LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Author: Robert Wood

Charlotte Kates, a co-founder of Vancouver-based Samidoun, which has been declared a terrorist entity by the Canadian government, poses for a photo at the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in February 2025.

By Ches W. Parsons and Sheryl Saperia

On Oct. 15, 2024, Canada finally added Samidoun to its list of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Many observers had long called for this important step, given the group’s well-documented ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a terrorist organization listed in Canada since 2003. The designation came only after mounting public pressure and disturbing events, including a Vancouver rally in which Samidoun-affiliated demonstrators chanted “Death to Canada” and burned our national flag.

Rather than signalling a firm stance against terrorism, the delayed listing highlighted Canada’s reluctance to act until the political cost of inaction became too high. To make matters worse, eight months later, Samidoun continues to enjoy the privileges of a federally registered non-profit.

As Sen. Leo Housakos

pointed out

last week, this contradiction undermines the very purpose of the terrorist designation process. How can a group be banned for terrorist activity while simultaneously maintaining legal status as a non-profit corporation under Canadian law? The answer lies in the fragmented structure of Canada’s counterterrorism and regulatory systems.

While terrorist listings are administered by Public Safety Canada under criminal law, non-profit status falls under Corporations Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency — separate bodies with distinct mandates, timelines, and evidentiary thresholds. A terrorist designation does not automatically trigger the revocation of a group’s corporate or non-profit status, as it should.

Far from being a bureaucratic technicality, this disconnect has real-world implications. It allows listed entities like Samidoun to continue to benefit from the legal protections and legitimacy of a registered non-profit, even as their assets are meant to be frozen and their activities shut down. The longer Samidoun retains its status, the more it casts doubt on Canada’s resolve — and capability — to enforce its own national security laws.

Samidoun has operated openly in Canada for years, despite credible concerns about its affiliations and activities. Political and bureaucratic reluctance kept it off the terrorist list until public outrage erupted. Even now, no charges have been announced in Canada against key figures like

Charlotte Kates

 or

Khaled Barakat

, despite their prominent roles in the organization.

As far back as 2016, Barakat publicly shared in a video interview: “I am here to express the views of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” Israeli authorities have reported that he has been involved in establishing terrorist cells in the West Bank and abroad. His wife, Kates, publicly applauds Hamas as “heroic and brave” and proudly attended the funeral of slain Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut last year. None of this information is a secret to Canadian authorities.

In theory, terrorist designations should empower law enforcement to take clear actions. In practice, they appear to be used more for signalling than for systematically dismantling threats.

The issue is not a lack of legal authority. Canada has strong mechanisms on paper: designated groups cannot hold or use property, receive financial support or facilitate travel and recruitment. Banks are required to freeze their accounts.

There remain some gaps in the law. This includes the fact that membership in a terrorist group is not in itself illegal — nor is the glorification of terrorist violence (which is outlawed in the U.K.).

But in enforcing existing laws, the lack of integration between Public Safety, Corporations Canada and the CRA creates a loophole that delays meaningful enforcement. That delay erodes public confidence and gives dangerous individuals with room to manoeuvre.

It also renders the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act even more essential legislation — as Canadian terror victims can turn to civil lawsuits to find justice when the authorities have failed to do so. Indeed, some Canadian family members of October 7 victims have filed a lawsuit against several defendants including Samidoun, Kates and Barakat.

Canada is not alone in recognizing the threat posed by Samidoun. The group has been banned in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as labelled a sham charity by U.S. authorities. Canada should be a leader in this space, not a laggard. We cannot afford for terrorist listings to be seen as symbolic gestures without real consequences.

It’s time for reform. The government should establish a streamlined process to ensure that once a group is listed as a terrorist entity, it triggers a whole-of-government response to sanction the organization. This includes ensuring its non-profit status is immediately reviewed and — where appropriate — revoked. Inter-agency co-ordination must be improved so that criminal law and administrative oversight are not operating in silos.

National security cannot be selectively applied. If we are serious about combating terrorism, we must ensure that our enforcement measures are not only robust in theory, but swift and seamless in practice.

Special to National Post

Ches W. Parsons is a retired Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and its former Director General of National Security. Sheryl Saperia is CEO of Secure Canada, a non-profit dedicated to combating terrorism, extremism and related national security threats.

Click here for more Canada

A newly installed flag pole stands on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 18, 2025.

Now that Canada’s trade war with America has surged back into public consciousness like a blast from the recent past, a new poll suggests Canadian frustration with and mistrust of the U.S. remains high, despite a slight easing.

In March, for example, polling showed a dramatic realignment of Canadian attitudes toward its southern neighbour. Europe and Britain were suddenly the countries Canadians felt best about, and Canadians were starting to feel about America the way they felt about Russia.

