Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Carney Stands Up to Trump in Trade War Despite the Risks

 

Carney Stands Up to Trump in Trade War Despite the Risks

 Summary

“Mark Carney walked away from U.S. trade talks and promised dollar-for-dollar retaliation against 50 percent tariffs on $20 billion in goods. He rejected a deal with permanent tariffs, pledging support for affected industries while pursuing new partnerships.

Canada’s prime minister walked away from what he thought was a bad trade deal with the United States. Many Canadians are behind him, but it will be costly.

Prime Minister Mark Carney, wearing a blue shirt and blazer, speaks into a microphone as he gestures with one hand.
Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada said his country would retaliate against U.S. tariffs “dollar for dollar.”Sammy Kogan/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press

Sign up for the Canada Letter Newsletter  Back stories and analysis from our Canadian correspondents, plus a handpicked selection of our recent Canada-related coverage.

On Friday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada did something that few other world leaders before him have dared to do.

After days of intense trade negotiations with the United States, with less than an hour to go on a midnight deadline for a new round of tariffs from the Trump administration, Mr. Carney instructed his negotiators to walk away.

Then, he announced that once 50 percent tariffs came into effect on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods, he would order retaliatory tariffs on the United States “dollar for dollar.”

In a statement, Mr. Carney said he had gone into the trade talks in good faith, seeking “the best deal for Canadians” but “never a deal at any price or on any deadline.”

By walking away, Mr. Carney chose a road that no major U.S. ally has taken: With his country’s economy on the line, he stood up to President Trump and refused to accept the administration’s offer of a new trade relationship with tariffs permanently baked in. Britain, the European Union and other major U.S. trading partners have agreed to smaller deals that have been volatile and often left them worse off.

The collapse of the talks came after Mr. Trump declared on Tuesday that the deal was practically done.

Mr. Carney never echoed that. Over the week, as negotiators spent long hours in Washington huddled in the office of the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Carney appeared optimistic but insisted that there was still work to be done.

Until there wasn’t.

Each side now claims that the other introduced new or unreasonable demands at the last minute — the kind of finger-pointing that is common when trade talks fall apart.

Make no mistake, Mr. Carney has a lot to lose.

Canada, which is closely integrated with the United States and relies on it for defense, is heavily dependent on trade with its superpower neighbor. In his statement, Mr. Carney acknowledged the cost of his choice for many Canadians by saying that his government would work to support industries and companies affected by the new tariffs.

It will also be costly for U.S. residents, who have been paying for Mr. Trump’s tariff policies through higher prices that have also been driven by the war in Iran and spiraling oil costs.

But on Friday, Mr. Carney appeared resolved to shoulder the costs of his decision. And he has risked Mr. Trump’s ire before.

In a speech in Davos, Switzerland, in January, he described a new era in which the United States was no longer a guarantor of stability and where middle powers like Canada have to unite to survive. The speech — and its enthusiastic global reception — angered Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump has also been riled by Mr. Carney’s outreach to China, which led to a narrow but significant trade agreement this year; by Canadian provinces’ persistence on banning the sale of U.S. liquor; and by the Carney government’s retaliatory measures against the United States for its broad, devastating tariffs on core Canadian industries.

Since he rose to lead Canada last year, Mr. Carney has put in motion a plan to help his country survive Mr. Trump’s presidency and, in the long run, thrive apart from the United States. One of his favorite lines is that “nostalgia is not a policy,” and he has told everyone who will listen that there is no going back to the old relationship with the United States — a close and familial, if lopsided, bond.

Instead, Mr. Carney has been traveling to secure new partnerships in Asia and Europe, a generational shift away from economic dependence on the United States, although that is unlikely to bear fruit fast enough to cushion the blow of the breakdown of the two countries’ relationship.

It’s likely that Mr. Trump will not take kindly to Mr. Carney’s trade decision. Just before beginning his second term, Mr. Trump said he was willing to inflict “economic pain” on Canada to get what he wanted. He has repeatedly expressed a desire to make Canada the 51st state, describing it as little more than a vassal that “lives because of the United States.”

But Mr. Carney’s vision for Canada, with a surprising assist from Mr. Trump’s needling, has ignited a wave of patriotism. Going into the trade talks, more than half of Canadians — many more than those who voted for Mr. Carney — said they wanted him to give nothing away.

