Articles & Videos

President Trump’s new tariffs on Canada are drawing a backlash from lawmakers in his own party. Republicans in the Senate are skeptical of Trump’s 50 percent tariffs on most Canadian goods, excluding energy products, potash, fish, and critical minerals. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told The Hill that he was skeptical and needed more information. “I’m not a huge fan of tariffs as a general rule, unless there’s a specific purpose behind it, in most cases, creating a more level playing field for America’s businesses and our economy,” Thune said. “But I don’t, I haven’t heard the rationale for this one just yet.”Senator Mike Rounds was concerned about the Trump administration’s legal rationale for the tariffs, considering that the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s previous tariffs months ago. “My initial concern on it was what the purpose of it was, what the expectation is for, you know, considering a result a success,” Rounds told The Hill. “What is the goal of the tariffs? And I haven’t seen which provision within the law he’s utilizing.”Trump announced a fresh round of tariffs on Canada Monday, defending his move as a response to trade “discrimination” from Canada on cars, alcohol, and dairy products. Trump is using Section 338 of the 1930 Trade Act as legal justification, the Associated Press reports, citing an anonymous administration official. The tariffs apply to goods that the recently expired United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement used to cover. Rounds said that the tariffs could also affect the price of goods and hurt American consumers. “The affordability side of this thing is something that we should all be concerned with,” Rounds told The Hill. “Right now inflation is not as low as it was; it is up. Fuel prices are very important that we try to maintain, bring down. International issues going on have caused it to come back up again. We need to get the price of gasoline back down again for the American consumer.”“Tariffs of that magnitude will translate into higher prices for the American consumer,” agreed Senator Bill Cassidy, who is leaving Congress at the end of the year. Senator Susan Collins, who is in a tough reelection campaign in Maine, told Politico Tuesday that she has “voted repeatedly against the Canadian tariffs.”  “Maine and Canada’s economies are very intertwined. A lot of our blueberries, our potatoes, our lobster, our lumber are harvested in Maine, processed in Canada and then come back. I don’t want to see the tariffs on the books,” Collins said. Businesses sued the government over Trump’s previous tariffs and they were eventually overturned, with refunds doled out to companies that applied for relief through U.S. Customs and Border Protection. But every time those tariffs were put to a vote in Congress, Republicans refused to overturn them. With the midterms looming, will that be the case again? 

The young people in the streets are not asking merely to survive inside the cracks of a decaying system. They want to live, to work, to use what they have learned, and to contribute to society with dignity.

Arizona has seen the most staggering decline in SNAP participation, falling 49 percent among children in the state.

American families are unlikely to be reimbursed for the money they lost to President Donald Trump’s illegal tariff plan.U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer thwarted attempts by the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday to pin down when the Trump administration would return the money it has reaped from American consumers since Donald Trump initiated his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April 2025.“The question I’m asking the administration: Are you going to give money back to the American people who paid more?” asked Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. “What the data shows is that the American people picked up about 95 percent of the costs of those Trump tariffs.”Warren then cited a figure from a February 2026 fact sheet compiled by the Joint Economic Committee Minority, which estimated at the time that Trump’s tariffs had cost American families more than $1,700 each over the course of his second term.“I just want to know if you even have the slightest effort—are making even the slightest effort—to try and get some of that money back into the pockets of American families,” she continued. “Or does that just not matter to the Trump administration?”“So what happened is the foreign and domestic importers, right? Who were buying foreign goods, not goods from American workers, foreign goods made by foreign workers who had to pay a fee on those foreign goods, those foreign importers … they can file, they had to pay the tariff, they can get the tariff back,” Greer said, throwing the responsibility of the situation on the Biden administration and what he suggested was its poor budgeting.“I take that what you’re saying … is that the Trump administration just doesn’t care,” Warren said, chastising Greer for fixating on foreign producers rather than struggling Americans. “[The administration] isn’t even lifting a finger to try and get one nickel of the money that was collected from consumers back into the pockets of consumers.”She then accused the White House of attempting to peel even more money from the American public by implementing new tariffs under an “obscure law from the 1930s.”“Here’s my question: Ambassador Greer, if the Supreme Court strikes down your next round of tariffs, do you have a plan in place on how to return the money that American consumers pay under those tariffs?” she asked.But Greer only regurgitated his previous response, claiming that U.S. Customs had already outlined how foreign manufacturers could recoup their losses.Warren grills Jamieson Greer about if the Trump administration has any sort of plan to return money American families spent on Trump's illegal tariffs back to them. But Greer quickly pivots to talking about importers, revealing that in fact American families are not on the… pic.twitter.com/tHGebnIfYx— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 22, 2026The Supreme Court deemed Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs illegal in February, throwing not only the White House’s economic plan into wack, but also the primary driver behind the administration’s foreign policy agenda. The ruling, however, did not stop the president, who within days had already announced new plans to impose more global levies.

Simon Paré-Poupart’s ‘Trash!: A Garbageman’s Story’ is a memoir of two decades in the bin collection business.

Luanda is seeking to develop its free trade zone, part of its efforts to diversify its oil-dominant economy.

The shake-up at the $200 billion-plus state-owned Public Investment Corporation is turning into a showdown over political interference.

The Trump administration has raked in about $13 billion after taking over Venezuela’s oil exports in the wake of its kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, according to a Financial Times analysis. But six months later, and one month after two devastating earthquakes, that money is nowhere to be found.When Trump first seized the “millions of barrels” of oil back in January, he assumed complete control. His administration eventually proclaimed that it would use any profit from the sales for “the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people.” The State Department has since claimed that “billions of dollars have been disbursed to the Venezuelan economy” and that “financial monitoring is under way to ensure funds benefit the Venezuelan people.”But none of that has been proven to be true. The Financial Times reported Wednesday that there has been no evidence of oil money going back into the hands of the Venezuelans Trump claimed to care for, and that Venezuela’s first-quarter gross domestic product was the lowest it’s been in five years.“Trump’s invasion of Venezuela has been about oil, power, and graft from the very beginning, with billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil revenue being controlled by the Trump administration without transparency or safeguards,” Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro told the FT, adding that all of Congress had been “kept in the dark” by the Trump administration. And on Tuesday, Republican Representative María Elvira Salazar called on Trump to make the transactions known, citing “the importance of transparency over where the money is going.”It seems clear that the most corrupt president in history is withholding oil revenue from Venezuelans who badly need it, as oil makes up nearly a quarter of the entire country’s GDP. In January, Semafor reported that Trump would be keeping proceeds from the first $500 million sale of Venezuelan oil in an offshore bank account based in Qatar. It might be worth checking up on that account.