The two countries had been in talks to resolve longstanding trade disputes and explore potential tariff adjustments, but no breakthrough had been achieved. Trump did not elaborate on the reasons behind the decision to end the talks, but his statement signals a sharp setback in North American trade relations.

Canadian officials have not yet issued an official response, though sources in Ottawa said they remain open to dialogue and hope to clarify Washington’s position in the coming days.

The move comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to renegotiate or reassess key trade partnerships and domestic manufacturing priorities. Economists warn that the termination of talks could impact cross border industries, particularly automotive and construction sectors that rely heavily on steel and aluminum imports.

Carney, who has emphasised the importance of re-establishing broad engagement with China after a period of strained relations, is scheduled to attend the APEC summit in Seoul. Last week, he stated that he expected to meet senior Chinese leaders in the coming month.

“We’re hoping there will be a meeting and will plan accordingly … we would like to see a meeting at APEC if possible,” a senior government official said when asked about a possible meeting with Xi.

Trade tensions remain between the two countries. In August, China imposed preliminary anti-dumping duties on Canadian canola imports, following Canada’s decision last year to introduce a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.

Senior officials from both sides held discussions last Friday regarding the canola and electric vehicle disputes, though Ottawa indicated there was no immediate progress.

The leaders focused on deepening economic ties and modernizing trade frameworks, with President Trump hinting at a comprehensive deal that could cover key industries including dairy, manufacturing, and energy.

“The United States and Canada are two of the hottest economies in the world,” Trump said during a joint press briefing. “We share values, we share borders, and we’re working toward a trade deal that reflects the strength of our partnership.”

While the meeting marked a continuation of trade discussions, the tone signaled progress. Trump emphasized mutual respect and the need for balanced agreements, stating that “Canadians will be very happy” with the terms being negotiated.

Prime Minister Carney echoed that sentiment, noting that both nations are seeking “durable, fair, and forward looking trade solutions” in an increasingly unstable global economy.

Historical Context

The current talks build on the legacy of previous trade frameworks like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA in 2020. While USMCA modernized various aspects of trade especially in digital commerce and automotive content rules it left some sectors, like dairy, contentious between the two nations. Canada’s protected dairy industry has long been a sticking point in bilateral negotiations, something Trump alluded to when referencing “broad” industry coverage.

President Trump, now in his second term, has prioritized renegotiating key trade relationships to favor American industry and reduce trade deficits. Canada remains one of America’s largest trading partners, with over $700 billion in annual bilateral trade.

Though details remain scarce, officials say the next few weeks could be critical in shaping the final terms of a new deal.

The medical industrial complex and scientistic cult evidently keep using the most vulnerable members of society (especially children) as a sacrifice in the pursuit of their efforts. But, with all that we know about the medical industrial complex, this is not news to anyone. In fact, what is expected is that there be progressive institutional reform in the status quo – especially in the second Trump administration – that directly challenges these issues. However, what is being exposed is just how deeply entrenched regulatory bodies are in their collusion with the medical industrial complex – especially pharmaceutical companies. But, today, we ought to discuss this further in light of Moderna’s mRNA COVID Shot getting Full FDA Approval for said to be “At-Risk” Infants.

U.S PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP THREATENS 35% TARIFFS ON CANADA STARTING AUG. 1

U.S President Donald Trump has threatened a 35% tariff on goods imported from Canada. [ROLL CLIP00:11-] Trump’s announcement of higher tariffs on Canada comes amid a flurry of letters the U.S President has sent to world leaders over the past week informing them what rates their goods will be tariffed at come August 1, absent any trade deals.

BRAZIL VOWS RETALIATORY TARIFFS AGAINST US IF TRUMP FOLLOWS THROUGH ON 50% IMPORT TAXES

In a related matter, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has said that he will impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States if President Donald Trump follows through on a pledge to boost import taxes by 50% over the South American country’s criminal trial against his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro. Lula said he will trigger Brazil’s reciprocity law approved by Congress earlier this year if negotiations with the U.S. fail.

NETANYAHU SAYS HOPING HOSTAGE DEAL WILL BE FINALIZED ‘IN A FEW DAYS’

On the last day of his 4-day trip to the US, Benjamin Netanyahu released a brief clip detailing his discussions with US President Donald Trump as well as Israel’s plans for Gaza amid ceasefire talks. Netanyahu emphasised Israel’s previous goals in Gaza including the removal of Hamas, demilitarisation of Gaza.

