The reasons Trump might have wanted to derail the negotiations — and what other surprises he might have in store

Trade talks are reportedly continuing between Canada and the U.S., with formal meetings having taken place since U.S. President Donald Trump revealed more threats and demands last week, a source close to the White House said.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday that he expected U.S. tariffs would likely be part of any future deal. “There is not much evidence at the moment — from the deals, agreements and negotiations with the Americans, for any country or any jurisdiction — to get a deal without tariffs,” Carney said. He also said he expected trade talks to “intensify” in the next few weeks.

Washington and Ottawa have been engaged in tempestuous trade talks for months. Carney’s team is desperate to end tariffs imposed by Trump on Canadian steel and aluminum exports and keep tariff exemptions for goods covered by the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade deal (USMCA).

After Carney’s election in April, things appeared to be going well for awhile: Carney visited the White House, he seemingly got Trump to drop his talk of making Canada a “51st state,” and the prime minister quickly gave in when the president threatened to end talks if Canada didn’t scrap its digital services tax (DST) on U.S. tech firms. Carney also pledged last month to increase defence expenditures dramatically to meet a higher NATO spending target by 2035, a priority of Trump’s. It looked like negotiations could lead to a new U.S.-Canada deal before the July 21 deadline the two of them had set for themselves.

Then came the letter. Trump wrote an open letter to the prime minister last week, threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods starting Aug. 1, vaguely citing as reasons Ottawa’s trade deficit, counter tariffs, dairy trade restrictions, and failure to halt fentanyl from crossing the border. What Trump didn’t do — as he had done with the DST — was outline exactly what Carney needed to do to get things back on track.

National Post looks at the reasons Trump might have wanted to derail the negotiations — and what other surprises the White House might have in store.

Trump is under pressure

Trump “likes to keep us in suspense,” says Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation. But there is a timing issue at play here that goes beyond the negotiations. “Basically, they have a window of time to use these ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs,” he says, referring to Trump’s sweeping new international tariff regime unveiled in April. Hale said there is significant legal pushback facing the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that ostensibly gives the president power to circumvent Congress to impose tariffs in urgent situations.

So far, there have been a few court rulings against Trump’s use of IEEPA tariffs. Oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals are scheduled to begin for one of those rulings on July 31, with another court set to hear two other tariff-related cases in September.

To use IEEPA, a genuine emergency needs to be declared. What Trump did was declare emergencies based on trade deficits, drug trafficking, and immigration. Well, “we’ve been running trade deficits for decades,” says Hale. U.S. judges have ruled that there is no direct connection between the national emergency declared over fentanyl and illegal migration.

The court rulings could still go either way. “(Trump’s team is) concerned that they will no longer be able to weaponize these (tariffs) in trade negotiations,” Hale adds.

“By simply heaping on the pressure and saying, ‘Bam, you get these tariffs, you’re getting increased tariffs and the rest of it,’ they’re trying to get as many concessions as possible whilst they can still use them.”

If Trump’s emergency tariffs lose in court, he’d be left with the less-powerful weapon to restrict imports deemed a national security threat, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

“I do know that Plan B is to use the 232 tariffs as an alternative more aggressively,” Hale said. But he notes that they are product-specific and do not allow for across-the-board tariffs.

Tori Smith, a senior vice president at Forbes Tate Partners, a government-relations consultancy in Washington, points out that Trump’s Aug. 1 deadline doesn’t seem random given the appeal hearing against emergency tariffs set to start on July 31.

She also notes that the review scheduled of the USMCA, as part of its original terms, begins in October. Trump’s letter, Smith said, was probably meant to “create leverage for the United States in advance of the USMCA review.”

Smith said the “long-game strategy” for the White House is to put it in the “strongest position for (the USMCA) negotiations.”

White House revenge

There may also be something more personal going on, according to a source close to the administration, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The NAFTA negotiations in Trump’s first term that led to the USMCA were headed by United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, who had a cordial relationship with Canada’s then-foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland. In the process, Lighthizer reportedly neutralized Peter Navarro, then director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, a fierce protectionist and Trump loyalist, who is now a senior adviser to the president on trade.

“He’s never really forgiven Lighthizer for that,” the source said. (Lighthizer has since returned to private life.)

While the USMCA was once touted by U.S. officials as the “gold standard” of trade deals, possibly the reason the administration has talked of ripping it up “was because Navarro sees that as Lighthizer’s golden legacy, and he has reasons … personal bitterness, to rip it up.”

