthening their economies at home and diversifying abroad.

    He said in Ottawa on Saturday that warning had been borne out. He accused the U.S. of using “economic integration as a weapon” and said its “signature was written in pencil.”

    “The collapse of the tariff talks points to the fact that the old Canada-U.S. relationship is over and, for many Canadians, it also confirms the perception that Canada can’t trust the Trump administration,” said Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal.

    The pressure from Republican President Donald Trump has gone well beyond tariffs.

    He has questioned Canada’s economic viability, repeatedly talked about making it the 51st U.S. state, and used trade measures to encourage production to move from Canada to the United States. That has angered many Canadians and fueled a sense of betrayal in a country that had long regarded the U.S. as its closest ally.

    Canadian travel to the U.S. remains sharply lower than before the dispute, with July return trips down nearly 29% by car and 27% by air from July 2024, Statistics Canada said.

    The failed negotiations underscored how far the relationship had shifted. Canada had been prepared to accept some U.S. tariffs for market access and greater certainty — a break from decades of policy aimed at eliminating trade barriers.

    For Canadians accustomed to preferential access under the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and its successor, even reduced tariffs would mark a retreat from the old relationship.

    The collapse also puts Carney’s approach to Trump to the test.

    The prime minister’s “elbows up” posture — hockey shorthand for playing aggressively and refusing to be pushed around — has helped keep him popular at home. His decision to resist U.S. pressure could also resonate abroad with those impressed by his Davos call for countries to resist economic coercion and reduce dependence on great powers.

    Provincial and conservative leaders broadly backed Carney. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said, “The old status quo is not possible,” while Ontario Premier Doug Ford praised Carney for rejecting what he called a bad deal for the auto, steel, and manufacturing sectors.

    Ford said Trump “is not to be trusted whatsoever.”

    Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said Canada was “not cravenly surrendering in the face of constant economic and political aggression.”

    Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, Canada’s largest private-sector union, accused Trump of trying to weaken Canada’s industrial base.

    “What we have seen from the U.S. administration, or Donald Trump, is this consistent attempt to try and destroy the industrial economy of Canada with tariffs that have been strategically designed to attack us,” Payne said.

    Economic risks of fighting back and a shift seen as perhaps lasting

    Nearly three-quarters of Canada’s goods exports go to the United States. The U.S. economy is roughly 10 times larger than Canada’s, limiting Ottawa’s ability to retaliate dollar for dollar without inflicting disproportionate damage at home.

    Royal Bank of Canada economists estimate the tariffs directly affect about 0.4% of Canada’s GDP because they cover only about 5% of Canadian exports to the U.S. The damage could grow if retaliation broadens, more sectors are targeted, or the dispute curbs investment and disrupts supply chains.

    Carney himself acknowledged the cost of retaliation, saying the Canadian measures would “raise costs and reduce choice for Canadians.” He said his government would announce additional assistance for affected businesses and workers.

    Béland said the countries were witnessing “the beginning of a full-scale trade war,” though he cautioned that the situation could change rapidly.

    The dependence is not one-sided.

    Carney said Canada supplies 99% of U.S. natural gas imports, 85% of its electricity imports, and 60% of its crude oil imports. Trump has focused much of his pressure on autos, steel, and aluminum, fueling resentment among Canadians who see the push as an effort to hollow out key industries.

    Goldy Hyder, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, said businesses still view the U.S. as Canada’s most important trading partner but increasingly see the shift as lasting beyond Trump.

    “There is a new trade and investment model, one that could well be kept in place by future U.S. administrations whether Democrat or Republican,” Hyder said.

    Canada looks beyond U.S. because ‘things will never be the same’

    The breakdown adds urgency to Carney’s push to diversify beyond the United States. He has traveled abroad seeking investment and new trade ties, aiming to attract $1 trillion Canadian (US$730 billion) by 2030 and to double non-U.S. investment over the next decade. Canada has signed more than 20 trade and security agreements across five continents in the past year.