Several premiers of different political stripes expressed their support for Mr. Carney after his decision. Doug Ford, a conservative who leads Ontario, cheered him on. David Eby, the progressive premier of British Columbia, said, “We didn’t ask for this, but we’ll keep fighting for as long as it takes.”

Not everyone is enthusiastic. Danielle Smith, the conservative premier of Alberta, who has good relations with the MAGA movement, was more circumspect and urged Mr. Carney to return to the negotiating table. Canada’s industry is aghast with the prolonged turbulence and uncertainty that Mr. Trump’s trade war against Canada, and Mr. Carney’s refusal to submit, are causing.

But there is little doubt that Mr. Carney will also be cheered, at home and abroad, for doing what he thought was best for his country, and for saying, in his Friday statement, that “we will not allow any nation to determine our future.”

Friday, August 21, 2026

DOJ Whistleblower Confirms “Antisemitism” Probes Against Universities Were Sham Investigations

 

How Harvard’s Epic Fight With Trump Is Costing the University

 

How Harvard’s Epic Fight With Trump Is Costing the University

 Summary

“Federal funding to Harvard from the National Institutes of Health has slowed, with awards down from prior years despite court victories. The Trump administration uses delays and rejections, prompting layoffs and cuts while Harvard continues litigation.

The federal government has slowed Harvard’s funding, despite the university’s legal victories. The conflict is forcing hard choices on campus.

A classical brick building with columns and many windows. Bare trees frame the scene, with people on the steps and patches of snow on the ground.
The Trump administration has found new ways of trying to pressure Harvard to comply with its wishes.Lucy Lu for The New York Times

One of Harvard University’s biggest federal funding streams is down sharply, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.

The declines have persisted even after a federal judge forced the Trump administration to reverse drastic cuts to the university last year.

The funding, from the National Institutes of Health, currently lags about 18 percent behind the average pace of grants during the Biden administration, the analysis shows.

Last year, Harvard successfully sued the Trump administration, after the government announced it had frozen more than $2.2 billion in 2025, from multiple federal agencies.

But unlike then, when Trump officials made a public spectacle out of announcing the cuts, the N.I.H. is mainly delaying, reducing or rejecting grant requests, often leaving researchers and university leaders in the dark about what is happening. 

The reduction appears to be the latest front in the Trump administration’s on-again, off-again war with Harvard and other elite universities. It is a new, more subtle tactic that is harder to fight in court, but that could be just as damaging if cuts and uncertainty build.

The Trump administration has targeted a number of the nation’s elite universities, accusing them of tolerating antisemitism and pursuing racial diversity in ways that flout the law, among other criticisms. Harvard — the country’s wealthiest university — has been one of the most frequent targets of federal officials.

As the Trump administration has pulled multiple levers to try to bring Harvard and other schools to heel, Harvard has often pushed back. It was the first institution to sue the Trump administration, has won in court on a number of occasions and has not reached a settlement with the federal government, as other prominent schools have done.

Now, however, the university faces cuts that may be harder to counter. Last September, a judge ruled that the administration had improperly cut off funding to Harvard when it ended all of its grants in 2025, finding that the government had violated Harvard’s First Amendment rights.

But in the ruling, the judge suggested that there were lawful means the government could pursue if it wanted to restrict Harvard’s money, should it choose to.

That is what is happening.

Through June 30 of this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, the N.I.H. provided Harvard 309 awards worth a total of $200 million. The amount is down from an average of roughly 440 awards worth $246 million for the same nine-month period in 2021-2024, according to the latest data available.

Harvard is still one of the largest recipients of N.I.H. funding, though it is far behind the top grantees such as Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan and Yale. Other major research universities have also seen reductions in N.I.H. funding.

Though N.I.H. support has slowed compared to the Biden years, the 2026 awards are outpacing last year, when Harvard’s funding was frozen. By the same point in 2025, N.I.H. funding to Harvard was stalled at 201 grants worth $94 million.

In recent months, Harvard’s individual schools have laid off staff. The leadership of the university’s largest division, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, reported in an email to the division on Aug. 14 that 165 of its staff positions had been eliminated in a layoff and restructuring. The job cuts were aimed at reducing a major deficit.

Carrie Barbash, an organizer and former president of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers, said the final number of layoffs may change as some staff members whose jobs were eliminated consider moving into some newly designed roles.

