President Donald Trump threatened to raise automobile tariffs on Canada to 50% as the trade rift and political slanging match between the neighboring nations escalated.

Trump announced Monday morning that U.S. tariffs on all Canadian cars and trucks, automotive parts, and steel will increase to 50% starting Jan. 1, 2027.

“Build in the U.S. and there are zero tariffs. Canada will be treated like a State no longer! On trade, and in other ways, also, they are among the worst nations in the world to deal with,” he said on social media.

Trump’s comments came after trade talks between the two countries broke down, with each side accusing the other of making eleventh-hour demands that derailed negotiations.

“They feel entitled, and yet, we don’t need Canada, they need us!” the President said, repeating his accusation that “Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years.”

Trump previously touted the nearly finished deal between the two countries last Tuesday.

However, negotiations broke down on Friday, and the Administration's 50% tariffs on about $20 billion worth of imports into the U.S. from Canada took effect Saturday.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to match the U.S.’s tariffs “dollar for dollar.”

“We are stronger now than when the United States started this trade war. More unified, more determined, and more ambitious,” Carney said during a press conference Saturday, referring to the year-long trade rift that has come to affect both countries.

“Last spring, I warned that America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And promised: “That will never, ever happen.” We are keeping that promise. Canada is becoming stronger and less dependent on America.”

Both sides have since blamed the other for making unreasonable demands late in the negotiating process.

“While we believed, earlier this week, that we were moving toward a mutually beneficial agreement, in recent days, the U.S. proposed new terms that were uneconomic, unfair, and undermined the net benefits to Canada, calling into question the reliability of any deal,” Carney said on Saturday. “In short, they asked too much and offered too little.”

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, meanwhile, framed the breakdown in negotiations as leaving the U.S. with little choice but to retaliate against Canada.

“We’ve said enough, and so we’ve taken countermeasures. Our interest is in protecting American workers and protecting American supply chains,” he told "Fox & Friends" on Saturday.

Greer said the Republican Administration had offered to cut tariffs on steel, autos, and lumber, “things that are sensitive for them. And they’ve always had the best deal, and they still would have an even better deal, but they didn’t want that.”

As a result, he said, “We’re moving forward with measures that respond to Canadian retaliation.”

The broader 50% tariffs that took effect Saturday were initially announced in July, and would affect around 5% of trade between the U.S.-Canada.

Shortly after the collapse of the talks, Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday and said that Canada “wants the benefits of being a State, without being one” and that it has “also charged our great farmers, for many years, massive amounts of tariffs. No more!!!”

Despite not being clear what the President meant, Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to annex Canada and make it the 51st U.S. state—an idea Carney has strongly rejected.

Canada retaliates as U.S. lawmakers warn of higher costs

The collapse of the deal and escalating trade tensions between Washington and Ottawa have been met with both praise and criticism on either side of the border.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford praised Carney for standing firm and refusing to accept what he described as a “bad deal.”

“It was a bad deal for Ontario. It was a bad deal for the auto sector, the steel sector and manufacturing sector,” he said. “We never started this fight, but I can assure you we're going to win.”

On the U.S. side, Trump has faced criticism from both sides of the aisle.

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said Trump’s tariffs “have created higher costs and chaos.”

“His 50% tariffs on Canadian goods will raise prices. And now Canada is retaliating dollar for dollar, which will hurt Minnesota farmers, businesses, and workers,” she said Monday of the newly announced tariffs.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine similarly warned that the “on-again/off-again trade talks between the U.S. and Canada lead to higher costs, risk, and uncertainty for Maine businesses.”

“If the Administration proceeds with these tariffs, they will increase costs for Maine families, as most businesses will have no choice but to pass on the tariffs to their customers through higher prices,” she said Saturday after trade talks broke down, urging “both sides to return to the negotiating table.”

Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia warned that this latest round of automobile tariffs will have “devastating consequences.”  

“President Trump’s new 50% tariffs on Canada will disrupt supply chains and raise costs for Virginia businesses of every size and in every industry, and retaliatory tariffs will hurt Virginians,” she said Monday.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries met privately with President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner in recent weeks, prompting criticism from some Democrats ahead of approaching midterm elections, according to reports.

Although Kushner, who served as a senior West Wing adviser during Trump’s first term, does not have a formal role in the current Administration, he has remained involved in Trump’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and Russia.