David Boling, a former deputy assistant USTR for Japan, said he never witnessed the two men in meetings together and couldn’t comment on their working relationship. But they had very different styles, he recalled.

“Lighthizer skillfully renegotiated NAFTA by building up trust with Capitol Hill Democrats. Coalition-building, however, is not Navarro’s strong suit,” said Boling, who now works at the political-risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

Navarro recently said he didn’t like negotiating with Canada, while Mexico’s negotiators were a “pure joy to deal with.”

“You know, they (Mexicans) were tough negotiators, but they were reasonable, fair negotiators. The Canadians were very, very difficult, and they’ve always been very difficult,” he said in a television interview last week.

Little downside for Trump

It seems that the more Trump has pushed for concessions from Canada — on defence, on digital taxes, on fentanyl crackdowns — the more he’s been able to get.

Sources say his senior economic team feels they have to sell the president on deal structures, but that Trump often feels he can press for more.

“I think that this can be demonstrated pretty obviously by the Vietnam announcement,” says Smith, noting how Vietnam’s team thought they would be getting a lower tariff rate than 20 per cent, but then Trump “put out a different rate than had been negotiated or talked about by his team.”

Trump mentioned Canada’s highly restricted market for dairy in his open letter to Carney. But he might also start pushing for Canada to commit to more things beyond trade, as he has with fentanyl and defence.

“The Trump administration has also leveraged tariffs in matters that go well beyond trade policy with a number of countries,” said Hale. In March, the president warned countries buying Venezuelan oil they would be punished with tariffs on all U.S. exports; in the last two weeks, he’s threatened “severe tariffs” on Russia if it didn’t make peace with Ukraine, and tariffs on BRICS-aligned countries (meaning Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as well as Iran and Indonesia) because he said they wanted to undermine the U.S. dollar.

So he may want to wield economic pressure to try getting Carney to commit to helping restart a new Canada-U.S. oil pipeline after Keystone XL was killed by the last American president, the source close to the White House said. “They want the Keystone XL pipeline big time,” the source said.

Trump has never stopped wanting that pipeline since he approved it in his first term, and has raised it repeatedly since his re-election, noted Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation.

“Everybody knows that Prime Minister Carney has a focus on the environment, rather than fossil fuel production, so I imagine that it might be a sticking point,” she added. So would the fact that, right now, there is no company proposing that project, since the former proponent, TC Energy, abandoned it.

Apparently, the White House also wants Carney to loosen up on Liberal social objectives, like ESG (environment, social and governance) and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), that have in recent years complicated regulation in Canada, including for American companies that do business here. Trump has been aggressive about deregulating away from social and climate rules in the U.S. since he took office.

But Carney is “religious” about ESG, said the Washington source, which could be a “real barrier to these things getting forward.” Yet, if Carney got rid of net-zero targets and environmental impediments, “I think there’d be a massive love-in,” the source added.

How many of these new lines of negotiation — dairy, defence, oil, DEI,

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. Artificial intelligence (AI) will play a critical role in how Americans of all ages learn new skills, consume information, and navigate their daily lives. Americans will require reliable outputs from AI, but when ideological biases or social agendas are built into AI models, they can distort the quality and accuracy of the output.

One of the most pervasive and destructive of these ideologies is so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). In the AI context, DEI includes the suppression or distortion of factual information about race or sex; manipulation of racial or sexual representation in model outputs; incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism; and discrimination on the basis of race or sex. DEI displaces the commitment to truth in favor of preferred outcomes and, as recent history illustrates, poses an existential threat to reliable AI.

For example, one major AI model changed the race or sex of historical figures — including the Pope, the Founding Fathers, and Vikings — when prompted for images because it was trained to prioritize DEI requirements at the cost of accuracy. Another AI model refused to produce images celebrating the achievements of white people, even while complying with the same request for people of other races. In yet another case, an AI model asserted that a user should not “misgender” another person even if necessary to stop a nuclear apocalypse.

While the Federal Government should be hesitant to regulate the functionality of AI models in the private marketplace, in the context of Federal procurement, it has the obligation not to procure models that sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas. Building on Executive Order 13960 of December 3, 2020 (Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal Government), this order helps fulfill that obligation in the context of large language models.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) The term “agency” means an executive department, a military department, or any independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 104(1), respectively, and any wholly owned Government corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9101.

(b) The term “agency head” means the highest-ranking

official or officials of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, Director, Commissioners, or Board of Directors.