The current grant slowdown is not taking place evenly across Harvard. The university’s Chan School of Public Health is heavily dependent on N.I.H. funds and has seen nearly 25 percent less in grant funding this year, compared to the average amount from 2021 to 2024. 

The N.I.H. has obligated $67 million across 63 awards to Chan through June of this fiscal year; the 2021-24 average for the same time period was $90 million across more than 100 awards.

Nancy Krieger, a professor of social epidemiology at the Chan School, said that fallout from the funding slowdown goes beyond individual projects that lost grants. More than a year of federal cuts — and legal fights over the reductions — have “shaken any sense of stability as to whether the federal government is a reliable funder,” she said.

The school is already cutting back, with layoffs and reductions in the number of slots for Ph.D. students. “It’s not just that you lost funding, it’s that you’re reducing the size of the cohort for the next generation of researchers that you’re training,” Dr. Krieger said. “What is the knowledge lost? And what are the myriad ripple effects for the economies of the cities and towns that depend on universities as major employers?”

Harvard has also won some rounds in its fight with the administration. Harvard’s court victories protected much of its grant money and its ability to host international students. 

A federal judge on Aug. 13 dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit against Harvard that had accused the school of tolerating antisemitism and sought the ability to deny it grants. 

Harvard’s endowment continues to ride the stock market to record highs, and the university’s steadfastness under pressure has inspired supporters and alumni who do not want it to yield to President Trump.

While Yale University is in talks to perhaps become the next elite school to settle with the administration, Harvard continues to hold out. Harvard is not believed to be engaged in any serious settlement talks at this time.

“Harvard is fighting for principles, both legal and constitutional, and doing so on behalf of the entire system of colleges and universities,” said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. “We should all be grateful.”

Yet, as Mr. Bollinger noted, “any litigant will inevitably pay a high price.”

The administration has pushed the fight to Harvard on several fronts. The university is still engaged in other litigation and appeals with the Trump administration; a loss in any major case could be devastating.

The Trump administration continues to open fresh battles. The government is proposing new budget rules that would give the administration’s political appointees more power over grants.

White House spokeswoman Liz Huston blamed the ongoing battles between the university and the administration on Harvard’s “stubborn commitment to unlawfully discriminating on the basis of race and failing to properly protect its students.”

“Unless Harvard comes to the table in good faith, the Trump administration will continue pursuing every available legal avenue to enforce federal civil rights laws,” she said.

Facing the uncertainty caused by lawsuits, grant slowdowns, and other pressures from the administration, Harvard and other schools are likely to continue to retrench, said Tom Gerety, a former president of Amherst College.

“The main thing you do in uncertainty is hunker down and say, ‘What cuts can we make right now?’” he said, noting that research universities are already trimming back on Ph.D. programs.

Tighter research budgets will mean scientists are more likely to seek jobs outside the United States, he said, while those still at American schools may be less likely to take the unconventional big swings in their research that can lead to scientific breakthroughs.

“This is going to hurt,” Mr. Gerety said, “and it’s going to hurt a lot more in 10 years than it does now.”

The government has pursued appeals of federal court rulings that went Harvard’s way last year. 

The two sides, as well as a number of outside parties, filed briefs this summer over last fall’s decision in the funding case. The government is also appealing a June 2025 court decision blocking the administration’s effort to stop Harvard from hosting international students. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for October. 

Methodology

The Times analyzed N.I.H. awards made to Harvard University, Harvard Chan School and Harvard Medical School in fiscal years 2021 through 2026, using records publicly available through the agency’s RePORTER database.

To account for lags in data availability, the analyses include only awards made through June 2026, the most recent month comparable to prior years.

Irena Hwang is a data reporter at The Times, using computational tools to uncover hidden stories and illuminate the news.“

Thursday, August 20, 2026

White House faces scrutiny over top Trump aide Natalie Harp – live

White House faces scrutiny over top Trump aide Natalie Harp – live

“Harp, a former One America News Network show host, has emerged as a key gatekeeper to the president

Natalie Harp, aide to US president Donald J Trump, in Dover, Delaware, on 22 July.
Natalie Harp, aide to US president Donald J Trump, in Dover, Delaware, on 22 July. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA

Natalie Harp, special assistant to Donald Trump, continues to be the focus of media attention Thursday after an MS Now report revealed that she had worked at the White House for nearly a year without obtaining a security clearance.

