标签： North America

During a tense Senate Appropriations Committee budget hearing held on Capitol Hill Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a staggering new accounting of the financial costs of the ongoing U.S. war with Iran, revealing that expenditures to date have reached $37.5 billion. Contrary to assumptions that the figure would only cover destroyed or depleted military hardware, Hegseth clarified the total includes all operational expenses, from frontline troop provisions to logistics and support costs. The hearing was convened specifically to review two major administration defense funding requests: a $67 billion emergency supplemental war budget and a $1.5 trillion baseline military spending package for the 2027 fiscal year. Hegseth framed the additional war funding as an urgent, non-negotiable requirement for U.S. military operations, warning that failure to approve the request would leave the force facing catastrophic resource gaps. “Without these funds, we face critical shortfalls,” Hegseth testified under committee questioning. The disclosure immediately sparked fierce pushback from Democratic lawmakers, who have grown increasingly critical of what they call an unaccountable, escalating war of choice that lacks congressional authorization. Senate Majority Whip Patty Murray issued a stark warning that the conflict is on track to become another open-ended “forever war” that drains U.S. resources without a clear strategic goal. “This war is now spiraling out of control again,” Murray said, pointing out the contradiction between the Trump administration’s repeated claims that a peace deal is imminent and its request for tens of billions of additional war funding. “US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that ‘a deal is near, and the war will be over soon.’ But now, he’s asking for $70 billion more — and for us to just trust him it’ll all work out fine.” The sharp exchange comes as the Trump administration continues to ramp up military pressure on Iran, even as it gestures toward potential ceasefire negotiations. President Trump told reporters at the White House Tuesday that Iran is “desperately” seeking talks to end the conflict, even as U.S. forces continue daily offensive strikes across Iranian territory with no signs of de-escalation. “We’re not finished,” Trump said, dismissing any talk of a premature U.S. withdrawal. “We’re not leaving.” The president also confirmed that the U.S. military is preparing a potential major strike on Pickaxe Mountain, a heavily fortified underground facility that U.S. intelligence claims Iran has repurposed to house centrifuge equipment for nuclear fuel production and its stockpiles of enriched uranium. In a move that drew significant scrutiny, Trump attempted to frame the U.S. casualty toll from the Iran war as remarkably low compared to past U.S. military conflicts. He noted that 17 U.S. service members have been killed in the Iran campaign to date, contrasting that figure with zero U.S. troop deaths during the 2025 operation to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro from power. For context, he cited higher death tolls from prior conflicts: roughly 2,000 deaths in Afghanistan, 4,600 in Iraq, 58,220 in Vietnam, and 36,574 in the Korean War. But the administration’s casualty accounting has faced widespread skepticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum, who accuse the White House and Pentagon of withholding full casualty data under the vague guise of protecting operational security. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued that the collapse of a tentative ceasefire earlier this year, paired with the ongoing escalation of fighting, has left U.S. troops bearing the brunt of a conflict that the American public is not being fully informed about. “The ceasefire collapsed. The war is escalating. American troops are paying the price. Iran knew it attacked our bases. The Pentagon knew our troops were wounded. The only people kept in the dark were the American people,” Schumer said. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine went further, emphasizing that Congress has already formally taken the position that the Trump administration’s war is illegal under the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress — not the executive branch — the sole power to declare war. Kaine pointed out that this position was endorsed by both houses of Congress, which at the time of the vote held Republican majority leadership, yet the president has ignored the congressional resolution. “You better have a really good answer for that question. And as of right now, this war of choice that Donald Trump started, he cannot answer that question. Congress has definitively declared — both houses — that this war is illegal. Only we, in the Constitution, have that power. The president is ignoring us, even though that declaration was made by two Republican majority houses,” Kaine said. Beyond the political and human costs, the ongoing conflict has already roiled global energy markets, with oil prices rising sharply this week as investors price in risks to key transit chokepoints. On Tuesday, U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude traded between $81 and $85 per barrel, while Brent crude futures closed above the $90 per barrel mark for the first time since June 11, a jump that will likely translate to higher fuel prices for consumers worldwide. During his testimony, Hegseth sought to reassure markets that the U.S. military has secured key oil shipping lanes in the region, noting that U.S. forces have taken the lead on escorting commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. He claimed that the U.S. has effectively controlled commercial traffic through the strait for an extended period, telling the committee that under the U.S.-led “Project Freedom” security initiative, between 400 million and 500 million barrels of oil have been shipped through the strait in full view of Iranian forces without incident. The president also addressed growing concerns over threats from Yemeni Houthi forces to block oil shipping through the Red Sea, a route that Saudi Arabia has increasingly used as an alternative export corridor to avoid tensions in the Gulf. Trump dismissed the threat, telling reporters that if the Houthis follow through on their promise to block transit, the U.S. will respond with military force. “If there is something like that, we’ll just have to take care of business,” Trump said.

