Even Republicans Want Nothing to Do With Trump’s Canada Tariffs

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? 

Weeks after a preliminary peace deal with Iran fell apart, Donald Trump has turned his attention toward his next military conquest.

The Trump administration is reportedly considering taking military action against an  Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Mali known as JNIM, according to several current and former U.S. officials that spoke with The Washington Post Wednesday. 

Doing so would add to the president’s warmongering tally, marking the eighth nation he has ordered strikes on since he began his second term as president.

The other affected countries are Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Trump has also ordered 66 strikes against small watercraft in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific in an admittedly futile attempt to interrupt drug smuggling into the U.S., killing at least 221 people in the process.

One of the administration’s top proponents for using brute force in Mali is Sebastian Gorka, the National Security Council’s senior director for counterterrorism. The London-born Hungarian has been a fixture in Trump’s inner circle since 2017, though his appointment to Trump’s first administration came as a surprise to many in his field. Gorka had previously been known for his extremist, Islamophobic views, which relegated him to the fringes of Washington and his position as an editor at Breitbart.  

But specialists in the region disagree with the violent approach.

Wassim Nasr, a senior research fellow at the Soufan Center, which focuses on the Sahel region, said that America’s influence would be better used in “conflict resolution” by forcing Mali’s stratocracy into talks with JNIM. Otherwise, the White House could be squaring up for another major loss.

“Opting for the military solution one more time won’t get things resolved,” Nasr told the Post. “The French tried that for 10 years. The Russians have been trying for five years. The situation has only gotten worse and worse.”

Lawyers working at the Department of Justice are refusing to put certain information in writing out of fear that it could be used against them.

The DOJ is prosecuting two journalists over their coverage of an anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in Minnesota in January, and one of them, Georgia Ellyse Fort, is charged with three felonies, including a hate crime. Fort’s defense counsel is accusing the government of spying on her, and a judge barred the government from using toll records and cell phone simulators that include Fort’s phone activity.

A Homeland Security Investigations agent, Timothy Gerber, allegedly began using customs summonses to get information about Fort, whose lawyers said that the prosecutors would not say whether the government was continuing to use those summonses. The prosecution is supposed to turn over its evidence to defense counsel in any legal case, but only described the cell phone data from Fort’s phone without turning over the data itself.

In a letter to DOJ prosecutors, first flagged by independent journalist Mary Wheeler, Fort’s lawyers referred to a phone call with DOJ lawyer Ned Hedley in which they got the indication that “the government does not intend to respond to our correspondence in writing, out of the concern expressed on the call that what it represents to us could be put before the Court and/or otherwise used against it.”

It’s an astounding thing for government lawyers to say, especially considering that documenting conversations is a basic requirement in the legal profession. Hedley’s words seem to indicate that the Trump administration is trying to hide something, or knows that its activities might not be legal.

Fort was arrested alongside journalists Don Lemon and Michael Beute—and the case against all of them is weak. The three are accused of rioting and protesting, while they say they were merely covering the event. Refusing to put certain things in writing would seem to undermine the government’s case.

President Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company is backfiring in his face, as a judge has greenlit the subpoenaing of his inner circle.

Trump last year filed a lawsuit against the BBC over a 2024 episode of Panorama titled “Trump, a Second Chance.” Trump claims the episode was defamatory because it edited together two sections of his January 6, 2021 speech, highlighting his line calling on his supporters to “fight like hell,” while omitting a section in which he told them to peacefully protest. The BBC apologized after Trump threatened them with legal action last year but refused to pay up.

But on Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett said the BBC can proceed with subpoenas for Trump’s closest advisers and confidants—including his family members, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon—to make the case on what Trump’s actual goals were on January 6.

Lett also ruled that Trump must hand over hundreds of financial records, as Trump argued in his lawsuit that the episode hurt his many businesses.

“All of President Trump’s brand, properties and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned. Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case,” Lett said, allowing the BBC to investigate the more than 400 companies owned by Trump’s family trust.

The president’s wanton spitefulness, which has earned him a payoff in cases against CBS and ABC, may now be the chief reason he’s finally exposed.

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.

The 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.