标签： North America

A recent revelation from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has sent ripples across the nation, after he confirmed in an exclusive interview with *The New York Times* that Canadian officials have evaluated the distant, yet still plausible, scenario of military aggression from the United States against Canada. The unexpected confirmation of long-simmering speculative debates has sparked a wide range of reactions from Canadian politicians, policy analysts, and ordinary citizens alike, with many grappling to process the unprecedented idea that their closest neighbor and long-standing ally could pose a military threat.

Many opposition lawmakers have seized on the revelation, arguing that the acknowledgment of even a remote military threat from the U.S. exposes gaps in Canada’s long-standing defense strategy that has long prioritized partnership with its southern neighbor. Critics of the current government have called for greater transparency around how often such contingency plans are updated, and what specific capabilities Canada is developing to respond to any unexpected shift in bilateral relations.

On the other side of the debate, some foreign policy analysts have framed the consideration of this remote possibility as a responsible step for any national government, noting that military planners routinely assess a full spectrum of hypothetical risks, no matter how unlikely they may seem. They emphasize that the fact that this possibility is described as “remote” underscores that it is not a current or imminent threat, and should not be interpreted as a sign of a breakdown in bilateral relations between the two North American allies.

Ordinary Canadians have also taken to social media and public forums to share their reactions, with many expressing surprise that such a scenario is even being discussed publicly. Some have voiced concern about shifting political dynamics in the U.S. that could eventually reshape cross-border relations, while others have dismissed the discussion as overblown, arguing that the deep economic and cultural ties between the two nations make any military conflict effectively unthinkable.

When Chinese President Xi Jinping touched down in Washington for a high-stakes summit with U.S. President Donald Trump, the event kicked off with elaborate ceremony rather than immediate breakthroughs on the long list of tense bilateral and global issues dividing the two world powers.

From a formal welcome ceremony at a U.S. military air base on Wednesday to an honor guard reception at the White House the following morning, Trump rolled out the full red-carpet treatment — both literally and symbolically — for his Chinese counterpart. Public statements from both leaders have been dominated by diplomatic courtesy and warm rhetoric, with Xi announcing two major goodwill gestures ahead of formal talks: a gift of giant pandas from China to the U.S., and the launch of a new bilateral student exchange initiative.

“Let us keep advancing the cause of friendship between our two peoples and work together to build a better world,” Xi said in his public remarks.

For his part, Trump laid out the core agenda for the closed-door discussions, highlighting that the two leaders would tackle what he called “pressing issues concerning security, technology, and superintelligence” — his preferred term for advanced artificial intelligence. “The decisions we make in these areas today can promote peace and prosperity for decades and decades to come,” he added.

But analysts say the heavy focus on marching bands, military flyovers and grand pageantry serves a specific strategic purpose, particularly for the Trump administration. Jennifer Welch, chief economic analyst at Bloomberg Economics, told the BBC that the intentional display of ceremony is designed to highlight positive momentum around the summit, aligning with Trump’s framing of his own role in the U.S.-China relationship as a stabilizing force.

Even amid the warm public rhetoric, however, undercurrents of tension remain visible in Xi’s messaging. Welch noted that the Chinese leader reiterated his reference to the so-called “Thucydides trap” — the academic theory that predicts conflict when a rising power challenges an existing dominant global power. Xi argued that open, sustained dialogue can help the two nations avoid this outcome, despite their starkly different national systems: “China and the United States are different in national conditions, but through candid, in-depth and continued dialogue, our two countries can understand each other better, seek common ground while shelving differences, and build up mutual trust,” he said.

Despite this rhetoric, substantial barriers to any meaningful substantive agreement remain deeply entrenched. When Trump and Xi met in Beijing earlier this year in May, the only major outcome was an agreement to establish joint trade and investment working groups, with little tangible progress delivered in the months since.

On the economic front, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced this week that a year-long trade truce that kept tariffs at reduced levels between the two nations will be extended for an additional two months. Financial analysts widely expect another extension before the summit concludes, as neither government is eager to reignite the full-scale trade war that roiled global markets last year.

The outlook for progress on other high-stakes issues is far grimmer. Disputes remain intractable across a range of topics, from the U.S. posture toward Iran and the ongoing war in Ukraine to global rules for AI development. Adding to friction, China has yet to follow through on earlier commitments to increase purchases of U.S. agricultural goods and boost exports of rare earth minerals to the U.S. For China, a key point of tension remains the long-paused proposed U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, with Chinese officials watching closely to see if Trump will move forward with the deal.