In a pivotal first hearing in Miami, Florida, a federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump must comply with a legal request from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to hand over confidential financial records held by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust — the entity created to manage his business interests during his tenure as U.S. president. The ruling comes as the BBC defends itself against a $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Trump over a 2023 *Panorama* documentary episode that edited together segments of a speech Trump delivered on January 6, 2021, the day of the U.S. Capitol riot.

Judge Enjoliqué Lett granted the BBC’s motion to compel the release of the financial documents during Tuesday’s hearing, handing the public broadcaster a partial procedural victory in the pre-trial discovery phase of the case. While the ruling remains open to appeal by Trump’s legal team, it requires Trump to produce records that will back up his core claim that the controversial *Panorama* edit caused him substantial financial harm. The judge issued a split decision on a separate BBC request for documents directly related to the January 6 Capitol riot, partially granting and partially denying that demand.

The pre-trial discovery process, during which opposing legal sides exchange evidence to build their cases, has already become a major point of contention between the two parties. BBC legal counsel Charles Tobin told the court that the public broadcaster has already turned over more than 87,000 pages of relevant documents, while Trump’s legal team has only produced a paltry 735 pages — most of which, Tobin argued, are publicly available news articles and other internet-sourced material, amounting to what he called a “sham production.” Tobin emphasized that the lopsided disclosure has left the entire discovery process “entirely one-sided.”

Alejandro Brito, lead counsel for Trump, pushed back against the BBC’s document requests, describing them as overly broad, oppressive, and a “fishing expedition” designed to harass former Trump administration officials rather than obtain legitimate evidence. Brito argued that the network’s demands for records of conversations between Trump and his aides related to the Capitol riot, as well as subpoenas issued to federal agencies and former White House officials, go far beyond the scope of the defamation claim.

Much of Trump’s legal argument centered on a November 2024 letter sent by BBC Chairman Samir Shah to Trump. In the letter, Shah apologized for the edited clip, acknowledging that it unintentionally created the “mistaken impression that President Trump made a direct call for violent action.” Brito framed the letter as a clear admission of fault and concession by the BBC, bolstering Trump’s defamation claim.

The BBC has already filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit, arguing that the *Panorama* documentary in question was never broadcast to audiences in the United States, meaning it cannot form the basis of a defamation claim under U.S. law. The court has not yet issued a ruling on that dismissal motion.

A critical congressional hearing on U.S. military funding for ongoing hostilities in Iran devolved into repeated disruptions Tuesday, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed lawmakers to approve an $87 billion emergency funding request amid growing partisan division and mounting war costs.

In his first appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee since U.S.-Iran hostilities resumed earlier this month, Hegseth revealed that total U.S. spending on the conflict has now reached $37.5 billion — an $8.5 billion jump from the last official estimate published in mid-May. Of the total funding he is requesting, Hegseth earmarked $67 billion specifically for Middle East operations, warning that without swift congressional approval, core military operations would face crippling shortfalls. These cuts, he argued, would extend beyond training reductions to threaten the Pentagon’s ability to pay active-duty troops, replenish critical weapons and munitions, and sustain frontline operations without interruption.