Harp, a former One America News Network show host, has emerged as a key gatekeeper to the president. Her presence with Trump when the president left Air Force One as a decoy while sneaking on to another plane in a service cart – even as senior officials remained behind – drew attention.

Jon Ossoff, a Democratic senator from Georgia, amplified that attention with comments at a rally Sunday in Atlanta. Speaking of Trump, Ossoff said: “He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn’t want to do the job; he wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie to their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar.”

A clip of his commentary went viral on social media, drawing attacks from the president’s defenders.

White House communications director Steven Cheung posted in reply on X: “Jon Jackoff has to be the biggest cuck loser in politics,” while White House spokesman Davis Ingle posted, “Jon Ossoff is a cringeworthy, feminine theatre kid cosplaying as Barack Obama. Nobody gives a shit what this lightweight loser says.”

Ossoff marveled at the reaction to his observations in an interview Wednesday with Laurence O’Donnell on MS Now. “It’s been amazing to watch this White House melt down over this all week,” Ossoff said. “These White House staffers are adults, public officials paid by the taxpayer with immense power in positions of public trust. And whether it’s Natalie Harp printing out Donald Trump’s daily dose of delusion and flattery, or Peter Navarro steering taxpayer-funded loans to Trump family investments, or Pete Hegseth deluding the president daily into deepening this quagmire in the Middle East, no one cares about their feelings.”

The pile on continues: Rosie O’Donnell, a longstanding Trump antagonist filling in Wednesday night for Jimmy Kimmel, picked at the topic.

“That’s all I’m going to say about you tonight, sweetheart,” O’Donnell said of Trump. ”You got to realize it’s time to hang up your wig and let Natalie tuck you in. Time to go nighty-night!”

A White House meeting on cryptocurrency and is amplifying a spike in bitcoin values Thursday.

President Donald Trump – who disclosed $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency earnings from his family’s investments in 2025 – is pushing congress to pass the CLARITY Act, which would define cryptocurrency as a commodity and move much of its regulation to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Bitcoin – along with gold and other commodities – began rising sharply in value at 10:30 Wednesday morning when the US treasury department announced it would double its long-end bond buybacks to at least $4 billion per operation, supporting market liquidity. That set off a short squeeze in cryptocurrencies. Twenty-four hours later, bitcoin hovered around $71,500, an increase of about 10 percent in value.

“We need Congress to take the next step by passing the Clarity Act – a fair version of the Clarity Act,” Trump said in opening remarks at a summit held Wednesday on the legislation with cryptocurrency industry leaders. “It’s a very, very powerful structured legislation which will keep us ahead of China, keep us ahead of everyone else, will open the door to the next wave of innovations and innovators.”

Thursday morning, the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee held its inaugural meeting to discuss the regulation of crypto assets, artificial intelligence, and prediction markets.

“America has long been the global hub of financial innovation,” said Chairman Michael S. Selig. “I look forward to meeting with the entrepreneurs, thinkers, and builders of the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee to discuss ways emerging technologies and financial products are shaping our markets as we embark upon the new frontier of finance.”

The agenda includes discussion of agentic finance and the use of AI in derivatives markets, as well as the regulation of prediction markets like Kalshi.”

Trump’s Order to Cut Military Exercises With South Korea Carries Risks, Experts Say

 

Trump’s Order to Cut Military Exercises With South Korea Carries Risks, Experts Say

 Summary

“Trump ordered the Pentagon to curtail Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises, scaling back live-fire training. Officials warn reduced readiness and deterrence may result, while Kim Jong-un’s stance remains unchanged.

President Trump’s decision to curtail the military exercises came as allies question the U.S. commitment to longstanding alliances.

American and South Korean troops participating in the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises last year.Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

For years, the U.S. and South Korea militaries have participated in one of the largest military exercises in the world, with thousands of troops from both countries preparing for possible North Korea aggression.

On President Trump’s orders, the Pentagon curtailed this year’s exercises and scaled back some live-fire components of the drill, which were already underway.

Current and former military officials say the move is likely to undercut U.S. military readiness in the region at a time when allies are questioning the Trump administration’s commitment to longstanding partnerships and countering China.