(c) The term “LLM” means a large language model, which is a generative AI model trained on vast, diverse datasets that enable the model to generate natural-language responses to user prompts.

(d) The term “national security system” has the same meaning as in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6).

Sec. 3. Unbiased AI Principles. It is the policy of the United States to promote the innovation and use of trustworthy AI. To advance that policy, agency heads shall, consistent with applicable law and in consideration of guidance issued pursuant to section 4 of this order, procure only those LLMs developed in accordance with the following two principles (Unbiased AI Principles):

(a) Truth-seeking. LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis. LLMs shall prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and shall acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory.

(b) Ideological Neutrality. LLMs shall be neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI. Developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments into an LLM’s outputs unless those judgments are prompted by or otherwise readily accessible to the end user.

Sec. 4. Implementation. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall issue guidance to agencies to implement section 3 of this order. That guidance shall:

(i) account for technical limitations in complying with this order;

(ii) permit vendors to comply with the requirement in the second Unbiased AI Principle to be transparent about ideological judgments through disclosure of the LLM’s system prompt, specifications, evaluations, or other relevant documentation, and avoid requiring disclosure of specific model weights or other sensitive technical data where practicable;

(iii) avoid over-prescription and afford latitude for vendors to comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and take different approaches to innovation;

(iv) specify factors for agency heads to consider in determining whether to apply the Unbiased AI Principles to LLMs developed by the agencies and to AI models other than LLMs; and

(v) make exceptions as appropriate for the use of LLMs in national security systems.

(b) Each agency head shall, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law:

(i) include in each Federal contract for an LLM entered into following the date of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section terms requiring that the procured LLM comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and providing that decommissioning costs shall be charged to the vendor in the event of termination by the agency for the vendor’s noncompliance with the contract following a reasonable period to cure;

(ii) to the extent practicable and consistent with contract terms, revise existing contracts for LLMs to include the terms specified in subsection (b)(i) of this section; and

(iii) within 90 days of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section, adopt procedures to ensure that LLMs procured by the agency comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the General Services Administration.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 23, 2025.

During the third round of talks in Istanbul, Russia reports fulfillment of humanitarian agreements, proposes short-term ceasefires, and agrees on another prisoner exchange with Ukraine, emphasizing dialogue for peace.

On Wednesday, July 23, in Istanbul’s Ciragan Palace, the Russian delegation delivered a positive assessment of the ongoing diplomatic talks with Ukraine, marking an important step towards peaceful conflict resolution in Eastern Europe.

Vladimir Medinski, head of the Russian delegation and presidential aide, highlighted that Russia has returned over 7,000 bodies of Ukrainian servicemen and anticipates continuing prisoner exchanges and discussions on short-term ceasefires to facilitate evacuation of the wounded and recovery of the fallen.

Medinski announced that Russia suggested the establishment of three working groups focused on political, humanitarian, and military issues, reflecting Moscow’s commitment to systematic and pragmatic dialogue.

Additionally, Russia offered to implement ceasefires of 24 to 48 hours to aid casualty evacuation and prisoner exchanges, underscoring the Kremlin’s dedication to the humanitarian aspects of the conflict, in stark contrast to the ongoing military escalation supported by Western powers.

Despite progress, Medinski condemned Ukraine for violating parts of prior agreements, noting that 30 residents from Kursk remain detained by Kyiv,a glaring humanitarian issue demanding immediate resolution. Russia also called on Ukraine to return Russian children relocated abroad, a sensitive matter raised repeatedly by Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin during the talks.

This third round builds upon previous talks held in Istanbul in May and June, where substantial steps were taken towards prisoner exchanges and preliminary frameworks for ceasefire discussions emerged.

The Russian delegation, including high-ranking officials such as Medinski and Galuzin, continues to advocate for a negotiated solution that respects national sovereignty and peoples’ rights,a stance opposed to the Western-imposed sanctions and blockades that exacerbate regional suffering.

These negotiations are not merely bilateral disputes but urgent humanitarian matters warranting the international community’s sober attention and respect for sovereignty. The process stands as a necessary counterpoint to destabilization efforts by external forces intent on prolonging conflict and misery.

The latest Istanbul talks reinforce Russia’s readiness to cooperate in good faith by fulfilling humanitarian commitments and proposing practical measures such as working groups and temporary ceasefires.

Confronted by continued Ukrainian obstructions, Russia sustains its push for dialogue as the foundation for a lasting ceasefire and eventual reconciliation,an essential pathway toward stable peace in the region.