The hearing, held at a pivotal moment following the deaths of three U.S. service members in the region in recent days, was interrupted multiple times by anti-war activists, who shouted calls for an end to U.S. bombing campaigns in both Iran and Palestine before being removed from the room. Hegseth pushed past the disruptions to frame his request as an urgent, generational investment to maintain U.S. military dominance, arguing that “bold and swift action” is required to counter adversarial advances that could leave the U.S. playing catch-up. He framed every dollar of the requested funding as an investment in increasing U.S. military lethality and upholding the principle of “peace through strength.”

His testimony quickly turned into a partisan clash, as Democratic lawmakers pushed back hard against the request, arguing that the Trump administration was attempting to bypass standard congressional budget procedures to secure unrestricted war funding while American households struggle with domestic economic pressures. “It does not make a lot of sense,” Senate’s top Democrat on the committee Patty Murray said of the request, echoing comments from New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who criticized the administration for asking for “unlimited money for bombs” while many U.S. citizens cannot afford to feed their families. Gillibrand also pressed Hegseth on a contradiction: why the administration was asking for billions more for a war that President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed was already won. Hegseth defended the request, responding simply that he was asking for “the right bombs at the right time.” He also blamed the prior Biden administration for leaving the U.S. military with a legacy of underfunding, arguing that current gaps are a result of past mismanagement.

The $37.5 billion total cost figure revealed Tuesday marks the first updated official accounting of war spending in more than two months. When last measured in May, the estimated cost stood at $29 billion, with the Pentagon reporting $11.3 billion in spending in the conflict’s first week alone. The current round of hostilities comes after a brief April ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran collapsed just over a week ago, with both sides launching sustained retaliatory strikes across the region. Monday marked the 10th consecutive day of U.S. airstrikes, with Iran launching reciprocal attacks against U.S. forces and regional allies.

The request also faces headwinds from within Republican ranks, where fiscal conservative lawmakers are pushing for offsetting spending cuts to domestic programs to cover the war allocation. Compounding the legislative gridlock is the impending congressional recess: the House is set to adjourn Thursday, and both chambers will not return for joint session until September. Even if Republican leaders can round up enough votes to pass the request, that means the Pentagon will face a months-long delay before accessing any emergency funds.

The hearing unfolded as the U.S. military confirmed three recent combat-related deaths in the region, bringing the total number of U.S. service members killed in the conflict since it began February 28 to 18, a figure confirmed by President Trump in a post on social media Tuesday. On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced the death of 30-year-old active-duty Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, who was supporting operations in Iraq. That announcement followed confirmation Monday of two additional deaths: 19-year-old Private First Class Isabella Gonzales and 25-year-old First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, both killed in action in Jordan.

The $87 billion request is part of a broader Pentagon budget proposal that would push U.S. military spending to a modern-era all-time high. The White House initially requested a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget for the upcoming fiscal year back in April, setting the stage for what is expected to be a bitter fight over national spending priorities as lawmakers return from recess this fall.

Just days after a cordial public appearance alongside their Mexican counterpart at the 2026 World Cup final in New Jersey, a surprise trade escalation has upended relations between the United States and Canada – one of America’s closest long-term trading partners.

On Monday, mere hours after photographers captured US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney smiling and conversing in the stadium stands during the final match of the co-hosted North American World Cup (a tournament that has been broadly deemed a success despite widespread criticism of exorbitant ticket prices and travel costs), the Trump administration announced a sweeping new round of 50% tariffs on a quirky range of Canadian goods, spanning from hockey sticks to candles and synthetic wigs. The levies are scheduled to go into effect on August 19.

The sudden announcement arrives at a pivotal moment for North American trade: after months of stop-start negotiations to renew the trilateral United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), talks are finally back on track. Just this week, the long-delayed Gordie Howe International Bridge – a critical infrastructure project designed to boost cross-border trade between the automotive hubs of Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan – is set to open, after Canada agreed to revised revenue-sharing terms with the US. Prior recent threats, including tariffs on Canadian civilian aircraft and demands for restitution over wildfire smoke drifting south from Canada, were widely written off as empty political posturing from Trump.

Washington has framed the new tariffs as a response to what it calls “unequal treatment” of American automobiles, dairy products and alcohol in the Canadian market. Trade analysts and insiders, however, widely interpret the move as a calculated pressure tactic to force Canada into concessions on the stalled USMCA renewal talks.