    That made Washington’s effort to restrict Canada’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries particularly significant.

    In July, Ottawa and Alberta advanced plans for a new Pacific Coast oil pipeline to give Canadian crude greater access to Asian markets and reduce reliance on U.S. buyers.

    The immediate question is how long the latest tariff confrontation will last.

    Béland said the deeper change probably will, partly because U.S. protectionism is likely to remain influential under future administrations.

    “The idea that things will return to ‘normal’ once Donald Trump leaves the White House is probably just wishful thinking,” Béland said. “It doesn’t mean the relationship might not improve in the future but that things will never be the same.”

  • Iran security chief threatens neighbors against economic measures

    Iran security chief threatens neighbors against economic measures

    The new leader of Iran’s top security body is threatening neighbors against joining new U.S. efforts to squeeze Tehran’s economy. Egypt is trying to revive Iran-U.S. negotiations. And Iraq and Iran say Tehran has helped some ships carrying Iraqi oil to transit the Strait of Hormuz. France and Saudi Arabia are expected to discuss plans to bypass the waterway.

    Meanwhile, Israel has carried out strikes in Syria and in Gaza.

    Iran’s new top security adviser issues threats

    The hard-line new leader of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council threatened Tehran’s neighbors against joining the new U.S. effort to hurt Iran’s economy, and accused the United States of increasing global nuclear insecurity with months of war.

    “If (Trump) wants to do something, we will retaliate in a seismic manner,” he said in an interview with the state broadcaster that aired Saturday.

    Mohsen Rezaei was named this month as part of senior appointments widely seen as hardening Tehran’s political and military stance. His interview with IRIB is his most extensive public statement since then.

    Rezaei said Iran would target oil-shipping routes out of the Persian Gulf — alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz — if neighbors join what he described as the economic war against Iran. Those neighbors would be considered enemies and “we will target their interests,” he said.

    U.S. President Donald Trump in the past week has vowed to increase Iran’s pain by imposing an “unprecedented” level of economic warfare and isolation. Iran has lived under sanctions for years.

    Rezaei said discussions with Oman, located on the other side of the strait, over management of it were ongoing, and said fees would be imposed. Iran asserted control over what was seen as an international waterway shortly after the U.S. and Israel attacked on Feb. 28.

    Rezaei also vowed to make changes to Iran’s diplomacy and bring new capabilities to what he called the next war. He warned the U.S. against sending more military personnel to the region, and said the U.S. had increased nuclear insecurity because countries see that participating in international monitoring efforts, as Iran has done, is no protection against attack.

    Egypt tries to revive U.S.-Iran negotiations

    The top diplomats for Egypt and Iran discussed efforts to bring Tehran and Washington back to the negotiating table to settle the war, Egypt’s foreign ministry said.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Egyptian counterpart Badr Abdelatty also discussed the Iranian-Omani talks, the ministry said.

    Araghchi briefed Egypt’s foreign minister about “Iran’s view of ongoing developments, the course of negotiations and their challenges,” the ministry said, without elaborating. Araghchi confirmed the call. Separately, Araghchi said he had a call with Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir,

    Iran and Iraq say some Iraqi oil is facilitated through the strait

    The governments of Iraq and Iran said Tehran has helped some ships carrying Iraqi oil to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for global oil, natural gas, and other supplies, but there were few details.

    “There is facilitation for some ships carrying Iraqi oil in the Strait of Hormuz,” Iraqi President Nizar Amidi said in comments published Saturday by the state-run news agency, adding that Iraq doesn’t have a national carrier for transporting oil.

    Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency said a number of Iraqi oil tankers have been permitted to transit. It was not clear how many or what Iran might have received in return.

    Syria says an Israeli drone strikes inside a village

    An Israeli drone strike on a vehicle wounded one person on Saturday in the southwestern Syrian village of Beit Jin, according to the Syrian state news agency SANA. Syria’s foreign ministry said several civilians were injured and called the strike a flagrant violation of the country’s sovereignty.