UK, FRANCE ANNOUNCE AGREEMENT ON PILOT MIGRANT RETURNS PROGRAM

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have reached an agreement on a pilot programme to return migrants and refugees arriving in small boats, in a scheme to curb crossings over the English Channel. In a joint press conference on Thursday, Starmer said people arriving in the United Kingdom on small boats will “be detained and returned to France in short order”.

MODERNA’S mRNA COVID SHOT GETS FULL FDA APPROVAL FOR “AT-RISK” INFANTS

On July 10, 2025, the FDA granted full approval for Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax) in “at-risk” children aged 6 months to 11 years. The shot was previously available only under emergency use authorization. This approval comes despite a mountain of evidence linking the shots to catastrophic harms, some of which include heart damage, brain damage, cancer, and mass death. Once again, this decision is quite concerning as it shows that regulatory agencies remain captured by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. And so, one has to ask: How many more children must be sacrificed before accountability begins?

THIS MOVE COMPOUNDS THE LACK OF TRUST TOWARDS THE FDA

Now, this move certainly compounds the lack of trust towards the FDA, and necessarily so when you consider who influences the policy direction of the FDA. The general points of historical context to note regarding the FDA is that it was established in 1906 in response to public concern over unsafe food and drugs, such as spoiled food and counterfeit products. However, food industry lobbyists gradually gained influence, leading to the removal of the agency’s original leader. As a result, numerous harmful food additives were granted “generally recognised as safe” (GRAS) status and continue to be used today.

Then, in 1962, the FDA was given broad powers to oversee drug safety following the thalidomide incident. Unfortunately, the new regulations created strict standards for drug efficacy that were often selectively enforced, benefiting the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, the FDA then increasingly targeted natural therapies, which led to many being erased from history – all of which is incredibly important to remember in light of our subsequent discussion on the propaganda against salt. Nevertheless, this historical context is why – despite the numerous attempts to reform the agency – issues of inefficiency and bias within the FDA persist. [PAUSE]

Now, evidence of the lobbyist factor in the FDA’s work, can be inferred in the agency’s work in food regulation. For instance, in the late 1800s, food producers were selling adulterated products, and pharmaceutical companies peddled medicines with secret ingredients like opium and alcohol. Public outrage grew, especially after exposés like Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’, which helped spark the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. This law gave the Bureau of Chemistry the power to ensure accurate labeling and prevent harmful additives in food.

Well, the director of the Bureau of Chemistry (and thus the first head of the FDA), Harvey Wiley conducted tests on food additives, proving they made healthy volunteers sick. While the public and many scientists supported his findings, the food industry fought back with powerful lobbyists and legal tactics. Well, Wiley’s book “The History of A Crime Against The Food Law” went on to detail much of the same abhorrent industry tactics we see happening now. But, this is all to detail the contextual background behind the FDA’s propensity to be influenced by lobbyists from the industries it is supposed to regulate – which is the first aspect of the FDA’s problem with corruption.

THE FDA’S DECEPTIVE AND HARMFUL “GENERALLY RECOGNISED AS SAFE” STATUS

Let’s then proceed to discuss the FDA’s “Generally Recognised as Safe” status. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Well, GRAS food products presented two fundamental issues: food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Now, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. Here’s more on the FDA’s GRAS status.

Furthermore, companies currently self-certify their chemicals without independent oversight; which has resulted in ingredients like titanium dioxide – which is banned in Europe and other developed nations still being legal in the US despite mounting health concerns. Through GRAS, FDA has for the longest time applied an “innocent until proven guilty” approach to food! Which is a categorically dangerous approach; ingredients should not have to harm or kill people first before they are deemed unsafe!

PETER MARKS AND THE FDA’S COVER-UP OF THE HARMS OF COVID JABS

Let’s also look at vaccine cover-ups, as being part of the reasons behind the compounding lack of trust towards the FDA. Many have been horrified to learn that the FDA and CDC systematically ignored every possible sign the COVID vaccines were dangerous as they pushed it on more and more people. One of the ways people were made aware of this was through the recently leaked recordings showing how stubbornly the head of FDA’s vaccine division, being Peter Marks at the time, refused to acknowledge any of the evidence brought forward by a group of permanently injured vaccine recipients, and even medical practitioners who were treating vaccine injured patients.