But lately, with U.S. President Donald Trump’s attention mostly elsewhere, there are signs of a slight bump back from this low point, despite troubling news developments like the death of a Canadian citizen in U.S. immigration custody.

More than half of Canadians now say they “no longer feel welcome in the United States,” for example, and this sentiment is strongest among women and older people.

During the recent Canadian election campaign with its looming threat of crippling tariffs and annexation, there was a “worrisome intersection” in the Canadian mind of the American government and the American people, according to Jack Jedwab, president of the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies (ACS).

But in this latest poll, he sees a “healthy development” of Canadian anger and frustration being focused primarily on the American government, and less so the American people.

Back in April, barely one Canadian in five (21 per cent) said they trust Americans in a similar poll. But in the latest poll, that figure has rebounded to 34 per cent, which is historically normal, about the same as it was near the end of Trump’s first term, but still considerably lower than the 59 per cent it reached in October 2023, Jedwab said.

Asked if they trust the United States, the country as opposed to the American people, those numbers drop substantially. A majority of 53 per cent said the country could not be trusted, and only 21 per cent said it could. That distrust is greater among Canadians older than 65. It is also stronger among residents of British Columbia, and lowest among Albertans and Atlantic Canadians.

The poll was taken by Leger for the ACS between June 20 and 22, so it does not reflect Canadian reaction to Donald Trump’s latest cancellation of trade talks last weekend, which prompted Prime Minister Mark Carney to rescind a digital industries tax, which targeted American tech firms, in order to restart negotiations.

But the poll shows a silver lining in an otherwise gloomy picture of this longstanding national friendship, military alliance, and economic partnership.

“We just don’t trust the motivation behind the re-opening of trade,” Jedwab said. “We’re persuaded we’re the kindler, gentler nation, and we’re being bullied by their president.”

Overall, a majority of Canadians feel unwelcome in the United States, the poll suggests. They regard the borders as secure, but 45 per cent of Canadians say the United States is not a trusted security and defence partner, compared to just 32 per cent who say it is.

The poll also shows Canadians overwhelmingly feel Canada’s trade rules for the U.S. are fair, but the U.S. trade rules for Canada are unfair. Fully 75 per cent say American rules governing trade are unfair to Canada, whereas only 12 per cent feel Canada’s rules are unfair.

“I think that trust is the key predictor of Canadians feeling unwelcome in the United States and it also hampers our ability to fix perceived problems between our two countries,” Jedwab said. “The lack of trust a key indicator in trade negotiations and we will need to build or re-build trust if we re going to succeed. That won’t be simple because in effect the U.S. President is not perceived to be a trusted ally by Canadians.”

Despite all that, the poll also shows a majority of Canadians believe they have more in common with Americans than with any other people in the world.

This poll was conducted through an online panel survey, so a margin of error cannot be calculated. But a randomized poll of similar size, with 1,579 respondents, would be considered accurate to within 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Click here for more Alberta

OTTAWA — Canadian advocates are urging Ottawa to protect the 1997 treaty Canada brokered to stop the use of landmines, as six countries on Europe’s eastern flank move toward using the explosive weapons.

“I’m deeply concerned about this,” said Sen. Marilou McPhedran. “Thousands and thousands of lives have been saved because of this treaty.”

Global Affairs Canada says it’s in talks with countries moving away from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, often referred to as the Ottawa Treaty, which since 1999 has banned the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel landmines.

Since then, Canada has spent millions of dollars to help rid the world of landmines that overwhelmingly injure and maim civilians and children, including in Ukraine.

In a statement provided on Wednesday, Global Affairs Canada spokesman Louis-Carl Brissette Lesage said Canada is aware countries are making “difficult and complex decisions” around the treaty, and has been in “ongoing dialogue” with them to emphasize Canada’s strong support for the Ottawa Treaty.

“Support for the Ottawa Convention and its universal adherence remains a core priority for Canada,” he wrote.

“We view the Convention as one of the most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, given its prohibition of anti-personnel landmines, which disproportionately harm civilians.”

But it’s starting to unravel.

On June 29, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a decree to withdraw Ukraine from the convention, though the treaty technically bars states from exiting while engaged in an armed conflict.

On June 27, all three Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — issued official notices with the United Nations that will have each pull out of the treaty in six months. That would be the first time any signatories had exited the treaty.

Poland and Finland are undertaking parliamentary moves to get to such a step.

All six countries have cited the growing threat from Russia to front-line states, including the fact Moscow uses landmines and isn’t a member of the treaty.

Mines Actions Canada condemned the “rushed processes” to pull the three Baltic countries out of the convention, and urged Ottawa in a statement “to speak up and engage with our allies in defence of the Ottawa Treaty.”