    The Israeli military said it targeted a “terrorist who advanced terror attacks in final stages of preparation,” without elaborating. It wasn’t immediately clear if it was the same strike.

    Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes around Syria after the ouster of former President Bashar Assad in late 2024, mainly destroying army assets to keep them out of the hands of his successors.

    Messages differ on the Golan Heights

    In an interview on Friday with Mario Nawfal, a Lebanese-Australian entrepreneur, U.S. Ambassador Tom Barrack said Israel “still” occupies the Golan Heights in violation of U.N. resolutions.

    Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday in a statement called Barrack’s remarks “full of inaccuracies and positions that contradict Trump’s own position.”

    Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war and annexed it in 1981. The U.N. considers the territory occupied Syrian land. But in March 2019, Trump signed a proclamation recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, reversing decades of U.S. policy.

    French president, Saudi crown prince will meet

    French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are expected to discuss plans to develop alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz during the Saudi leader’s two-day visit to Paris that starts on Sunday, according to officials in the presidency who weren’t authorized to be publicly named.

    Proposals include increasing trade through Omani ports outside of the Persian Gulf, expanding or doubling pipelines in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and developing new rail links, the officials said.

    France and Saudi Arabia have formed a task force on energy and logistics connections between the Middle East and Europe that is scheduled to meet at the ministerial level Monday. The officials said the work would focus on identifying the most strategic projects, securing financing, and establishing roles for French companies.

    An Israeli strike in Gaza kills 1 Palestinian

    An Israeli strike on the backyard of a house in central Gaza killed one Palestinian and wounded another Saturday, according to health officials at Al-Aqsa Martyrs hospital.

    Israel’s military said it targeted Sharif al-Hasanat, a Hamas commander who “advanced terror attacks and took part in efforts to restore Hamas’ underground infrastructure.” Days earlier, a U.S. negotiator reportedly asked Israel to draw down attacks while seeking to make progress on the ceasefire.

  • Trump urges court to reject BBC’s bid to secure records from his family in defamation case

    Trump urges court to reject BBC’s bid to secure records from his family in defamation case

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has urged a federal judge to reject the BBC’s request for the court’s help in securing testimony and documents from three family members in response to his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British broadcaster.

    The BBC is trying to gain “politically-driven leverage” over Trump by serving subpoenas on daughter Ivanka Trump, son-in-law Jared Kushner and son Donald Trump Jr., personal lawyers for the Republican president argued in a court filing Friday.

    U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Kuntz in Miami did not immediately rule on the dispute.

    Kuntz, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, inherited the president’s lawsuit from another judge less than a week ago. Court filings did not immediately specify a reason for the case’s reassignment. The previous judge has set a February trial date.

    In May, a process server working for the BBC tried to serve subpoenas on Ivanka Trump and Kushner at their residence but encountered Secret Service agents who said they were not authorized to accept it, according to the president’s lawyers. They said the process server also visited Trump Tower in New York several days later in a failed attempt to serve Donald Trump Jr.

    In a court filing last week, the broadcaster asked for the court’s permission to serve subpoenas on Trump’s family members by certified mail instead of in person.

    Trump’s lawsuit, filed in December, accuses the BBC of deceptively editing portions of the speech that he delivered near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked the Capitol to try to stop Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump. The suit claims the BBC spliced together separate parts of Trump’s speech to intentionally misrepresent what he said.

    The lawsuit alleges the BBC aired its documentary a week before the 2024 presidential election in “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the outcome to Trump’s detriment.

    “The relief that the BBC’s Motion seeks cannot be segregated from the politically charged discovery campaign that it is based on, and which has already been ruled as improperly overbroad by this Court,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

    The BBC has apologized to Trump for the misleading edit, but it denies defaming him.

  • Postal Service publishes finalized plan to restrict mail ballots

    Postal Service publishes finalized plan to restrict mail ballots

    WASHINGTON — The Postal Service on Friday published regulations that would restrict mail voting, its latest effort to comply with President Donald Trump’s call to restrict the popular practice just months before the midterm elections.