Here’s why this is important to note: generally, in looking through what transpired with the COVID-19 response, Anthony Fauci is commonly blamed for all that went amiss – and correctly so. However, we must not also miss the people who were also directly involved, while hidden within the FDA bureaucracy. One such person is Peter Marks. Peter Marks is the primary person who covered up the reports of COVID vaccine injuries (and instead repeatedly told the world they were (quote unquote) “safe and effective”). He was also the person who kept on pushing the FDA’s chief vaccine scientists (who were very pro-vaccine) to accelerate and condense the approval timelines for the COVID jabs (as those approvals were needed to legally implement Biden’s vaccine and booster mandates). The parties involved in this process, which included, Marion Gruber and Philip Krause (who were the Director and Deputy Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, respectively); they reported that there were (at that point) no more corners they could cut to further accelerate the COVID vaccine approvals, at which point they were removed from the COVID vaccine approval process and Peter Marks took it over (at which point the unjustifiable approvals and mandates quickly followed).

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE FDA ARE FURTHER ENABLES BY STANDARDS IN MEDICINE

So, while the FDA is central to focus on as far as recent developments are concerned, it’s important also to note that the problems with the FDA are FURTHER enabled by standards in medicine. And I say that because it occurred to me that even if we have bad regulators who approve bad medicine, if we had good doctors and medical standards, then the harms could easily be averted or mitigated. But if the medical standard is overmedication and trusting “the science”, while doctors function as pharmaceutical representatives, then of course the problems are worse.

Let’s look at medical education. No matter how you dice it, medical education is quite challenging as there is simply too much to learn, and so even the “brightest” students adopt a triage mentality where they cut out things that NOTt necessary (or low-yield) (specifically) for exams so they can pass and get a degree. And because of this medical education typically presents 3 issues as far as medical standards are concerned.

First, the present standard of medical education covers many aspects in a superficial manner (e.g., med students just learn the classic indications, simple mechanisms of action and commonly recognized side effects of drugs). Now, this is quite problematic as many of those simplistic facts students memorize aren’t always entirely correct (or become evidently contradictory once you take the time to understand them). However, since students are under such pressure to memorize them, they take the facts as verbatim facts they don’t question and become quite haughty towards those who do.

Second, there has been a strong focus in medicine on the key medical products on the market (e.g., doctors focus on how to use pharmaceutical drugs along with the key microbes and their pharmaceutical treatments, understanding what aspects of the body each speciality is responsible for, how to interpret imaging studies, and even how to understand surgery well enough to want to go into it or refer patients to it). Similarly, there is also a strong focus on just the basic skills necessary for being a doctor (this includes being able to recognize potentially life-threatening conditions, conducting a physical exam with enough details to complete a medical note and writing billable medical notes). That said, there is also (thankfully) a strong focus on anatomy and physiology, which along with recognising key diseases and medical emergencies, represent some of the most valuable aspects of conventional medical training.

Then the third issue presented as far as medical standards are concerned has to do with how medical training cuts out a lot of the subtle aspects of medical science and doctoring that make you an effective clinician (and this includes things like medical ethics). And because of this, there is always a subset of medical students who have that inherent capacity and excel at being clinicians but very few learn it through their training. Put differently, standard medical training does NOT really cover what is needed to make people healthy as there is never enough time for that and again and again, we hear stories of medical educators who try to incorporate it but get pushed to the side due to limited curriculum time.

So, in a world where medical standards prioritise pharmaceutical interventions, and medical education and training focuses purely on passing exams as opposed to being more concerned with aspects of medical science that make a med student an effective clinician, well then of course the FDA’s corruption will have crippling impact, because doctors themselves are trained to push what the FDA has approved.

Well, no wonder the medical industrial complex is so-multilayered. There are clearly various actors involved. But, this also gives broader context behind why doctors become progressively less focused at making their patients better, while becoming product pushers for the pharmaceutical industry. Take this testimony from a pharmaceutical representative of 32 years. She exposes the corrupt relationship between big pharma and doctors, primarily based on greed because it was about organising expensive gifts and experiences for doctors in exchange for their product loyalty.

