Canada Announces Bombshell Break With U.S. Over Trump

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney officially broke things off with the United States Thursday, marking a seismic shift in relations between the longtime allies.  

“The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over,” Carney said during a press conference, following a meeting in Ottawa with his ministers to “discuss trade options” in response to Donald Trump’s “permanent” 25 percent tariffs on all imported vehicles and auto parts.

“What exactly the United States does next is unclear, but what is clear, what is clear is that we as Canadians have agency. We have power. We are masters in our own home,” Carney said. 

“We can control our destiny. We can give ourselves much more than any foreign government, including the United States, can ever take away. We can deal with this crisis best by building our own strength right here at home.” 

Carney warned that Canada, which is currently one of the top importers of U.S. goods, would need to reshape its economy to wean itself off its southern neighbor.

“We will need to dramatically reduce our reliance on the United States. We will need to pivot our trade relationships elsewhere. And we will need to do things previously thought impossible at speeds we haven’t seen in generations,” Carney said. 

On Wednesday, Carney called the latest round of tariffs a “very direct attack.” 

“We will defend our workers. We will defend our companies. We will defend our country,” he said at the time.

Back stateside, the Big Three automakers took an immediate hit Thursday as the market digested Trump’s tariff announcement, with new tariffs on vehicles expected to go into effect on April 3 and on vehicle parts one month later.

The White House has pretended that the steep tariffs on Canada are a bargaining chip to help curb illegal drug trafficking—a threat so minor that it warranted no mention in the Trump administration’s first Annual Threat Assessment—but Trump openly admitted that he hoped to use tariffs to bully Canada into becoming a U.S. state. His bullying has since escalated into an all-out trade war, which could potentially devastate states along America’s northern border. 

The Trump administration sent a Venezuelan national with no criminal record to a Salvadoran megaprison based on an administrative error, according to The Miami Herald.

Frengel Reyes Mota, 24 years old, was deported to El Salvador earlier this month along with hundreds of other Venezuelan men whom the Trump administration falsely claims to be Tren de Aragua gang members. Trump invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to bypass any judicial resistance (which has come anyway in the form of Judge James Boasberg). But Reyes Mota’s immigration records contain multiple errors, including marking him as a woman, using a different last name, and filing two ID numbers for him.

Reyes Mota has committed no crime—either in Venezuela or the United States—and has none of the tattoos that the Trump administration is absurdly alleging identify Tren de Aragua members. In fact, he has no tattoos at all. He had a pending asylum case before he was disappeared to El Salvador without a day in court.

“We are facing a novel and extremely concerning situation where people’s immigration court proceedings are still pending but they are being disappeared from the United States without any lawful removal order,” said Mark Prada, Retes Mota’s lawyer. “This is an affront to the rule of law.”

The Trump administration continues to assert that a DHS file notes that Reyes Mota “may be a Tren de Aragua associate.” But his lack of criminal record is mentioned in the very same file.

More bleak stories like this are sure to come, as the Trump administration doubles down on its indiscriminate deportations of tattooed Latino men under the guise of war.

Senate Republicans voted Thursday to overturn a $5 cap on bank overdraft fees, leaving working-class people vulnerable to exploitation from financial institutions.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted the cap late last year. It was scheduled to take effect later in 2025.

The rule was meant to protect consumers from unreasonable fees levied by banks and credit unions, saving consumers an estimated $5 billion per year total.

Chuck Bell, the advocacy program director at Consumer Reports, warned that repealing the fee limits “will hurt working families who are already struggling with high prices and inflation.” While Donald Trump has made plenty of promises to make the cost of living more affordable, he has functionally rubber-stamped the efforts of Republicans to undermine that very promise.

The resolution to repeal the rule was introduced by Senator Tim Scott, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and done through the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to undo recently adopted regulations through a simple majority vote.

The resolution passed in the Senate on a nearly party-line vote of 52–48.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley was the only Republican to oppose the measure. “Why would we help the big banks at the expense of working people?” Hawley said, after the vote. “I just don’t understand it.”

Every Senate Democrat voted against the measure.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee who helped establish the CFPB, slammed her Republican colleagues for undermining the consumer to help big banks. “Senate Republicans would rather you didn’t find out they just voted to give the biggest banks billions in profits from overdraft fees that kick working people when they’re down. Disgraceful,” she wrote on X Thursday.

The resolution is now expected to move to the House.

Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg urged voters Thursday to contact their representatives to “ask how they’ll vote.”

“Moment of clarity today in the Senate where Republicans sided with big banks & against customers. Higher fees, lower transparency,” Buttigieg wrote on X.

The CPFB’s rule previously faced a legal challenge from the American Bankers Association, which claimed that the agency had overstepped its authority to impose the rule, which would ultimately hurt consumers. Rob Nichols, the trade group’s chief executive, issued a statement applauding the resolution’s passage in the Senate.

“If implemented, the C.F.P.B.’s 11th-hour rule imposing government price controls would force many banks to limit or eliminate overdraft protection as we know it,” Nichols said. “Many Americans would be driven to less regulated and higher risk non-bank lenders to cover unexpected or emergency expenses.”

The Trump administration seems interested in eliminating the CFPB altogether. “CFPB RIP 🪦,” Elon Musk wrote on X in February.

New York has blocked Texas from filing a legal action against a local doctor accused of prescribing and sending abortion pills to a resident in the Lone Star State.