    In a 95-page final rule, the Postal Service clarified how it would carry out an executive order Trump signed in March, which sought to restrict mail ballots and create state-by-state lists of citizens to help determine voting eligibility.

    In the rule, the Postal Service said that it would deliver mail ballots only in states that shared voter data with the federal agency.

    Before the Postal Service accepts ballots into its system, the agency would review every envelope for compliance with the new standards, including by checking that the recipient was enrolled with the Postal Service to receive a mail ballot.

    If the regulations are enacted, the Postal Service would not deliver mail ballots to states that do not comply.

    Trump’s executive order was largely blocked by federal courts this summer, and the Postal Service said in its rule published Friday that it would “not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.” In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said that the government would not enforce the final rule unless the court ruled in its favor.

    The Supreme Court is reviewing the issue and could rule at any time.

    A Postal Service spokesperson on Friday declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

    Trump has repeatedly made unfounded claims that mail voting is “cheating,” even as he has voted by mail in multiple elections, including earlier this week.

    The president has acknowledged that combating fraud is not the only reason to target the practice. In March, he told Republican lawmakers that passing a strict voter identification law cracking down on mail ballots, which Democrats now use more than Republicans, would “guarantee the midterms” for his party.

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • TikTok settles with U.S. over child privacy concerns for $400 million

    TikTok settles with U.S. over child privacy concerns for $400 million

    WASHINGTON — TikTok on Friday reached a $400 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department that accused the company of illegally gathering children’s information.

    The 2024 suit, filed under the Biden administration, claimed that TikTok had gathered data from users under the age of 13 without parental permission. The suit accused TikTok of knowingly allowing children to create accounts and of failing to honor parents’ requests to delete their children’s accounts.

    TikTok violated federal privacy law along with a 2019 agreement with the government in which the app promised to take steps to protect children’s privacy, according to the government.

    Under the settlement announced Friday, TikTok will pay $300 million. The Justice Department also asked the court to eliminate the 2019 agreement, after which TikTok would pay the government an additional $100 million, according to a Justice Department news release.

    The settlement is the latest by the Trump administration, as it takes a softer approach toward ongoing government litigation against several major companies.

    In March, the Justice Department settled a lawsuit that accused Live Nation, the owner of Ticketmaster, of illegally maintaining a monopoly. The government also reached a settlement last year that allowed the technology company Hewlett Packard Enterprise to buy a rival, Juniper Networks, over the objection of some state attorneys general.

    The settlement between TikTok and the government also marks the latest win for the popular short-video app under the second Trump administration.

    During President Donald Trump’s first term, he signed an executive order to force the app’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell it. But TikTok successfully sued to block that ban. In 2024, former President Joe Biden signed a law that would ban the app unless it was sold to a non-Chinese owner.

    After Trump returned to office, he repeatedly delayed enforcement of that law. In January, ByteDance announced that it had reached a deal, hammered out with the U.S. government, that spun off its American operations to a group of non-Chinese investors.

    Stanley E. Woodward Jr., an associate attorney general, called the settlement “a major victory for American children and parents” in a statement. A spokesperson for the U.S. version of TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • Federal judge vacates Trump policy that suspended processing of immigration visas from 75 countries

    Federal judge vacates Trump policy that suspended processing of immigration visas from 75 countries

    A federal judge in New York has vacated a Trump administration policy that suspended the processing of visas from 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and Somalia, whose nationals the Trump administration deemed likely to require public assistance in the United States.

    U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, set aside the policy Friday as “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority.”

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his authority by issuing the policy, which “runs afoul” of the Immigration and Nationality Act by mandating “the refusal of visas to eligible applicants without any basis in law,” the judge ruled.

    Judge says power lies with consular officers

    Vargas said the policy also undermines the congressional requirement that puts consular officers at the forefront of any visa decision.

    “Congress imbued these officers with exclusive authority and discretion to determine if an immigrant is eligible for a visa based upon review of specific and detailed criteria set forth in the statute,” she wrote. “The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme.”