The president’s decision is also unlikely to affect the person he hoped to sway: North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un.

The exercises, called Ulchi Freedom Shield, usually run for 11 days and have sometimes included 17,000 or more U.S. troops and 50,000 South Korean troops. In past years, the sessions have featured some computer simulations carried out in a large bunker south of the capital, Seoul, intended to check the allies’ readiness to repel a North Korean attack.

This year, some 18,000 South Korean troops were to take part in Ulchi Freedom Shield. The Pentagon has not said how many American troops had been expected to participate.

While both countries have insisted that the exercises were defensive in nature, Mr. Kim has long called them provocative. North Korea’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the drills as “a rehearsal for an aggressive war.”

The country conducted two ballistic missile tests off its east coast this month, vowing to “respond to a new level of a threat with a new level of a deterrent.”

Mr. Trump seemed to agree with North Korea, saying in a post on Sunday that the country under Mr. Kim had been “unthreatening and respectful” while he has been president.

American troops have been through this before. Mr. Trump abruptly canceled the exercise in 2018 during his first administration, without notifying Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

At the time, Trump administration officials said they wanted to give negotiations meant to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions an opportunity to succeed. Mr. Trump met with Mr. Kim three times but ultimately failed in that goal.

Back then, officials said the military could weather one big interruption in the exercise schedule but that readiness would suffer if the drills lapsed for several years.

After Mr. Trump’s announcement on Sunday, the Pentagon declined to say which specific training events would be canceled, modified or conducted through computer simulation. But former commanders said two main components would be affected: the testing of high-level command problems and other issues, and training for large scale, on-the-ground live fire and troop maneuvering.

Both are valuable from a military readiness perspective, commanders said. A Pentagon official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters, said the American and South Korean militaries would continue training on their own before the exercise ends on Aug. 21, but that they would not train together as had been previously scheduled.

“Of course it hurts readiness,” said Victor Cha, the Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “And readiness relates to deterrence. If the Chinese or North Koreans feel that U.S. deterrence is not as strong, they might think there are opportunities there.”

Mr. Cha also disputed the notion that canceling the exercises would help Mr. Trump to get a nuclear deal with North Korea, pointing to the 2018 talks that ultimately collapsed in Hanoi in 2019 over disagreement about relief from U.S. economic sanctions and the scope of North Korea’s nuclear disarmament.

Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, a retired top commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, said that scaling back live-fire training hurts troops’ ability to hone their combat skills.

“It develops competence and confidence by training just as you would fight an adversary as a team,” General Scaparrotti said in an email. “The use of live rounds and rigorous training standards in training is the most realistic test of unit readiness.”

In a rambling social media post on Sunday, Mr. Trump complained that South Korea had not supported the Trump administration in its war against Iran. He also said the military exercises were expensive, “with much of these costs paid for by the United States of America (as usual!).”

The estimated cost of this year’s exercise was $6.9 million, the Pentagon official said, adding that any savings resulting from the changes have not yet been determined. But former commanders said the vast majority of those costs had already been paid, for expenses like U.S. troop movements in and out of South Korea.

South Korea’s Foreign Ministry appeared to be caught off guard by Mr. Trump’s announcement but pledged to continue coordinating with the United States on the military exercises.

As the war with Iran sinks into a quagmire, Mr. Trump is increasingly refocusing on North Korea, which is now a de facto nuclear power.

Mr. Trump posted a picture of himself with the North Korean leader on social media at least twice in recent months.

“Kim Jong Un and I get along GREAT!” Mr. Trump wrote alongside a photograph he posted on Saturday of their meeting at the border between North and South Korea in 2019.

Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that he planned to meet with Mr. Kim sometime later this year, but he did not offer details. “I get along with Kim Jong Un very well,” Mr. Trump said. “He’s going to be fine. As long as we have a smart president, he’s going to be fine.”

Kim Yo Jong, the North Korean leader’s younger sister and close adviser, told state media on Wednesday that the country’s position toward the United States had not changed despite Mr. Trump’s decision to cut short the military exercises.

Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times. He has reported on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism for more than three decades. Contact him securely on Signal: @ericschmitt.36.

Helene Cooper is a Pentagon correspondent for The Times. She was previously an editor, diplomatic correspondent and White House correspondent.“

The Black Americans Were Never What We Thought — DNA Reveals Their True Ancestry