During the meeting, the pair were said to have discussed housing, immigration, and the high cost of living as potential areas of common ground.

The report comes less than three months before the November midterms, when Democrats are favored to retake control of the House from Republicans, who currently hold both chambers of Congress. A Democratic victory would put Jeffries in line to become speaker and give the party greater oversight powers to investigate the Trump Administration.

The meeting—an unusual instance of a top Democrat and a Trump confidant coming together to discuss potential areas of agreement—has drawn scrutiny from some within Democratic circles. It was first reported Sunday by The New York Times and has since been confirmed by multiple outlets.

“Throughout this Congress, Republicans have adopted a my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing that has failed the American people," Jeffries says in a statement to TIME. "To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition. The American people want bold change and that’s what House Democrats will deliver.”

“In every conversation that we have with the Trump administration, we will continue to make it explicitly clear that the affordability crisis is not a hoax and nothing short of transformational policy change is acceptable. We are fighting for an affordable America. The question is whether Republicans will join us,” the statement reads.

TIME has also reached out to the White House and Kushner for comment.

Asked whether he supported the meeting during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said: “I’m in favor of people meeting with whoever they want to discuss ideas. But it’s one thing to have a meeting. It’s another thing to see something real come out of that.”

Tommy Vietor, a former aide to President Barack Obama and now a co-host of the podcast Pod Save America, was far less diplomatic.

“Jared Kushner has no actual government job, he just uses his family connections to get money from Gulf autocrats and fund corrupt deals. The only way Jeffries should work with him is with demands for documents and subpoenas,” Vietor said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday that he first learned of the meeting that same day, when reports began circulating in the media.

"I don't know what that's about," Johnson said on Fox News. "I know Jared has interests and lots of other things going on. He's not really directly involved in the admin, at least in the day-to-day in the White House."

Johnson, however, remained confident that Republicans could retain control of the House.

“I’m telling you what, you better not bet against the House Republicans,” he said.

Trump has met with the top Democratic leaders of the House and Senate only once since returning to office, when the President attempted last year to reach an agreement to prevent a government shutdown. Those talks ultimately failed, leading to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

The relationship between Trump, Jeffries, and other members of the Democratic leadership has often been marked by conflict and back-and-forth name-calling.

In late April, Trump called Jeffries a “low IQ person” and attacked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over their opposition to the Iran war, branding them “traitor Democrats.”

Jeffries, in turn, called Trump the “dumbest President ever” in response to the President’s insults during a press conference.

Trump has continued to attack the top House Democrat as "low IQ" and a "thug” branding him as a “danger” to the country.

More recently, however, Trump’s tone toward Jeffries appears to have softened. In an interview earlier this month with Punchbowl News, the President said he could work with the Democratic leader and described him as a "nice guy."

"People are harsh on me. I'm harsh on them. It's part of the world," Trump said. "I'd probably get along with him very well."

Since returning to the White House, Trump has often sought to bypass Congress and pursue policy through executive action, from curbing birthright citizenship to the implementation of tariffs.

That dynamic could change if Democrats take control of the House, where Republicans currently hold a slim majority of 218 Republicans to 212 Democrats and one independent.

A Democratic-controlled House would give the party the power to block parts of Trump’s legislative agenda, launch high-profile congressional investigations, issue subpoenas, and initiate impeachment proceedings.

Trump—who was impeached twice during his first term—has urged voters to back Republicans in the midterms, arguing that Democrats would use their power to impeach him again.

“I’m going to be impeached. They're going to impeach me. They have no idea why,” he told a crowd during a rally in South Carolina last Friday.

The latest Emerson College polling, released August 20, found congressional Democrats leading Republicans by nearly 8 points. A separate Reuters/Ipsos poll released Aug. 17 found Democrats ahead by 5 points. All 435 House seats are up for election in November.

Iranian officials have dismissed President Donald Trump’s threat to launch what he called  the “most crushing economic operation”against Tehran, as the nearly six-month war enters a new phase of economic pressure and negotiations between the two countries remain stalled.  

Trump announced the campaign late Wednesday, threatening consequences for countries that continue to provide Iran with access to global trade and financial networks. 

“This will be economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale,” he said. “Any country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face tremendous economic consequences.”

Trump did not specify what specific measures would be imposed on countries that continue to do business with Iran. TIME has reached out to the White House for comment.