When it comes to artificial intelligence, one of the summit’s top agenda items, the two sides hold fundamentally conflicting goals, according to Robyn Klingler-Vidra, a professor of political economy at King’s College London. “On the US side, it’s about existential risk and slowing down AI potentially,” she explained. “Whereas in China, it’s about acceleration, maybe winning the AI tech race and the application of AI to the real economy.”

A lineup of top American AI industry executives are set to attend the formal state dinner at the White House on Thursday night, a move widely interpreted as a deliberate show of force to highlight the U.S.’s current leading position in global AI innovation.

Even with additional one-on-one meetings scheduled before Xi departs Washington on Friday afternoon, many analysts expect the summit will ultimately deliver little more than symbolic pageantry and a renewed commitment to maintaining tentative stability. Miles Yu, who served as principal China policy planner and strategist to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during Trump’s first presidential term, told the BBC that the two nations approach negotiation from fundamentally different frameworks that make breakthroughs unlikely. “What China talks about is metaphysical and abstract. The United States wants to solve specific problems,” Yu said. “These different approaches are not going to lead to any result.”

In a revealing interview with The New York Times, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has publicly acknowledged that his government has evaluated the remote but plausible risk of United States military action against Canada and undertaken contingency preparations for that extreme scenario. Carney emphasized that such planning is a core part of responsible risk management, noting that while a military conflict between the two neighboring North American nations is far from the most likely outcome, it would be negligent for his administration to fail to prepare for any extreme tail risk.

This planning comes amid a sharp escalation of bilateral tensions between Canada and the US, driven largely by the aggressive trade and rhetorical policies of US President Donald Trump. Over the past month, tensions have spiked further as the two nations have exchanged tit-for-tat tariffs on a wide range of goods, deepening a trade war initiated by the Trump administration. Additionally, Trump has repeatedly drawn controversy by referring to Canada as the potential “51st state”, stoking nationalist and political unease across Canada.

A military confrontation between the two countries would be overwhelmingly lopsided by any measure. Official government data shows that the US maintains over 2 million active-duty and reserve military personnel, compared to less than 200,000 total personnel in Canada’s armed forces. As of 2024, the US Navy operates 65 military submarines, while Canada’s fleet numbers just four. Still, Canada holds strategic geographic advantages: it boasts the longest coastline in the world and shares a critical proximity to the Arctic region, two factors that have driven Carney to increase national defence spending since he assumed office.

Despite the rising tensions and extreme contingency planning, Carney struck a pragmatic note regarding his current relationship with President Trump. He told the Times that he and Trump speak frequently, and that their direct communication style has enabled efficient discussions of contentious issues. “From my perspective, we have a good relationship in the sense of we can pick up the phone and talk to each other about issues,” Carney said. “He’s direct. I’m direct in terms of where positions are. It’s much more efficient that way, and so you know that exists and that will continue to exist.”

Carney also expressed optimism that a path remains open to restart bilateral trade negotiations and restore the decades-long amicable trade relationship that has benefited both nations for generations. He argued that a return to normalized trade ties would create shared economic gains for citizens on both sides of the Canada-US border.

A judge in Iowa has thrown out a high-profile lawsuit brought by former President and 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump against The Des Moines Register and its longtime former pollster J. Ann Selzer, centered on a pre-election poll that showed Trump trailing current Vice President Kamala Harris in the critical early nominating state of Iowa ahead of the 2024 general election.

In a detailed 64-page ruling, Judge Scott Beattie found that the published poll fell squarely under the protection of free speech guarantees in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The dismissal rejects Trump’s core argument that Selzer had engaged in deliberate election interference through an inaccurate prediction, which Trump claimed amounted to actionable fraud.

Trump filed the suit after he ultimately won Iowa by a comfortable 14-point margin in the 2024 election. He was joined as co-plaintiff by two Iowa Republican officials: U.S. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former Iowa state Senator Brad Zaun. The campaign had framed the poll as a deliberate scam designed to undermine Trump’s lead in the closing days of the race.

In the ruling, Judge Beattie emphasized that Trump’s legal attempt sought to distort both Iowa statutory law and common law to penalize speech that receives the highest level of constitutional protection. “Allowing a legally faulty claim like this to go forward carries a cost that an ordinary case does not, because defending it can discourage others from reporting on and debating public affairs,” Beattie wrote.

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Trump reaffirmed the former president’s commitment to holding accountable what he frames as purveyors of deception and fake news. The BBC has reached out to Trump’s legal team for additional comment on the dismissal, but has not yet received a response.

