Trump says he’ll impose new 50% tariffs on Canadian cars and steel in January, escalating trade war
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on June 16, 2026, in Evian-les-Bains, France. (Evelyn Hockstein – Pool/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday said in a social media post that he will ratchet up tariffs on Canada-made cars and auto parts in January, escalating a trade war between the United States and Canada.
The moves comes after negotiations between Canada and the U.S. broke down over the weekend. A fresh round of 50% U.S. tariffs on some Canadian goods took effect on Saturday, prompting a vow from Canada to retaliate with a set of its own levies.
The latest announcement from Trump promised to double tariffs from 25% to 50% on Canadian cars and auto parts starting on Jan. 1, 2027. The elevated levy will also apply to steel and trucks, according to the president.
“On Trade, and in other ways, also, they are among the worst Nations in the World to deal with,” Trump said his social media platform on Monday. “They feel entitled, and yet, WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US!”
It is unclear why Trump is waiting until January.
In the first half of 2026, the U.S. exported $175.8 billion in goods to Canada — the second biggest export trading partner after Mexico — accounting for 14% of all U.S. exports, according to the Census Bureau.
The sharp criticism arrived days after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued blistering remarks about the U.S. approach to trade negotiations. He said talks broke down after American negotiators made requests that were unfavorable to Canada.
“They asked too much and offered too little,” Carney said at a Saturday press conference.
According to Carney, the 50% tariff would be applied to roughly $28 billion of Canadian goods and that Canada would match the U.S. “dollar for dollar.” Canada’s retaliatory tariffs would go into effect on Sept. 8 and more details will be revealed later, the prime minister said on Saturday.
Carney noted that one of the sticking points was changes by the U.S. over its levels of tariffs on automobiles that he claimed would have hurt Canada’s economy over time.
He criticized the Trump administration, saying it “uses economic integration as a weapon.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
A JetBlue plane prepares to take off from the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on July 16, 2020 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A JetBlue Airways pilot reported hitting a drone as the flight was on approach for landing at JFK Airport on Monday morning, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The plane landed safely and the FAA said no damage was found during inspections. The agency will investigate the incident, it noted in its statement.
Payton Gendron (C) is escorted back into the courtroom by deputies after a disruption during sentencing in Buffalo, New York, Feb. 15, 2023. (Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images)
(BUFFALO, N.Y.) — More than four years after he gunned down 10 Black people in a racially motivated mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, Payton Gendron’s federal trial reaches a crucial point on Monday in selecting a jury that will decide whether he lives or dies.
Gendron, who will turn 23 next week, has already pleaded guilty to state charges stemming from the May 14, 2022, attack at a Tops supermarket, including domestic terrorism motivated by hate. He is serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Gendron, according to his attorneys, has proposed pleading guilty to the 27-count federal indictment, including 10 counts of hate crimes resulting in death, but the Department of Justice has rejected his offer.
“The United States believes the circumstances in Counts 11-20 of the Indictment are such that, in the event of a conviction, a sentence of death is justified,” federal prosecutors said in January 2024, when they announced the decision to pursue the death penalty against Gendron.
On Monday, about 1,200 potential jurors who filled out an initial questionnaire were summoned to appear at the U.S. District Court in Buffalo to complete a more extensive inquiry to determine whether they can serve as fair and impartial jurors.
Based on their responses, Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, who is overseeing the case, and the attorneys involved hope to whittle the potential jury pool down to several hundred.
Those who make the cut will be brought back in August to be questioned by the lawyers and judge, who are hoping to seat 12 jurors and at least six alternates for the trial scheduled to begin in October.
Gendron has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.
Garnell Whitfield, the former Buffalo fire commissioner, whose 86-year-old mother, Ruth Whitfield, was killed in the supermarket attack, said he plans to attend Monday’s court proceedings.
Whitfield told ABC News that he’s hoping that the upcoming trial will expose those whom he says helped radicalize Gendron, including the social media companies that allegedly provided the addictive algorithms that fed Gendron’s hate of Black people.
“I’m more concerned with that than I am with him. He’s a dead man walking as far as I’m concerned,” Whitfield said.
Social media companies are not defendants in the trial, have not accused of any wrongdoing by prosecutors.
Whitfield and other relatives of those killed and wounded in the attack filed a lawsuit in May 2023 against several social media companies alleging they facilitated the teenage killer’s white supremacist radicalization by allowing racist propaganda to fester on their platforms. The outcome of the case is still pending in the state Supreme Court. The social media companies have denied all wrong doing.
During his sentencing in the state case in May 2023, Gendron apologized to the relatives of the victims, saying he was “very sorry for all the pain” he caused and “for stealing the lives of your loved ones.”
“I did a terrible thing that day,” Gendron said in court. “I shot and killed people because they were Black. Looking back now, I can’t believe I actually did it. I believed what I read online and acted out of hate. I know I can’t take it back, but I wish I could, and I don’t want anyone to be inspired by me and what I did.”
Gendron planned the massacre for months — including previously traveling twice to the Tops store he targeted, a more than three-hour drive from his home in Conklin, New York — to scout the layout and count the number of Black people present, according to state prosecutors. Wearing tactical gear, body armor and wielding an AR-15-style rifle he legally purchased and illegally modified, Gendron committed the rampage on a Saturday afternoon when prosecutors said he knew the store would be full of Black shoppers.
The attack was caught on a Tops supermarket surveillance camera and a helmet camera worn by Gendron that he used to livestream on Twitch. Before the attack, he also posted a racist screed online containing the names of past mass shooters he admired.
Brian Buckmire, an ABC News legal analyst, said Gendron’s attorneys are aiming at seating jurors who can set aside the defendant’s guilty plea and decide the case based on the facts presented at trial.
“This is not a case of guilt or innocence; this is a case … of attempting to save his life,” he said.
Buckmire said that in the current phase of jury selection, potential members of the panel will likely be asked about their personal beliefs about the death penalty.
He noted that the judge in the case has already denied a request from the defense to move the trial from Buffalo in Erie County to Rochester in Monroe County.
“So, it’s deep in the heart of where all of this harm happened,” Buckmire said.
Buckmire said the defense is facing an uphill battle and will likely focus on trying to persuade the jury that Gendron should not be put to death.
“From a fact-based standpoint, it’s hard to say he’s not guilty,” Buckmire said. “I think the only argument here and the only strength of anything they can make out here is he doesn’t deserve the death penalty because of his age [and] the influences he had.”
The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Court House, home of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court on Monday concluded that the Trump administration’s transgender military ban is likely unconstitutional and “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”
In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision blocking the Department of Defense from removing current servicemembers because of their gender dysphoria.
“At this preliminary stage, I conclude that the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus, and for those reasons the Policy violates Plaintiff-Appellees’ constitutional right to equal protection of the law,” wrote Judge Robert Wilkins, referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The decision only applies to the service members who sued the administration and does not bar the Pentagon from blocking transgender people from joining the military.
According to the court, prospective military members can seek relief after the case has completely moved through the courts, while active service members face a more serious hardship by being expelled from the military.
“For those servicemembers facing expulsion, it is not clear how easily they can be reinstated and made whole. But even if they can be reinstated after being separated, it appears to us to be a much greater hardship to end a military career than to delay the start of one,” Judge Wilkins wrote.
Judge Justin Walker — the sole judge on the panel appointed to the bench by a Republican president — dissented and said members of the military could be deprived of certain rights guaranteed to the civilians.
“Like today’s majority, I cherish those rights, and so I understand the impulse behind the majority’s unprecedented intervention into military affairs. But because the plaintiffs are service members not civilians, and because we are judges not generals, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” he added.