The President also called on U.S. allies to impose additional restrictions on Tehran in order to “cripple them and their ability to project terror worldwide.”

“This will be an economic D-Day, and we need all of our allies to stand with the United States of America to isolate, and defeat, the Iran threat,” he said. 

D-Day commonly refers to June 6, 1944, Allied landings on the beaches of Normandy, France, which opened a major Western front against Nazi Germany. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday the United States ​will impose "maximum economic pressure" on Iran.

"It ⁠is a one-two punch. We have the blockade (on Iran), and we are going to have the toughest sanctions in history," Bessent told CNBC. "It is going to work in Iran and we are going to collapse this regime."

How Iran responded

Iranian officials rejected Trump’s threats and instead pointed to the strains the conflict has placed on the U.S. economy.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the move a “diversion from America's own crisis: unprecedented debt & surging interest costs.”

“Doubling down on failed policies will only bring further defeat—and enmity of Iranians. U.S. economic terrorism threatens global economy and sovereignty worldwide,” he said Thursday morning.  

The U.S. national public debt surpassed $40 trillion threshold this week.

Iran's deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi similarly took aim at Trump’s rhetoric, arguing that the President’s threats have become less relevant as the conflict, which began on Feb. 28, approaches its six-month mark.

“They claim Iran is on the brink of collapse and hanging by a thread, yet they beg all their allies to help them! The problem is the wrong calculations that, each time to cover them up, they’re forced to create a bigger failure for themselves,” he said Thursday on social media. “The military war didn’t yield results, so now they’ve named the next failure “economic war”.”

Trump has repeatedly used maximalist rhetoric during the war, previously warning that a “whole civilization would die” if Iran failed to meet a deadline for a deal in April and, more recently, weighing a "massive attack” against Tehran at the end of July.

Neither threat resulted in the action that Trump initially described.

The latest warning came a day after the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a major regional trading hub with Iran, announced that it would suspend trade with Iran following reported missile strikes.

Since the start of the war, the U.S. has imposed additional heavy economic sanctions on Iran as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign intended to restrict funding for Tehran’s military capabilities.

Some Iranian officials have responded by calling for the country to abandon its international nuclear commitments. 

“The best response to Trump's escalation of the economic war is to withdraw from the NPT,” said Iranian member of parliament Ebrahim Rezaei.

The NPT, also known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is an international agreement aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

The Islamic Republic of Iran signed the treaty in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, committing as a non-nuclear-weapon state not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.

Trump has repeatedly cited preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon as a justification for U.S. military action 

“They have to get rid of it completely. They have to get rid of nuclear weapons. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump repeated Wednesday during the unveiling of the new White House helipad.

Where U.S.-Iran negotiations stand

Trump’s renewed economic threats come as negotiations between Washington and Tehran appear to have stalled amid disagreements over the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by both countries on June 17.

The document outlined commitments aimed at ensuring the full, toll-free reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and established a  60-day cease-fire intended to allow technical talks to take place, including over Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Before the war, roughly a fifth of the world's global petroleum liquids consumptions passed through the waterway.

But  Washington and Tehran have since offered differing interpretations of the agreement, and fighting resumed before the diplomatic process produced a broader settlement.  

The dispute over the Strait has since reignited, with Iran releasing a list of six key demands that it says the U.S. must meet before the waterway can reopen.

Senior Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi on Thursday reiterated one of Iran’s demands to end America's “presence in the region immediately” and warned that “any further mistake or miscalculation will carry consequences far greater than before.”

Trump has dismissed the demands and instructed his representatives to seek compensation "for all of the people" that Iran has "killed and gravely wounded with their roadside bombs and many conflicts."

The 60-day threshold has now passed and there is  little sign of a renewed cease-fire agreement.

Trump has also increased pressure on Oman, a longtime U.S. security partner that had reportedly been nearing a deal with Iran over  commercial shipping through the Strait, repeating threats to bomb the country

“If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the sh-t out of them,” Trump told Fox News reporter Trey Yingst on Monday.

China could present an even greater test of Trump’s economic strategy. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated that the country remains Iran’s largest trading partner and the primary buyer of Iranian oil.

When asked whether the sanctions would target China, Bessent responded: “Many conversations are best to have in private, and we are confident that everyone wants the Strait (of Hormuz) re-opened, and for energy prices to come back down,” adding “it would do them a big service to get with the program.”