“In accordance with the New York State Shield Law, I have refused this filing and will refuse any similar filings that may come to our office,” Taylor Bruck, the acting clerk of Ulster County, said in a statement Thursday. “Since this decision is likely to result in further litigation, I must refrain from discussing specific details about the situation.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Dr. Margaret Carpenter in December, accusing her of mailing the pills to a Collin County resident who allegedly consumed the medication when she was nine weeks pregnant. The lawsuit did not mention whether the woman was successful in terminating her pregnancy.

Paxton wanted Carpenter to cough up $100,000 for every violation of the state’s near-total abortion ban—a potentially relatively light sentence, considering that violators of Texas’s draconian abortion law can also face life in prison and have their Texas medical license revoked.

The lawsuit was Texas’s first attempt at suing an abortion provider across state lines, and is New York’s first use of its shield law, which protects doctors and providers providing abortion care from out-of-state investigations and prosecutions.

Abortion rights advocates have argued that banning the procedure only bans safe abortions, forcing women in need of abortion care to find alternative solutions. Last week, news broke that a Pennsylvania teenager and her mother were under investigation after fetal remains were reported in the family’s backyard following a self-managed abortion, reported Jezebel.

And recent reports have shown that the lack of access to abortion care has actually made pregnancies drastically less safe. In Texas, where abortion hasn’t been permitted despite the legislature’s medical emergency clause, sepsis rates have skyrocketed by as much as 50 percent for women who lost their pregnancies during the second trimester, according to an investigative analysis by ProPublica.

But Texas has still been brutal in enforcing its post–Roe v. Wade laws. In the last couple of weeks, two Houston-area abortion providers have been arrested and charged with providing illegal care, reported The Texas Tribune.

The prescription commonly referred to as the “abortion pill” is a two-step process of taking mifepristone and then misoprostol. The procedure accounts for more than half of all the abortions in the United States, according to a 2022 report by the Guttmacher Institute, and has become a crucial tool as abortion restrictions limit access to in-person medical visits. It is more than 95 percent effective at ending pregnancies when used before 10 weeks of pregnancy, according to statistics by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Access to mifepristone has become an increasingly fraught political issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. In October, the attorneys general of Kansas, Missouri, and Idaho—a cohort of states with some of the most draconian abortion restrictions in the nation—sued the federal government to limit access to the drug, arguing that the medication should be illegal for minors (misoprostol is fully legal as it is used for other conditions).

The Supreme Court unexpectedly saved mifepristone access in June, when it unanimously ruled that a group of different plaintiffs, represented by the right-wing Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, did not have legal standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration and that the legal organization had failed to demonstrate how its clients were personally harmed by the drug’s existence on the market.

By and large, most Americans support abortion access. In a 2023 Gallup poll, just 12 percent of surveyed Americans said that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Meanwhile, 69 percent believe that it should be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy.

The Trump administration has decided that it will not investigate itself, even though the reckless actions of some of its key officials purportedly endangered the lives of American soldiers.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated Thursday that the Justice Department would not launch a criminal investigation into some administration officials’ use of Signal to communicate attack plans on Houthi targets in Yemen earlier this month.

Bondi also declared that the details shared in the chat—which included down-to-the-minute scheduling for the launch of U.S. F-18 attack planes toward Yemen, “trigger based” strikes, and the launch of sea-based subsonic cruise missiles—were “not classified.”

Instead, Bondi praised the coordination among Trump officials, claiming that the nation’s focus should be on the mission’s success rather than the magnitude of the administration’s national security failures.

“It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released,” Bondi said at a news conference in Virginia. “What we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission.”

National security experts have said otherwise.

“This information was clearly classified,” an unidentified former senior defense official told Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin.

“These were ‘attack plans,’” a second former senior U.S. defense official told Griffin. “If you are revealing who is going to be attacked (Houthis—the name of the text chain), it still gives the enemy warning. When you release the time of the attack—all of that is always ‘classified.’”

The Atlantic was the first to report on the Signal fiasco Monday after national security adviser Mike Waltz made another critical security error by accidentally adding the magazine’s chief editor to the chat.

Donald Trump has stood by Waltz in the wake of the scandal, reiterating his confidence in the former Florida representative, despite revelations that Waltz has made a string of careless mistakes.

But rather than take responsibility for actions taken entirely by their chosen representatives, conservatives have once again opted to deflect and misdirect blame onto some of their favorite targets, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Joe Biden.

“If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home,” Bondi said Thursday. “Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage that Hunter Biden had access to.”

But those scandals were not the same. Clinton was accused of using an alternative email server to conduct state business, while a 345-page Justice Department report on Biden’s classified offense predominantly fixated on the aging president’s health and mental bandwidth. Both Democrats were the subject of respective DOJ investigations. Trump was, as well, though the classified documents case against the forty-fifth president was dropped after he won reelection in November.

And the American public has noticed the difference, with the majority of people believing that the Signal scandal matters more than Republicans’ scapegoats.

A YouGov survey published on Tuesday found that 53 percent of nearly 6,000 polled Americans felt that the Trump administration’s Signal leak was “very serious,” while another 21 percent described it as “somewhat serious.”

Meanwhile, a survey conducted in the wake of Clinton’s email scandal by YouGov and The Economist in March 2015 found that 30 percent of polled Americans felt that Clinton’s server was “very serious.” Another 26 percent noted that it was “somewhat serious” to them.