In an interview, the group’s head, Erin Hunt, said European countries are usually the staunchest supporters of international law, and demonstrate a double standard if they decide to pull back when under pressure.

“The Ottawa Treaty is one example of a global decision that there is limit to war. And to withdraw from that when there’s a threat of conflict does not speak very highly to our convictions, to make war safer for the people who are not fighting,” she said.

Landmines can kill or maim people even decades after a conflict ends, and can disproportionately harm civilians.

Research by the International Committee of the Red Cross shows that landmines aren’t useful in preventing war nor in actual conflict, which Hunt says is why the U.S. stopped producing those arms.

She argued the recent increase in drone warfare makes landmines even less useful.

McPhedran helped organize an advocacy event with Humanity and Inclusion Canada last month that featured Lloyd Axworthy, the former foreign affairs minister who helped broker the Ottawa Treaty.

McPhedran said the treaty has had “a hugely positive humanitarian impact.”

She noted that the Carney government has made protection of civilians a central part of its foreign policy, and has asked the government to host an event to mark three decades of the treaty in 2027.

Brisette Lesage wrote on behalf of Global Affairs Canada that Ottawa will continue to highlight the impact of anti-personnel landmines on civilians, and work with advocates “to assess the implications of this development and to explore ways to uphold and strengthen the critical norms enshrined in the Treaty.”

Axworthy said exiting the treaty could speed up the disintegration of the global order and the suspension of other arms-control measures, particularly as countries rush to boost their military spending.

He said Eastern European countries have legitimate security concerns, but have no demonstrable proof that using landmines will actually stem Russian aggression.

“Ukraine is already one of the most corrupted countries in the world, with landmines. And not just Russian landmines, but Ukrainian landmines,” he said.

“The level of destruction — of killing and maiming and wounding for the next 100 years is being sewn into those fields right now. And it’s not necessary.”

The international watchdog Landmine Monitor said in a report last year that landmines were still actively being used in 2023 and 2024 by Russia, Myanmar, Iran and North Korea.

Nearly three dozen countries have not adopted the Ottawa Convention, including some key current and past producers and users of landmines such as the United States, China, India, Pakistan and South Korea.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

RCMP Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, which is used for patrols along the Canada--U.S. border in southern B.C.

OTTAWA — The RCMP has renewed the contracts for three Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the Canada-U.S. border, despite

accusations by the industry association that the contracts

are the opposite of the government’s “elbows up” approach and that the choppers don’t meet the government’s own safety regulations.

RCMP spokesman Andrew DiRienzo confirmed that the federal police has decided to rehire the three helicopters for at least the next three months. The contracts for the second-hand helicopters, purchased by private contractors after the U.S. military decided to update much of its own fleet, kicked in on Canada Day.

The new contracts follow a National Post investigation that revealed that four Black Hawks were purchased by Canadian contractors who then signed patrolling contracts with the RCMP for three of them. The other was hired by the Alberta government.

The existing RCMP contracts for three of the choppers, worth an estimated $16 million, expired June 30.

Documents showed that the Canadian helicopter industry had accused Ottawa of breaking its own rules, for example, by allowing the used choppers to carry passengers or even flying over developed areas. The Black Hawks have been used mostly to patrol the border in search of illegal migrants, drug smugglers and other illicit activities.

Trevor Mitchell, chief executive of the Helicopter Association of Canada (HAC), said he was very surprised that the RCMP would sign another contract to lease the American Black Hawks, while Canadian manufacturers offer rival products that can do at least as good a job. “I can’t see how any of this transpires into an elbows-up policy, or a Canada-first policy.”

According to the government’s Canadian Civil Aircraft Register, the four Sikorsky Black Hawk UH 60As were imported into Canada between 2022 and last year. They were granted highly unusual special exemptions by Transport Canada that, according to a series of letters to senior government officials from the Canadian helicopter association, allowed the four choppers to do non-military jobs in Canadian air space.

In a March 20 letter to Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland, the association said even the conditions attached to the exemptions have not been followed. “We urge you to direct your department to ensure the safety restrictions attached to these aircraft are strictly enforced for the balance of the RCMP’s contract and that the Force be urged to select a certified aircraft before the contract expires.”

HAC also says that the twin-engine Black Hawks didn’t come with “type certificates,” which act like recipe books for new owners in that they provide details about the aircraft’s parts and how it should be maintained.

Freeland has not responded to interview requests on this subject for the last three weeks. A spokesperson has not responded to specific questions but instead released a prepared statement that emphasized the importance of safety. The statement also said that the exemptions from Transport Canada allowed the aircraft to operate in Canada in specialized roles “subject to strict conditions,” such as not being allowed to carry fare-paying passengers or cargo.