    The policy was challenged by two nonprofit organizations along with 11 individuals, including six whose family members had been refused visas. The remaining five are outside the country and had filed “employment-based petitions” to come to the United States.

    Advocates say keeping families apart is cruel

    “We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together,” said Anna Gallagher, the executive director of CLINIC, a national nonprofit that provides training, resources, and support to a network of immigration legal service providers and was one of the plaintiffs.

    “Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society,” she said in a statement. “This decision affirms both those values and the rule of law, allowing families to once again move forward toward reunification.”

    Another plaintiff is African Communities Together, a Harlem-based nonprofit. One of its leaders called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the rule of law.”

    “This unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart,” Diana Konate, deputy executive director for policy and advocacy, said in a statement. “Today, we are elated to tell our community members: this ban is no more.”

    Trump expands his anti-immigration agenda

    President Donald Trump has imposed a growing list of immigration and travel bans mostly for people from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The State Department said Saturday that the Trump administration is “protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants,” and that it would not comment on pending litigation.

    At the time the policy was issued, the State Department said it had instructed consular officers to halt immigrant visa applications from the 75 countries in accordance with a broader order in November that tightened rules around potential immigrants who might become “public charges.” Relying on Council of Economic Advisers data, the State Department said that more than 30% of households with immigrants from these countries received some form of public assistance.

    A separate notice sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates said that non-immigrant visa applicants also should be “fully vetted and screened” for the possibility that they might seek public benefits in the United States.

    The cable, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press, noted several times that the applicant must prove they won’t apply for public benefits while in the U.S., and that consular officers who suspect the applicant might apply should require them to fill out a form proving their financial bona fides.

    The ruling is the latest example of the courts upending Trump’s immigration agenda. In June, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration policy that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to enter and stay in America — affecting elements like asylum, work permits, green cards, and citizenship applications. That judge said the policy threw countless immigrants’ lives “into indeterminate legal limbo,” and accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

  • Canada will impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods beginning Sept. 8 as trade negotiations collapse

    Canada will impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods beginning Sept. 8 as trade negotiations collapse

    WASHINGTON — The United States imposed 50% tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian products early Saturday, and Canada said it would retaliate beginning Sept. 8 after last-ditch negotiations failed to resolve the latest strain in relations between the historic allies.

    President Donald Trump’s import taxes will hit about 5% of what Canada ships to the United States every year, including products ranging from hockey sticks to tongue depressors.

    Carney said, “in the coming days, we will release the details of these new tariff measures, which will come into force the Tuesday after Labor Day.” The dollar-for-dollar retaliation would target steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics, he said from Ottawa.

    He disclosed that Canada had been willing to drop remaining retaliatory tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos if the United States substantially lowered its own, and to encourage provinces to restore U.S. alcohol sales. But he said Washington’s final demands went too far, saying, “They asked too much and offered too little,” Carney said.

    Trump’s top trade negotiator, Jamieson Greer, said the Republican administration was offering to cut tariffs on steel, autos, and lumber, “things that are sensitive for them. And they’ve always had the best deal, and they still would have an even better deal, but they didn’t want that,” he told Fox & Friends Weekend.

    He added: “We’re moving forward with measures that respond to Canadian retaliation.”

    The moves also call into question the future of a North American trade agreement covering the United States, Canada, and Mexico that is crucial to industry in all three countries.

    Carney said the U.S. added last-minute terms that would have reduced tariff relief for Canadian-made vehicles, restricted Canada’s ability to strike trade deals with other countries, and weakened protections for language, culture, and sovereignty. He said such demands were “unacceptable.”

    But Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said that after a year of retaliation by its longtime ally, “We’ve said enough, and so we’ve taken countermeasures. Our interest is in protecting American workers and protecting American supply chains.”

    No further talks are planned.

    The breakdown in negotiations marked a sharp reversal from two days earlier, when officials from the two countries sounded as if they were headed toward a compromise.