“This is nothing more than a strong-arm play from the Trump administration to gain maximum leverage ahead of a final deal,” explained Mahmood Nanji, a fellow at Western University’s Ivey Business School, in an interview with the BBC. “He’s pulling every trick out of the book to tilt the negotiations in his favor.”

Stakeholders tracking the trade negotiations have not been caught completely off guard. US officials have repeatedly vented publicly about their frustration with Canada’s existing retaliatory tariffs, noting that Canada is the only country besides China that has maintained countermeasures against previous US levies. Candace Laing, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged in a statement that her organization had anticipated trade talks would get rockier before reaching a final resolution.

This latest move marks a significant escalation of the ongoing trade friction between the two neighbors, stacking new barriers on top of existing trade restrictions. The US already imposes tariffs ranging from 15% to 50% on Canadian steel, aluminum and copper, a 35% duty on Canadian softwood lumber, and a 25% tax on non-US automotive parts. In response, Canada has levied its own 25% counter-tariffs on select US imports of steel, aluminum and vehicles, and most Canadian provinces pulled American alcohol products from store shelves last year. Canada is currently seeking relief from these existing sectoral tariffs as part of the ongoing USMCA talks.

The timing also adds extra pressure on Prime Minister Carney: parallel US trade talks with Mexico are progressing far faster than negotiations with Ottawa, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is in Mexico this week for a new round of formal discussions. Last week, Greer told the Aspen Security Forum that while US negotiators speak weekly with their Canadian counterparts, “we just haven’t seen a lot of movement” on key sticking points.

The US was also the only party to decline an immediate long-term renewal of the USMCA – the agreement that underpins roughly $2 trillion in annual trilateral trade – this month. Without a long-term extension, the deal will enter a cycle of annual reviews before expiring in 10 years.

The new tariff announcement also signals that the Trump administration is gearing up for a broader expansion of global tariffs, analysts warn. Canada has historically been an early target for US trade actions that are later expanded globally, making it a key indicator of future American trade policy direction. On Tuesday, Greer appeared to confirm this trajectory, telling CNBC that more global US tariffs would be announced soon, though he declined to share a specific timeline, citing obligations to brief Congress and stakeholders first.

In response to the announcement, Carney told reporters Tuesday that he had already spoken with Trump, and the two leaders had agreed to intensify ongoing trade talks. Carney stressed that Canada would “explore all possible response options” if the new tariffs take effect next month, and reaffirmed his long-standing position that “no deal is better than a bad deal” on trade, while noting that Canada’s core goal remains reaching a comprehensive, mutually beneficial agreement. The prime minister is scheduled to meet with Canadian provincial premiers Tuesday afternoon to coordinate a response to the new US pressure, and some provincial leaders are already pushing for a strong retaliation.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, one of the most vocal Canadian critics of Trump’s trade agenda, said Tuesday: “We can’t keep rolling over, we can’t keep backing down, we have to go full tilt.” Lawrence Herman, a trade expert with the independent Canadian think tank CD Howe Institute, echoed that call, arguing that making concessions now to appease Washington would be a strategic mistake that damages Canada’s national pride and global standing.

Public opinion polling suggests Carney has broad public support to take a hard line. Pollster David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data, notes that most Canadians have already grown accustomed to weathering trade disputes with the Trump administration, and deep distrust of Washington is widespread. “Most Canadians hold the view that they cannot trust the Trump administration,” Coletto explained. “There is deep anger over what the public sees as unfair treatment from the US, and most people do not want Prime Minister Carney to give in.” The latest tariff move, he added, has only hardened that public resolve.

As the August 19 implementation deadline approaches, Canada faces difficult choices: Nanji argues that Canada may need to concede on some remaining sticking points to secure long-term trade certainty, but Ottawa must also clearly define its red lines. While Canada is currently signaling calm and avoiding panic, Nanji says a breaking point could be reached soon. “Canada will likely retaliate, but right now they’re trying to stay cool and avoid escalation,” he said. “But there will come a point where we have to draw a line: you cannot cross this.”