Despite its reluctance to discuss the matter, the federal government is well aware of the situation involving the Black Hawks and the industry’s concerns.

An RCMP Black Hawk helicopter patrols the border in Emerson, Manitoba in January.

In the spring of 2024, following interactions with HAC, former Transport Minister Pablo Rodriguez directed his officials to pause the issuing of special exemptions for the Black Hawks. But in September of that year, Rodriguez resigned from the federal cabinet to run for leader of the Quebec Liberal party.

He was replaced at Transport for about seven months by Anita Anand, now the Foreign Affairs minister. She was then replaced in the new year by Chrystia Freeland, after Mark Carney became prime minister. Neither Anand nor Freeland has clarified the government’s view of the situation or publicly commented on the special exemptions for the Black Hawks.

Although the Black Hawk contracts pre-date the re-election earlier this year of U.S. President Donald Trump, Canada’s enhanced border patrol is in sync with the White House’s escalation of concern about illegal migrants and illegal drugs entering the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and elsewhere.

But it’s not like there aren’t other – even domestic – options beyond Black Hawks.

Mitchell says Canada has about 200 companies that offer helicopter services and pilots to fly them. Their collective fleets comprise about 1,700 choppers, many of which might be better suited than Black Hawks for patrol duties because they’re smaller and equipped with infra-red cameras that allow them to work in the dark.

The military and the RCMP also have their own fleets. But if the RCMP’s own helicopters weren’t enough, Mitchell said, it would have no problem finding private contractors to help them patrol.

Helicopters are valued for their versatility and mobility. In Canada, they’re mostly used for search and rescue, fighting forest fires, helping combat floods, and commercial applications in remote areas such as mining and electrical lines.

But five-seat helicopters are typically used for patrol because they’re more nimble and cheaper to operate than a larger, 14-seater such as Sikorsky’s Black Hawk.

According to a February 10 letter by HAC to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme, the choppers have not been approved by Canadian or American authorities for civilian purposes.

The RCMP’s Black Hawk contracts overlap with Carney’s vow to increase Canada’s military spending so that it reaches the NATO target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Carney has also vowed to do more to support Canadian business and to rely less on the U.S.

Industry sources say the older Black Hawks were selling in recent months for about $1 million each, as the market became flooded with supply. The market for used helicopters has grown in recent years as the U.S. military has modernized its fleet, including the purchase of a newer model of Black Hawks, called the UH-60M.

That has pushed a number of older, but still functional Black Hawks to the second-hand market. Prices of new and used aircraft vary widely, depending on a range of factors. But a new five-seat helicopter, including those made in Canada, sells for about $6.5 million, while a new 14-seater, similar in size to the Black Hawks, goes for about $12 million.

Bell Textron, a subsidiary of Fort Worth, Tex.-based Textron, makes commercial helicopters at its Mirabel, Que. facilities. Its lineup of models includes the Bell 412, which could be used for border patrol.

Airbus Helicopters Canada, formerly MBB Helicopter Canada, has a 300-employee site at Fort Erie, Ont. That location focuses largely on sales, repair, engineering and composite manufacturing.

The Black Hawk, made by Sikorsky Aircraft, is a four-blade, twin-engine, medium-lift chopper in the “military utility” product niche. Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky was founded by the Russian-American aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky in 1923.

Carney, meanwhile, issued a statement earlier this month saying that Canada plans to boost its defence spending by $9.3 billion to $54.3 billion. The money will be used on a range of items, including submarines, ships, armoured vehicles and aircraft, as well as new drones and sensors for monitoring the Arctic and seafloor.

In the government’s latest signal that it intends to create some distance from the U.S. since Trump imposed a wide range of debilitating tariffs on Canadian exports, Carney said Canada wants to reduce how much of its defence budget goes to purchases of American equipment. The prime minister has said that about 75 per cent of Canada’s capital spending on defence heads to the U.S.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Click here for more Alberta

ST. JOHN’S — Despite a lagging market for green hydrogen, the Newfoundland and Labrador government says it still plans to collect royalties from the province’s nascent renewable energy industry.

Steve Crocker, minister of industry, energy and technology, says his department is keeping a close eye on developments in the industry and will come up with an appropriate royalty regime if any of the proposed wind-powered hydrogen operations pivot to focus exclusively on wind energy.

He also said the province’s Crown power utility would weigh in if any of the companies are pitching to supply the province’s power grid.

“This is a resource that, at the end of day, belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,” Crocker said. “No different than we did for wind to hydrogen, we would certainly do for any other wind-type proposal.”

Newfoundland and Labrador has a “fiscal framework” in place to collect royalties and benefits from proposed projects on Crown land that would use electricity generated by wind power to produce hydrogen. The benefits include fees for Crown lands, a $4,000-per-megawatt wind-electricity tax and water royalties that would kick in once the projects have recovered their costs.

