Trump cuts off US trade talks with Canada, shattering optimism over tariff deals
US President Donald Trump has abruptly cut off trade talks with Canada over its tax targeting US technology firms, calling it a "blatant attack".
The move on Friday, local time, plunged US-Canada relations back into chaos after a period of relative calm that included a cordial G7 meeting in mid-June where Mr Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to wrap up a new economic agreement within 30 days.
It also came just hours after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent struck an upbeat tone on trade, touting that progress had been made with China on reviving the flow of critical minerals for the US manufacturing sector, and in other key tariff negotiations.
The often-chaotic rollout of Mr Trump's import levies since his return to office this year has frequently whipsawed financial markets, and have begun to weigh on consumer spending, the bedrock of the US economy.
US stocks were briefly batted lower by his broadside against Canada, but the S&P 500 and Nasdaq managed to close out the week at record highs.
Mr Trump's action comes ahead of Canada's plans to begin collecting on Monday a previously enacted digital services tax on US technology firms, including Amazon, Meta, Alphabet's Google and Apple, among others.
The tax is 3 per cent of the digital services revenue a firm takes in from Canadian users above $US20 million ($30 million) in a calendar year, and payments will be retroactive to 2022.
Mr Trump, in a post on his Truth Social media platform, called the tax "a direct and blatant attack on our country" and said Canada was a "very difficult country to TRADE with".
"We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven-day period."
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr Trump said that the negotiations with Canada would not resume "until they straighten out their act," adding that the US holds "such power over Canada".
Canada is the second-largest US trading partner after Mexico, and the largest buyer of US exports. It bought $US349.4 billion of US goods last year and exported $US412.7 billion to the US, according to US Census Bureau data.
Mr Carney's office responded to Mr Trump's announcement by saying: "The Canadian government will continue to engage in these complex negotiations with the United States in the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses."
Mr Bessent sought to downplay the US-Canadian dispute in a CNBC interview, saying US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer would likely open a Section 301 probe into Canada's digital tax that would clear the way for tariff retaliation in the amount of harm to US firms, which he said was roughly $US2 billion.
The US has prepared similar retaliation against European countries that have imposed digital taxes. A USTR spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Earlier on Friday, Mr Bessent said the Trump administration's various trade deals with other countries could be done by the September 1 Labor Day holiday, citing talks with 18 top trade partners and another revision to a deal with China to reopen the flow of rare earth minerals and magnets.
After a week where tariffs took a back seat to the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the massive tax and spending bill in the US Congress, the Trump administration's trade negotiations have picked up.
The US sent a new proposal to the European Union on Thursday and India sent a delegation to Washington for more talks.
"So we have countries approaching us with very good deals," Mr Bessent said on Fox Business Network.
"We have 18 important trading partners. … If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day," Mr Bessent said.
He did not mention any changes to a July 9 deadline for countries to reach deals with the US or see tariffs spike higher, but Mr Trump said at the White House that he could extend the tariff deadline or "make it shorter".
Mr Trump said that he would notify countries of their tariff rates within the next week and a half, adding: "I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: Congratulations. You're paying 25 per cent."
Mr Bessent said the US and China had resolved issues surrounding shipments of Chinese rare earth minerals and magnets to America, further modifying a deal reached in May in Geneva.
As part of its retaliation against new US tariffs, China suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets, up-ending supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world.
During US-China talks in May in Geneva, Beijing committed to removing the measures imposed since April 2, but those critical materials were not moving as fast as agreed, Mr Bessent said, so the US put countermeasures in place.
"I am confident now that … as agreed, the magnets will flow," Mr Bessent said, adding that these materials would go to US firms that had received them previously on a regular basis.
He later said that the US would begin shipping withheld materials to China when the rare earths shipments resumed.
China's Commerce Ministry said on Friday the two countries have confirmed details on the framework of implementing the Geneva trade talks consensus.
It said China will approve export applications of controlled items in accordance with the law. It did not mention rare earths.
Trump administration officials also held trade talks on Friday with India and Japan, two other countries in advanced negotiations with the US
The Japanese government said in a statement that the two sides will continue to work to "reach an agreement that benefits both Japan and the United States".
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
30 minutes ago
- West Australian
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court closes term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
Perth Now
42 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court closes term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
The Australian
3 hours ago
- The Australian
US Senate effort to restrain Trump's war powers fails
An effort by US Senate Democrats to prevent President Donald Trump from taking further military action in Iran without congressional approval was blocked by Republicans, who argued the commander in chief was within his rights to launch strikes on nuclear sites a week ago. The measure failed with 47 in favour and 53 opposed on Friday, largely along party lines, shy of the required simple majority in the GOP-controlled chamber. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania sided with Republicans in voting against the measure, while GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky sided with the Democrats in backing it. The US launched pre-emptive military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities last Saturday, citing Tehran's progress toward completing a nuclear weapon. Trump characterised the attacks as a complete success and later announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that has halted the conflict for now. Democrats and some Republicans said Trump should have come to Congress before attacking, arguing Iran didn't present an imminent threat to America. They said they were also leery of the US potentially stumbling into another overseas war, following long fights in Iran and Afghanistan. 'Wars are easy to start. But they are hard to end, and that's why the founders wanted us to debate them before the American people,' Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) said in a speech on the Senate floor. The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), would have ordered the removal of US troops 'from hostilities against' Iran and made it clear that Congress needs to approve further attacks. 'War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person,' Kaine said in a Senate floor speech prior to the vote. Paul, in explaining his vote, said that ordering US military troops into war 'is the most consequential and humbling responsibility that Congress is entrusted with,' he said in a speech on the Senate floor prior to the vote. But most Republicans said Trump, as the US military's top leader, was within his authority to launch the strikes. Some, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), said this week that they believe that the War Powers Resolution, the 1970s law that attempts to rein in the president's powers, is unconstitutional. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R., Tenn.) called the Kaine resolution ill-conceived and said that had Trump consulted Congress, the element of surprise would have been lost. 'I cannot and I will not support a resolution that removes the ability of the president of the United States to act decisively in defence of national interests, our allies and our armed forces,' he said. Senators were briefed on the Iran strikes on Thursday. Emerging from the closed-door briefing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said that the country's 'operational capability was obliterated.' Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said 'it's safe to say that we have struck a major blow' against Iran's nuclear program. Democrats said they agreed that the sites were significantly damaged but said they needed more information to be convinced that Iran's nuclear program was set back by more than a few months and that Trump had a longer-term plan. 'We all agree that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon, but bombing is not the best, most sustainable way of achieving that goal, and nothing I heard yesterday at the intelligence briefing changes that assessment,' said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.). Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said he left the briefing with more questions than answers. 'There is no coherent strategy, no end game, no plan,' he said. Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) have criticised Trump for waiting days to send US intelligence officials to share classified details about the operations with lawmakers. Neither lawmaker was extensively briefed prior to the strikes. Dow Jones Newswires Read related topics: Donald Trump The Wall Street Journal Only a select few researchers have the skills for the hottest area in tech. Mark Zuckerberg and his rivals want to hire them, even if it takes pay packages of $US100 million. The Wall Street Journal The US President calls Canada a 'very difficult country to trade with' and ends talks over tariffs on dairy products and what he called an egregious digital-services tax on US tech companies.