Trump’s warning that countries doing business with Iran could face economic consequences raises questions about how the policy could affect Beijing as Chinese President Xi Jinping prepares to visit the U.S. next month. 

The U.K. government has indicated its willingness to reconsider its digital services tax amid increasing pressure from the Trump Administration.

The concession came in response to an interview published Monday in which U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told The Times that President Donald Trump’s threats to scrap a trade deal with Britain and impose a 100% tariff were “not a bluff.”

When asked if the interview might lead Downing Street to change its stance on the tax, a government spokesperson told TIME, “We remain open to discussing U.S. concerns and working with partners internationally.”

The digital services tax imposes a 2% levy on the revenues of “search engines, social media services, and online marketplaces which derive value from U.K. users.” Several other European countries, including Portugal, Spain, and Poland, have also implemented similar taxes.

Greer said Britain was using American companies as “piggy banks” and that he was “not going to tolerate that.”

“We have very good relations with the U.K. We’ve had very constructive relationships, we’d love to keep talking to them about this issue. The President is quite serious about digital services taxes all over the world,” he said.

Read More: Why Trump Is Threatening to Impose a ‘Big Tariff’ on the U.K.

“This tax is about making sure that businesses pay their fair share of U.K. tax based on the value they derive from U.K. activities. It is an interim measure, and we are still committed to removing it once a global solution is in place,” the spokesperson said, adding that both countries “share a strong trading relationship.”

A White House official tells TIME that “the Administration continues to address digital services taxes and other tech issues with our trading partners.”

Rising trade tensions between the U.S. and the U.K.

The U.K. and the U.S. agreed to a “groundbreaking” Tech Prosperity Deal in September 2025, which was expected to bring billions of dollars in investment from U.S. tech companies into the U.K. technology sector.

However, relations between the two countries have splintered since the onset of the Iran war.

"This is not Winston Churchill we're dealing with," Trump said of former British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the height of tensions in March, as he accused the former U.K. leader of "ruining" relations.

Trump later warned the U.K. that he would implement a “big tariff” in April if the country did not drop its digital services tax on U.S. tech companies. And in June, he threatened to impose a 100% tariff on imports from any country that taxes digital services provided by U.S. companies.

“This tariff will supersede trade deals made with the country, whether implemented, signed, or not,” Trump said June 26.

The Trump Administration has not yet made any official tariff announcements linked to these threats.

However, the U.K. government, which has recently come under new leadership, has signaled that it is open to discussions.

Burnham aims to bridge relations between the two nations

Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who took office in July, has indicated intentions to mend the relationship between the two countries.

Asked whether there was a deadline for discussions with the new Burnham government, Greer declined to set one, instead emphasizing cooperation with the U.K.

“I don’t set artificial timelines. All I know is the President is eager to enforce our trade policy, he’s eager to make sure our companies aren’t discriminated against,” he said.

Since taking office, Burnham has appeared keen to repair relations with Trump. The two have spoken by phone, and Burnham extended an invitation for Trump to visit Manchester in the future—where the 2027 G20 summit is rumored to be taking place and where Burnham served as mayor before becoming Prime Minister.

But he may be hesitant to remove an important source of revenue for the U.K.

Between 2021 and 2025, the tax generated more than £2.4 billion ($3.2 billion) in revenue for the British government.

Read More: ‘We Won’t Be Bullied’: U.K. Responds to Russian Threat Over Ukraine Drone Support

Trump has pushed the U.K. on policy in the past, including his consistent calls for Britain to allow new North Sea oil and gas licenses—something the Starmer government intended to ban.

On the eve of Burnham’s entry to Downing Street, Trump claimed: “The people of Aberdeen, in Scotland, are dancing in the streets because the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has stated that he will be opening up, all the way, the invaluable North Sea Oil."

Burnham has signaled that he is open to reconsidering Britain’s access to North Sea oil and gas.

“I’ve got something of an open mind, you know. I don’t have a sort of fixed position,” he said in early June.

Trump has continued to tout the new British Prime Minister’s willingness to reconsider the issue.

“One of the things he is going to do, I think he's going to open up the North Sea. That'll make the U.K. pretty rich,” Trump said on Monday in the Oval Office.

Burnham, however, has yet to make a final decision.

President Donald Trump announced late Tuesday a temporary pause on 50% tariffs on Canada as both countries race to finalize a trade deal.