The framework is specific to projects using wind power to produce hydrogen.

Six companies have reserved Crown land to develop green hydrogen projects in the province, but not all of them are up to date in paying fees they owe the government, The Canadian Press reported in June.

Last month, executives from some of those companies told an energy conference in St. John’s, N.L., that they were eyeing wind-energy projects as the market for green hydrogen lags. The companies hope to use wind to generate electricity to produce hydrogen products, and then sell them to buyers in Europe.

It’s been tough to secure binding agreements with buyers that would make their projects viable, the executives said.

In the meantime, several said they were eager for an expected call for renewable energy from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Jill Pitcher, a spokesperson for the utility, said N.L. Hydro expects to release an expression of interest for renewable energy “within the next couple weeks.”

“Discussions on royalties or benefits would take place during the (expression of interest) process,” Pitcher said in an email.

Crocker said his department has not received any “formal correspondence” from green hydrogen companies saying they intended to deviate from their wind-to-hydrogen plans. Any changes would have to be approved by the provincial government, he added.

The province is holding nearly 4,000 square kilometres of Crown land in reserve for the six companies proposing wind-to-hydrogen developments on the island of Newfoundland. So far, one project — World Energy GH2’s $16-billion project in western Newfoundland — has cleared the province’s environmental assessment process. Three others are in the midst of it.

Crocker said he is optimistic that the wind-to-hydrogen sector will take off.

“There’s still a lot of work to do, but we still see serious interest,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025.

Sarah Smellie, The Canadian Press

Click here for more

MONTREAL — The director general of a junior college in Montreal says a recent government investigation into the climate at the school may have had a chilling effect on teachers.

Benoit Morin says the investigation exacerbated tensions at Vanier College, which has been under scrutiny since last fall due to complaints that the Israel-Hamas war had created an unsafe atmosphere on campus.

The Quebec Education Department published a report last week about Dawson and Vanier colleges that found the schools have little control over course content, including language classes focused on Palestinian culture.

The report says the Quebec government should pass a new law to regulate academic freedom in the college system.

But Morin says it would be a mistake to create an environment in which teachers censor themselves, and says teaching staff should be trusted.

The report also found that prayer rooms in colleges can foster radicalization and divisions between students, but Morin says he has not seen that at Vanier.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025.

The Canadian Press

Click here for more

WASHINGTON (AP) — Up all night, House Republicans voted pre-dawn Thursday to advance President Donald Trump’s tax and spending cuts package, recouping after GOP leaders worked almost around the clock trying to persuade skeptical holdouts as they race to send the bill to his desk by the Fourth of July deadline.

A roll call that started late Wednesday finally closed almost six hours later, a highly unusual stall on a procedural step. Trump, who had hosted lawmakers at the White House earlier, lashed out at the delay. Once the gavel struck, 219-213, the bill advanced to a last round of debates toward a final vote, which is expected later Thursday morning.

“Our way is to plow through and get it done,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said, emerging in the middle of the night from a series of closed-door meetings. “We will meet our July 4th deadline.”

The idea of quickly convening to for a vote on the more than 800-page bill after it passed the day before in the Senate was a risky gambit, one designed to meet Trump’s demand for a holiday finish. Republicans have struggled mightily with the bill nearly every step of the way, often succeeding by the narrowest of margins — just one vote. Their slim 220-212 majority leaves little room for defections.

Several Republicans are balking at being asked to rubber-stamp the Senate version less than 24 hours after passage. A number of moderate Republicans from competitive districts have objected to the Senate bill’s cuts to Medicaid, while conservatives have lambasted the legislation as straying from their fiscal goals.

“What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove???” Trump railed in a post-midnight vote. He also warned starkly of political fallout from the delay “COSTING YOU VOTES!!!”

It fell to Johnson and his team to convince them that the time for negotiations is over. They needed assistance from Trump to close the deal, and lawmakers headed to the White House for a two-hour session Wednesday to talk to the president about their concerns. Trump also worked the phones.

“The president’s message was, ‘We’re on a roll,’” said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C. “He wants to see this.”

Republicans are relying on their majority hold of Congress to push the package over a wall of unified Democratic opposition. No Democrats voted for bill in the Senate and none were expected to do so in the House.

“Hell no!” said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, flanked by fellow Democrats outside the Capitol.

In an early warning sign of Republican resistance, during a first procedural vote that also stalled out as GOP leadership waited for lawmakers who were delayed coming back to Washington and conducted closed-door negotiations with holdouts.

By nightfall, as pizzas and other dinners were arriving at the Capitol, the next steps were uncertain.