Selzer, whose polling has long been a staple of Iowa political reporting, has a mixed track record of predictions that spans decades. She successfully called major outcomes including Barack Obama’s landslide victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses and the 2014 Iowa U.S. Senate election. However, she also famously missed the mark in 2004, when her poll predicted John Kerry would defeat George W. Bush in the state.

In a post-ruling statement, Selzer pushed back against framing polling as a precise predictive science, noting that “polling is a social science, not clairvoyance.” She added, “What we can guarantee is that we will follow the data wherever it leads, even when the results are uncomfortable or unexpected.” Selzer expressed gratitude that the judge’s ruling reaffirmed the fundamental right of pollsters to collect and publish data without political interference.

For months ahead of the scheduled meeting, former U.S. President Donald Trump had been looking forward to and making careful preparations for the official visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to the United States, according to on-the-ground reporting from the BBC. BBC correspondent Sarah Smith, stationed at the White House during the lead-up to the high-stakes diplomatic engagement, has been sharing detailed insights into the extensive pre-visit planning process unfolding within the Trump administration ahead of Xi’s arrival.

Diplomatic visits between the leaders of the world’s two largest economies carry enormous global significance, and the months-long period of anticipation underscores the weight that the Trump White House placed on this pivotal bilateral engagement. Senior administration officials had been working through logistics, agenda items, and protocol arrangements for weeks ahead of the visit, with Smith’s reporting from the heart of U.S. executive power offering the public a window into the behind-the-scenes work that goes into organizing a head-of-state meeting of this magnitude.

A high-stakes clash over press freedom has erupted at the White House, as three major U.S. media outlets filed an emergency motion for a court hearing Thursday, claiming the Trump administration has flagrantly disregarded a federal judge’s ruling to restore press access for their journalists. The standoff, unfolding just hours before President Donald Trump was set to welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping for a high-profile state visit at the White House, threatens to cast a shadow over the diplomatic event and has reignited fierce debates about the administration’s commitment to First Amendment protections.

In the early hours of Thursday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a ruling that temporarily struck down the Trump administration’s ban on the three outlets, finding the exclusion likely violated the outlets’ constitutional rights to due process. Yet despite the court order, multiple reporters from CNN, Politico and MS NOW were turned away from the White House complex when they arrived for work Thursday morning. Several had their official press credentials confiscated by security personnel, even as a small number of other staff from the same outlets were granted entry.

Among those barred was Betsy Klein, CNN’s senior White House correspondent, though a CNN producer was allowed to enter the premises. Politico confirmed one of its White House reporters was denied entry and had his press pass seized, while MS NOW reported that both its White House reporter Laura Barrón-López and one on-staff producer were blocked and had their credentials taken. Only a second MS NOW producer was permitted to enter the building.

The original ban on the outlets was first instituted by Trump, who justified the move by criticizing the organizations’ coverage as “fake news.” The White House later walked back that explanation, shifting to cite unspecified national security concerns as the reasoning for the exclusion. As of Thursday midday, it remains unclear whether the denial of access stemmed from administrative delays in implementing the judge’s order, or was a deliberate refusal by the White House to comply with the ruling.

The White House has not issued any public comment on the court ruling or Thursday’s access denials, and legal representatives for the president have not ruled out additional legal action to defend the ban. The disruption is expected to affect live television coverage of Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping, a key diplomatic event that was already scheduled to draw heavy international media attention.

In a high-stakes legal rebuke of the Trump administration’s crackdown on critical press, a federal judge has ordered the immediate restoration of White House press access for three major news organizations that were blocked from the complex last week by former President Donald Trump.

The District of Columbia District Court granted a temporary restraining order against the administration’s ban, requiring that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico regain their press hard passes for a 14-day period as the legal challenge moves forward. The outlets filed suit shortly after their reporters had their permanent White House access credentials confiscated, arguing the blanket ban violated core constitutional protections for a free press.

The Trump administration defended the move in court, claiming the three organizations had repeatedly published false reporting and that their continued access posed a threat to U.S. national security. District Judge Timothy Kelly rejected both of the administration’s central arguments in his ruling.

Kelly found that the three outlets have a strong likelihood of ultimately prevailing in their lawsuit, specifically noting that the White House failed to follow basic standards of due process when it revoked the press passes without prior notice or a formal review process. He also pushed back sharply on the administration’s last-minute national security framing, pointing out that Trump made no mention of national security risks when he first announced the ban publicly.

In his written ruling, Kelly emphasized: “The record lacks factual support for Defendants’ contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the Court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds.”

As of Tuesday, the White House has not issued an official response to the court’s ruling. Legal teams representing the president have not ruled out additional legal action to defend the original ban, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle over the limits of executive power to restrict press access to the White House.