WORST OF ALL IS THAT PATIENTS ARE DISADVANTAGED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEMS

I’ve had discussions with medical students and practitioners on the necessity of strict standards to enter medicine because it is one of those fields where there is no room for error. ANd I think many people still have that same perception of the medical field: which is that it brings in the best and trains them rigorously so they are less susceptible to making mistakes that can be the difference between life and death for some. BUT… while there absolutely are exceptions who are incredible doctors, it is also clear that the medical system is not as fool, corruption, and greed-proof as we thought. And worse of all is that there are many people who have not broken free from this presumption of excellence and efficacy in the medical field, and pay with their lives. And yet, the issues in medicine are quite nuanced because it is NOT just the FDA that has been financially bought out – it is almost everyone, down to the medical schools that teach the doctors that are supposed to practise evidence based and holistic medicine. In fact, the verdict from good doctors is that there is almost no such thing as evidence-based medicine anymore, in a world where big pharma has gained influence over regulators and academia.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

A key item on Washington’s allies’ agenda is a briefing on U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s talks with Ukrainian officials on Tuesday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. During the meeting, Ukraine expressed its willingness to support a 30-day ceasefire agreement.

However, as Canada begins its presidency of the G7, drafting a unified final statement has proven challenging. Washington’s decision to impose 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports led to reciprocal measures from both Canada and the EU, highlighting the existing tensions. The U.S. has also pressed for restrictions on the language used in statements about Ukraine and has opposed a separate declaration addressing Russia’s “shadow fleet,” a covert shipping network circumventing sanctions. Additionally, the U.S. has insisted on more forceful language regarding China.

On Monday, Rubio emphasized that Washington wanted to avoid any language hindering efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiation table. Speaking to the press on Wednesday, he stated that an ideal G7 statement would acknowledge that the U.S. has advanced the process of ending the war.

G7 diplomats suggested that the positive developments in Jeddah might help facilitate discussions on Ukraine. Since Trump’s return to office on January 20, U.S. policy towards Ukraine has become less favorable, with calls for a swift resolution to the conflict, a demand for European partners to take on more responsibility without openly supporting their role in future negotiations, and a shift in U.S. relations with Moscow.

For months, the U.S. has struggled with the devastating consequences of fentanyl a potent synthetic opioid and other illicit substances entering the country from international sources. According to U.S. authorities, these drugs have played a major role in the opioid crisis, which has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans. In response, Trump has made it clear that he views drug trafficking as a national security threat and is taking bold measures to address it.

The tariffs on Mexico and Canada are a particularly significant development. Both countries, which are major trading partners of the U.S., are now facing a sharp increase in duties on a range of goods. The decision to target these nations, while controversial, is rooted in claims that the U.S. is struggling to curb the flow of drugs across its southern border with Mexico, and that Canadian authorities have not done enough to prevent the illegal trade.

Meanwhile, the additional tariff on China reflects long-standing tensions between the two countries. President Trump has been vocal about his belief that China has not taken sufficient action to prevent the illegal production and shipment of fentanyl into the U.S. The new tariff, which builds on the 10% levy imposed earlier this year, aligns with Trump’s broader strategy to challenge Beijing on trade, intellectual property rights, and currency practices.

The timing of the tariffs coincides with China’s annual parliamentary meetings, a major political event where the Chinese government is expected to unveil its key economic priorities for the upcoming year. While the tariffs are expected to escalate tensions, they are also likely to heighten the importance of these meetings, as China faces mounting pressure from the U.S. over its trade practices and drug exports.

For the American people, the announcement is a sharp reminder of the ongoing struggle to address the opioid crisis. President Trump’s rhetoric around fentanyl and his administration’s focus on cracking down on international drug trade have been central to his policy platform. However, critics of the proposed tariffs argue that they could lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers and may strain already fragile relationships with key allies.

In the coming days, it will be interesting to see how these new tariffs affect the broader global economy, especially as trade negotiations between the U.S., China, and other countries continue. How will Canada and Mexico respond to these new tariffs? Will China retaliate with its own set of measures? And most importantly, will these new actions have the desired impact of curbing the deadly fentanyl trade?

As President Trump pushes forward with these tariffs, one thing is clear: the fentanyl crisis remains a top priority for his administration, and he is willing to take dramatic steps to try and resolve it, even if those actions come at a cost to international relations and global trade stability.

Stay tuned for more updates as this developing story unfolds.