Trump pushes Republicans to do ‘the right thing’

The bill would extend and make permanent various individual and business tax breaks from Trump’s first term, plus temporarily add new ones he promised during the 2024 campaign. This includes allowing workers to deduct tips and overtime pay, and a $6,000 deduction for most older adults earning less than $75,000 a year. In all, the legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

The bill also provides about $350 billion for defense and Trump’s immigration crackdown. Republicans partially pay for it all through less spending on Medicaid and food assistance. The Congressional Budget Office projects the bill will add about $3.3 trillion to the federal debt over the coming decade.

The House passed its version of the bill in May by a single vote, despite worries about spending cuts and the overall price tag. Now it’s being asked to give final passage to a version that, in many respects, exacerbates those concerns. The Senate bill’s projected impact on the nation’s debt, for example, is significantly higher.

“Lets go Republicans and everyone else,” Trump said in a late evening post.

The high price of opposing Trump’s bill

Johnson is intent on meeting Trump’s timeline and betting that hesitant Republicans won’t cross the president because of the heavy political price they would have to pay.

They need only look to Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who announced his intention to vote against the legislation over the weekend. Soon, the president was calling for a primary challenger to the senator and criticizing him on social media. Tillis quickly announced he would not seek a third term.

One House Republican who has staked out opposition to the bill, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, is being targeted by Trump’s well-funded political operation.

Democrats

target vulnerable Republicans to join them in opposition

Flanked by nearly every member of his caucus, Democratic Leader Jeffries of New York delivered a pointed message: With all Democrats voting “no,” they only need to flip four Republicans to prevent the bill from passing.

Jeffries invoked the “courage” of the late Sen. John McCain giving a thumbs-down to the GOP effort to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, and singled out Republicans from districts expected to be highly competitive in 2026, including two from Pennsylvania.

“Why would Rob Bresnahan vote for this bill? Why would Scott Perry vote for this bill?” Jeffries asked.

Democrats have described the bill in dire terms, warning that Medicaid cuts would result in lives lost and food stamp cuts would be “literally ripping the food out of the mouths of children, veterans and seniors,” Jeffries said Monday.

Republicans say they are trying to right-size the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse.

The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and applies existing work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to more beneficiaries. States will also pick up more of the cost for food benefits.

The driving force behind the bill, however, is the tax cuts. Many expire at the end of this year if Congress doesn’t act.

The Tax Policy Center, which provides nonpartisan analysis of tax and budget policy, projected the bill would result next year in a $150 tax break for the lowest quintile of Americans, a $1,750 tax cut for the middle quintile and a $10,950 tax cut for the top quintile. That’s compared with what they would face if the 2017 tax cuts expired.

___

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed.

Kevin Freking, Lisa Mascaro And Joey Cappelletti, The Associated Press



Click here for more

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to deliver a “spectacular” yearlong birthday party to mark 250 years of American independence. On Thursday, he will be in the U.S. heartland to kick off the patriotic festivities leading up to next year’s anniversary.

The event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines will feature “dazzling” displays of Americana and American history, musical performances and a fireworks show to cap the night, said U.S. Ambassador Monica Crowley, Trump’s liaison to the organizing group, America250.

Organizers see the coming year of festivities as a way to help unite a polarized nation and bridge partisanship — a monumental task given the country’s divides. Thursday’s event comes as the Republican-controlled Congress pushed for final passage of a sweeping tax cuts and spending package that’s at the heart of Trump’s legislative agenda but has united all Democrats against it. More U.S. adults also disapprove than approve of how the Republican president is doing his job.

Iowa was a “logical choice” for the kickoff, Crowley said, because of its central location and Trump’s affinity for the state, which supported him in each of the last three general elections. She also said Iowa’s middle-of-the-country geography is symbolic of the desire to use the coming celebrations to help bring people together.

“We’ve had so much division and so much polarization over the last many decades, but certainly over the last few years, that to be able to bring the country together to celebrate America’s 250th birthday through patriotism, shared values and a renewed sense of civic pride, to be able to do that in the center of the country, is incredibly important,” she said.

A recent Gallup poll showed the widest partisan split in patriotism in over two decades, with only about a third of Democrats saying they are proud to be American compared with about 9 in 10 Republicans.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults approve of Trump’s performance as president, according to a June AP-NORC poll, while about 6 in 10 disapprove. That poll also showed a majority of Americans said the June military parade that Trump greenlit in Washington for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army — an event that fell on his 79th birthday — was “not a good use” of government money.

Crowley spoke to the political and ideological schisms that left the country “torn apart” ahead of its last big birthday celebration, noting that 1976 closely followed the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal that led Richard Nixon to resign from the presidency.