The President’s announcement came hours before a series of tariffs set to cover about $20 billion worth of imports into the U.S. from Canada were set to take effect.

“I have paused the 50% tariffs against Canada, that were scheduled to kick in tomorrow morning for a three day period, based on the fact that Canada and the U.S.A., subject to the finalization of documents, have a deal!” Trump said on social media.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney released a statement moments later, confirming that there had been “intensive discussions” with the U.S. to “address outstanding trade issues.”

“Substantial progress has been made, although there is important work still to be done,” he said.

Read More: Trump Imposes 50% Tariff Hike on Canadian Goods

The tariffs will now be paused until Aug. 21, subject to the finalization of an agreement between the two countries.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the deal will include "comprehensive market access for ​all ⁠American goods, economic security commitments, digital trade alignment," along with other provisions.

Trump added in his social media post that the Keystone XL pipeline—a cross-border oil pipeline project between the U.S. and Canada that was canceled by former President Joe Biden in 2021 after pushback from environmentalists, Native American tribes, and Indigenous advocates—"may be awoken from the grave," but did not provide further details.

The President later posted what appeared to be an AI-generated image of himself dragging the Keystone pipeline out of the ground.

Neither side has provided further confirmation about the contents of the agreement.

TIME has reached out to both the White House and the Prime Minister's office for comment.

U.S. and Canada push toward a deal

Carney said earlier this week that he planned to speak with the U.S. President ahead of the tariff deadline. The announcement follows a period of negotiations between the two sides.

During a tour of a tire factory in Iowa last week, Greer told reporters that the U.S. and Canada were engaged in “constructive negotiations” but warned that if a “country retaliates” they would “take action.”

Canada's minister responsible for U.S. trade, Dominic LeBlanc, and chief trade negotiator Janice Charette have been in Washington since last week for talks.

The negotiations unfolded against a backdrop of ongoing grievances between the two countries, including Trump’s repeated statements about his desire to annex Canada and make it the 51st U.S. state—an idea Carney has strongly pushed back against.

In August, Carney took a swipe at Trump, mocking the U.S. President after a teleprompter malfunctioned in the middle of an on-camera speech.

The tense relationship between the pair has also played out over the Gordie Howe International Bridge—a cross-border bridge connecting the two countries that has repeatedly become a source of disagreement between Washington and Ottawa.

How U.S.-Canada trade tensions escalated

The last-minute tariff pause comes after more than a year of escalations between the two countries.

In February 2025, the White House hit Canada with a 25% tariff on most goods and 10% on energy resources, citing what it regarded as inadequate progress in curbing cross-border illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Canada then imposed tariffs on some vehicle imports from the U.S. in April 2025, amid a larger trade war sparked by Trump’s global tariffs—the majority of which were struck down by a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.

The 50% tariff hike on a range of Canadian goods was announced in July, with Trump signing a series of proclamations citing Canada’s “discriminatory treatment” of American products.

The new levy, a retaliation for Canada’s tariffs, would apply to a range of Canadian goods, including electronics, sports equipment, and essential oils.

The Administration had also announced targeted new tariffs on Canadian dairy products and exports of wine and other alcoholic beverages.

According to economists, the tariffs could have had significant economic consequences if enacted. TD Economics estimated that, if maintained, they could reduce Canadian GDP growth by 0.3 to 0.6 percentage points over the following year.

A Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey of 1,833 firms found that 77% of affected exporters expected revenue losses, while 35% expected their revenue to fall by at least half.

In a new proclamation issued Tuesday suspending the tariffs, Trump said: “Canada has expressed a commitment to remove the discriminations or unreasonable and unequal impositions.”

In a statement late Tuesday, the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. applauded Trump's announcement and called for "a negotiated solution that gets American spirits back on retail shelves in all Canadian provinces and returns the spirits sector to a zero-for-zero tariff framework."

The new tariffs were set to apply despite the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA)—which had shielded Canadian industries from earlier U.S. tariffs.

The USMCA, which was signed by Trump in 2018, is a trilateral agreement that eliminated or reduced tariffs on goods traded between the nations of North America. It governs nearly $2 trillion in annual trade among the three countries.

In early July, the U.S. declined to renew the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement for a 16-year term. Rather than terminate it outright, this puts the USMCA under annual review. Trade experts told TIME that the move is expected to carry profound long-term economic consequences.