    Carney said Ottawa would “hit back” with targeted tariff protection for industries exposed to the new U.S. duties, including some steel products.

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who leads Canada’s most populous province, backed Carney’s response, saying the prime minister had his “full support” for retaliation “tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar” and that “everything needs to be on the table.”

    A typically cooperative alliance goes sour

    The political impact will likely be even bigger than the economic fallout. The countries sold each other $880 billion worth of goods and services last year.

    The tariffs were initially supposed to kick in at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. Trump extended the deadline for three days to allow talks to continue, but the countries could not reach an agreement in time.

    The U.S. and Canada have wrangled for decades over trade, poking each other over sore spots such as Canadian softwood lumber imports and U.S. access to Canada’s protected dairy market.

    Somehow, they still managed to remain friends, allies, and trading partners. Canadian soldiers fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan after 9/11. The 5,525-mile U.S.-Canada border is undefended, and nearly 330,000 people and $2 billion worth of goods cross it every day; 800,000 Canadians live in the United States.

    Trump’s approach to dealing with Canada marks an extraordinary departure from the traditionally cooperative relationship between the two countries. Trump has imposed tariffs on Canadian goods in a push to bring manufacturing back to the United States and made inflammatory comments about turning Canada into America’s 51st state.

    Carney said Canada had recognized that “America has changed” and that the two countries would “not return to our old relationship.”

    Canadians and Americans are frustrated

    The Canadian public is fed up. A petition to expel U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, a Trump ally, has collected nearly 248,000 signatures since July 21. It accuses the former Republican congressman from Michigan of having “normalized’’ Trump’s talk of annexing Canada, among other things.

    The two countries had good reasons to find a compromise.

    Nearly 72% of Canada’s goods exports last year went to the United States. The Trump administration might be wary of imposing new tariffs — paid by U.S. importers who try to pass along the cost to consumers via higher prices — before the November midterm elections. American voters are already frustrated with the high cost of living.

    “Canada likely wanted further sector-specific relief than the U.S. was willing to offer, or Canada’s concessions did not go far enough,’’ said Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official. ”Either way, I think both sides will be under immense pressure in the coming days to still find an off-ramp. But if Canada has agreed to also impose tariffs, the off-ramp may be even harder to find.”

    Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, called the tariffs “a body blow to North American competitiveness” and warned they would raise costs for Americans while threatening Canadian customers, investment, and small businesses.

    Trump has turned to Depression-era trade penalties

    Trump has made tariffs the centerpiece of his second-term economic agenda. Last year, he imposed double-digit import taxes on almost every country, justifying them by declaring the long-standing U.S. trade deficit a national emergency. The Supreme Court in February ruled that he had overstepped his authority. The justices struck down the trade penalties and set the stage for the federal government to pay refunds to importers.

    So Trump has looked for other legal authority to justify tariffs.

    To punish Canada, he reached back to the Great Depression, invoking Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to threaten 50% tariffs on products that account for about 5% of Canadian exports to the United States.

    Nearly a century ago, with the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress passed the 1930 tariff law, imposing taxes on imports from around the world. Known as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs after their congressional sponsors, they are notorious among economists and historians for limiting world commerce and making the Great Depression worse.

    Section 338, which has never been used before to impose tariffs, authorizes the president to slap import taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses. No investigation is required to justify the levies. Nor is there any limit on how long they can stay in place.

    The rift comes as the United States, Mexico, and Canada are trying to renew a trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term and once praised as a triumph. The United States has begun formal talks with Mexico over revamping the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, known as USMCA. But talks with Canada have not begun and escalating trade conflict casts doubt on whether they will.

    “Canada told the Americans in advance that if these tariffs landed, it would stop negotiating and retaliate,’’ said Barry Appleton, senior fellow at the Center for International Law at New York Law School. ”The American trade representative said publicly he would not tolerate retaliation. Both sides have now committed themselves in public, which is how escalation stops being a choice.’’