“That moment was critical to uniting the country and moving forward, and I am very optimistic and hopeful that the yearlong celebration that we’re about to launch will do the same thing in this present moment,” she said in an interview.

America’s 250th birthday “is something that I think that all Americans can come together to celebrate and honor our history as well as our present and our future,” Crowley said.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, officially marking the 13 colonies’ split from Great Britain.

“We’re gonna have a big, big celebration, as you know, 250 years,” Trump said about the birthday during his Memorial Day address to a solemn audience at Arlington National Cemetery. “In some ways, I’m glad I missed that second term where it was because I wouldn’t be your president for that.”

Video of then-candidate Trump proposing a “Great American State Fair” in Iowa in May 2023 began to recirculate after his reelection last November. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, told the White House earlier this year that Iowa stood “ready” to host the event and that Trump had the state’s full support, according to a draft of Reynolds’ letter obtained by The Associated Press.

The culminating fair instead will be held next year on the National Mall in Washington, according to a White House official who was not authorized to share details publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. But Trump honored his initial proposal with a kickoff in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

The lineup Thursday night will include Lee Greenwood, according to social media posts advertising the event, whose song, “God Bless the USA,” is a regular feature at Trump rallies and official events. Also attending will be Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

___

Fingerhut reported from Des Moines, Iowa. AP Polling Editor Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report.

Darlene Superville And Hannah Fingerhut, The Associated Press


Click here for more

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The man charged with killing former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and wounding a state senator and his wife, is due back in federal court Thursday for a hearing that was put on hold after his lawyer said his client had been unable to sleep while on suicide watch.

The hearing is expected to address whether Vance Boelter should remain in custody without bail and affirm that there is probable cause to proceed with the case. He’s not expected to enter a plea. Prosecutors need to secure a grand jury indictment first, before his arraignment, which is when a plea is normally entered.

An unshaven Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, was wearing a green padded suicide prevention suit and orange slippers when he was brought into court last Friday. Federal defender Manny Atwal then asked Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko to continue the hearing. She said Boelter had been sleep deprived due to harsh conditions in the Sherburne County Jail, making it difficult for them to communicate.

“Your honor, I haven’t really slept in about 12 to 14 days,” Boelter told the judge then. And he denied being suicidal. “I’ve never been suicidal and I am not suicidal now.”

Sherburne County Sheriff Joel Brott, whose jail houses both county and federal prisoners, rejected Boelter’s claims of poor conditions as absurd. “He is not in a hotel. He’s in jail, where a person belongs when they commit the heinous crimes he is accused of committing,” Brott said in a statement Friday.

Boelter faces separate cases in federal and state court on charges of murder and attempted murder for what the state’s chief federal prosecutor, Acting U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, has called “a political assassination” and “a chilling attack on our democracy.” The feds are going first.

Authorities say Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot to death in their home in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park in the early hours of June 14 by a man disguised as a police officer who was driving a fake squad car.

Boelter also allegedly shot and seriously wounded state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, earlier that morning at their home in nearby Champlin. The Hoffmans are recovering, but Hortman’s golden retriever, Gilbert, was seriously injured and had to be euthanized.

Boelter surrendered near his home the night of June 15 after what authorities called the largest search in Minnesota history, a hunt of around 40 hours.

Atwal told the court last week that Boelter had been kept in what’s known as a “Gumby suit,” without undergarments, ever since his first court appearance June 16. She said the lights were on in his area 24 hours a day, doors slammed frequently, the inmate in the next cell would spread feces on the walls, and the smell would drift to Boelter’s cell.

The attorney said transferring him to segregation instead, and giving him a normal jail uniform, would let him get some sleep, restore some dignity, and let him communicate better. The judge granted the delay.

Boelter’s lawyers have declined to comment on the charges themselves, which could carry the federal death penalty. Thompson has said no decision has been made whether to seek it. Minnesota abolished its death penalty in 1911. But Attorney General Pam Bondi has said from the start that the Trump administration will be more aggressive in seeking capital punishment.

Prosecutors allege Boelter also stopped at the homes of two other Democratic lawmakers. They also say he listed dozens of other Democrats as potential targets, including officials in other states. Friends described Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views. But prosecutors have declined so far to speculate on a motive.

Former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris joined the mourners at the Hortmans’ funeral last Saturday. Gov. Tim Walz, Harris’s running mate on the 2024 Democratic presidential ticket, eulogized Hortman as “the most consequential speaker in Minnesota history.”

Hortman served as speaker from 2019 until January. She then yielded the post to a Republican in a power-sharing deal after the House became tied in the 2024 elections, and became speaker emerita.

Steve Karnowski, The Associated Press





Click here for more

NEW YORK (AP) — A controversial bid to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade seemed on its way to passing as the Republican tax cut and spending bill championed by President Donald Trump worked its way through the U.S. Senate.

