Trump is threatening 50% tariffs on Canadian cars. Here’s what else he’s targeting

 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at a press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 22 after trade talks with the US collapsed.

Dave Chan/AFP/Getty Images

President Donald Trump threatened to double tariffs on Canadian cars on Monday, the latest sign that the United States and Canada are barreling toward a deeper trade war after last-ditch efforts to strike a deal collapsed Friday.

The failed efforts resulted in President Donald Trump enacting 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods early Saturday morning. Canada is preparing to retaliate with “dollar-for-dollar” tariffs starting September 8, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced over the weekend.

And on Monday, Trump escalated matters further, threatening to double duties charged on Canadian cars and car parts to 50% come January 1.

“Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years,” Trump said in a Truth Social post. “Not sustainable, and NOT ANYMORE!”

Read More

Trump criticism leads to rare criminal charges for Air Force officer who called for impeachment

 

US Air Force Maj. Jason Watson was arrested by police on the Capitol steps after calling for the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump, in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2026.

Allison Bailey/NurPhoto/AP/File

A US airman who was arrested twice, once on the steps of the US Capitol while calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, was officially criminally charged Monday for his comments, according to a charging document his attorney shared with CNN.

Maj. Jason Watson faces the following charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to the document: three violations of Article 88 for alleged “contemptuous” remarks about Trump, five violations of Article 92 for allegedly disobeying orders and two violations of Article 133 for alleged conduct unbecoming an officer.

The rare Article 88 charges are connected to the Air Force officer’s June interview with the Defenders of our Republic Substack newsletter, his July 1 protest in uniform at the US Capitol, and an August 17 CNN interview.

It can be considered a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to participate in uniform in any overtly partisan activity, such as a political protest, or to use “contemptuous words” against the president and other high-ranking civilian officials. Many low-level offenses of these rules are resolved informally, but Watson’s violations were unusually high-profile.

Watson was first arrested in July while protesting in uniform at the US Capitol, and he was then arrested again last week just days after criticizing Trump again during a CNN interview. One of his attorneys, Chris Mutimer, told CNN that his client was ordered to remain in “pre-trial confinement” — an action analogous to a denial of bond in civilian court — pending legal action against him.

“Not only is (Trump) a failure as president, he is flagrantly violating the Constitution, breaking the law, engaged in rampant corruption, and is killing Americans,” Watson told CNN’s Erin Burnett during the interview. “And that is unacceptable to me.”

In July, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said in a social media post that he expected all airmen to “comply with all laws and policies government personal conduct, political participation, and the wear of the uniform.”

“Americans place their trust in us,” Meink said. “We cannot, and will not, compromise the trust of the nation.”

The disobeying orders charges against Watson allege that he violated Defense Department regulations barring troops from speaking out in favor of partisan causes; “wrongfully” wore his uniform at a Capitol press conference; broke leave regulations by traveling to Washington, DC; and refused to wear his uniform to work the morning after his CNN interview.

Air Force prosecutors also alleged that Watson’s Capitol protest and CNN interview constituted “conduct unbecoming an officer.”

Mutimer, Watson’s attorney, told CNN’s Erin Burnett on “OutFront” that he spoke with his client Monday and “he is basically in solitary confinement for his safety.”

Mutimer said, “He truly believes in everything about our constitution and what it represents, and the oath that he swore, and he stands by the fact that he did this so others wouldn’t have to, and to share that to anyone who’s scared and feels alone.”

Read More

Supreme Court backs Trump’s order to curb mail ballots

 

Rain clouds roll over the United States Supreme Court building on June 18.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday said that President Donald Trump could begin carrying out parts of an executive order intended to restrict mail voting, but additional legal challenges could hinder implementation of his plan before the November midterm election.

Though the court framed the order as limited, its decision injects new uncertainty about the voting rules for the midterms by keeping alive the possibility that Trump will ultimately be permitted to impose policies outlined in the March order that gave the US Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented roles in the running of elections.

The high court’s 10-page order, handed down in an unsigned opinion over the dissent of the court’s three liberal justices, means that the Trump administration may move forward with a proposal for DHS to compile state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the Democratic-led states that had challenged the plan in court.

Another part of Trump’s executive order instructs the Postal Service to impose new mandates on states that want to send ballots through the mail, requiring that they submit their own lists of eligible voters to the agency and include information on ballot envelopes to allow those ballots to be tracked. The justices gave USPS the green light to implement that aspect of Trump’s plan, but a lower court blocked that effort nationwide in a separate case.

That means more court action will likely be needed before the USPS can move forward. And that court action could result in new emergency appeals to reach the Supreme Court quickly, potentially in a matter of days. Put another way, the decision Monday will almost certainly not be the last word on Trump’s executive order on mail ballots.

“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the states, they may challenge that rule,” the court said in its order.

The Supreme Court’s decision did not address the legality of Trump’s executive order, only the timing of the challenge to it. Trump for years has made baseless claims about widespread voter fraud while specifically attempting to undermine confidence in mail voting.

“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the court wrote. “On that score, time will tell.”

Still, the order Monday represents a loss for the Democratic states, which warned they will need to immediately begin diverting time and resources away from preparing for this year’s elections.

“The ruling is a win for Trump for the moment, but it doesn’t fully clear the way for his effort to limit mail-in ballots to go into effect,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “As soon as tomorrow, a Massachusetts district court may block the underlying USPS rule at issue — which is the real thing to watch heading into November.”

The White House celebrated the ruling in a statement Monday. “This is a major win for the security of American elections. These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said.

“This Administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on – which includes the safety and security of our elections,” Bis added.

Jackson: ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’

Election cases have become particularly contentious this year at the Supreme Court, drawing sharp writing from members of both the conservative and liberal wings. In the highest profile case, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act in a significant ruling in late April dealing with Louisiana’s congressional districts.

Read More