But as the bill neared a final vote, a relentless campaign against it by a constellation of conservatives — including Republican governors, lawmakers, think tanks and social groups — had been eroding support. One, conservative activist Mike Davis, appeared on the show of right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon, urging viewers to call their senators to reject this “AI amnesty” for “trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists.”

He said he also texted with Trump directly, advising the president to stay neutral on the issue despite what Davis characterized as significant pressure from White House AI czar David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and others.

Conservatives passionate about getting rid of the provision had spent weeks fighting others in the party who favored the legislative moratorium because they saw it as essential for the country to compete against China in the race for AI dominance. The schism marked the latest and perhaps most noticeable split within the GOP about whether to let states continue to put guardrails on emerging technologies or minimize such interference.

In the end, the advocates for guardrails won, revealing the enormous influence of a segment of the Republican Party that has come to distrust Big Tech. They believe states must remain free to protect their citizens against potential harms of the industry, whether from AI, social media or emerging technologies.

“Tension in the conservative movement is palpable,” said Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Thierer first proposed the idea of the AI moratorium last year. He noted “the animus surrounding Big Tech” among many Republicans.

“That was the differentiating factor.”

Conservative v. conservative in a last-minute fight

The Heritage Foundation, children’s safety groups and Republican state lawmakers, governors and attorneys general all weighed in against the AI moratorium. Democrats, tech watchdogs and some tech companies opposed it, too.

Sensing the moment was right on Monday night, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who opposed the AI provision and had attempted to water it down, teamed up with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington to suggest striking the entire proposal. By morning, the provision was removed in a 99-1 vote.

The whirlwind demise of a provision that initially had the backing of House and Senate leadership and the White House disappointed other conservatives who felt it gave China, a main AI competitor, an advantage.

Ryan Fournier, chairman of Students for Trump and chief marketing officer of the startup Uncensored AI, had supported the moratorium, writing on X that it “stops blue states like California and New York from handing our future to Communist China.”

“Republicans are that way … I get it,” he said in an interview, but added there needs to be “one set of rules, not 50” for AI innovation to be successful.

AI advocates fear a patchwork of state rules

Tech companies, tech trade groups, venture capitalists and multiple Trump administration figures had voiced their support for the provision that would have blocked states from passing their own AI regulations for years. They argued that in the absence of federal standards, letting the states take the lead would leave tech innovators mired in a confusing patchwork of rules.

Lutnick, the commerce secretary, posted that the provision “makes sure American companies can develop cutting-edge tech for our military, infrastructure, and critical industries — without interference from anti-innovation politicians.” AI czar Sacks had also publicly supported the measure.

After the Senate passed the bill without the AI provision, the White House responded to an inquiry for Sacks with the president’s position, saying Trump “is fully supportive of the Senate-passed version of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.”

Acknowledging defeat of his provision on the Senate floor, Cruz noted how pleased China, liberal politicians and “radical left-wing groups” would be to hear the news.

But Blackburn pointed out that the federal government has failed to pass laws that address major concerns about AI, such as keeping children safe and securing copyright protections.

“But you know who has passed it?” she said. “The states.”

Conservatives want to win the AI race, but disagree on how

Conservatives distrusting Big Tech for what they see as social media companies stifling speech during the COVID-19 pandemic and surrounding elections said that tech companies shouldn’t get a free pass, especially on something that carries as much risk as AI.

Many who opposed the moratorium also brought up preserving states’ rights, though proponents countered that AI issues transcend state borders and Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Eric Lucero, a Republican state lawmaker in Minnesota, noted that many other industries already navigate different regulations established by both state and local jurisdictions.

“I think everyone in the conservative movement agrees we need to beat China,” said Daniel Cochrane from the Heritage Foundation. “I just think we have different prescriptions for doing so.”

Many argued that in the absence of federal legislation, states were best positioned to protect citizens from the potential harms of AI technology.

“We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X.

A call for federal rules

Another Republican, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, wrote to Cruz and his counterpart, Sen. John Cornyn, urging them to remove the moratorium.

She and other conservatives said some sort of federal standard could help clarify the landscape around AI and resolve some of the party’s disagreements.

But with the moratorium dead and Republicans holding only narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, it’s unclear whether they will be able to agree on a set of standards to guide the development of the burgeoning technology.

In an email to The Associated Press, Paxton said she wants to see limited federal AI legislation “that sets some clear guardrails” around national security and interstate commerce, while leaving states free to address issues that affect their residents.

“When it comes to technology as powerful and potentially dangerous as AI, we should be cautious about silencing state-level efforts to protect consumers and children,” she said.

___

Associated Press writer Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.

Ali Swenson, The Associated Press


Click here for more