Author: admin

  • Trump and intelligence chiefs play down Signal group chat leak – BBC.com

    Trump and intelligence chiefs play down Signal group chat leak – BBC.com

    Bernd Debusmann Jr at the White House & Brandon Drenon on Capitol Hill

    BBC News, Washington DC

    Watch: Key reactions to reports of a leaked group chat involving Trump officials

    US President Donald Trump and his intelligence chiefs have played down a security breach that saw a journalist invited into a Signal group chat where he reported seeing national security officials plan airstrikes in Yemen.

    US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe denied at a Senate hearing that any classified information was shared in the message chain. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also faced scrutiny for the messages, though he did not testify.

    Democrats on the panel rebuked the cabinet members as “incompetent” with national security.

    Over at the White House, Trump stood by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who was at the centre of the leak.

    Waltz came close to apologising by Tuesday evening, telling Fox News: “I take full responsibility. I built the group.”

    “It’s embarrassing. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

    Asked if he had identified who on his staff was at fault, he responded, “a staffer wasn’t responsible,” and repeated that the error was his “full responsibility”.

    Waltz also said that he had spoken to Elon Musk, who is leading the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency and has touted himself as “tech support” for the federal government.

    “We’ve got the best technical minds looking at how this happened,” Waltz continued, adding that Goldberg “wasn’t on my phone”.

    The revelation has sent shockwaves through Washington, prompting a lawsuit and questions about why high-ranking officials discussed such sensitive matters on a potentially vulnerable civilian app.

    Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the 18-member group, apparently by accident, and reported that he initially thought it was a hoax.

    But he said he realised the messages were authentic once the planned raid was carried out in Yemen.

    Some 53 people were killed in the 15 March airstrikes, which US officials said targeted Iran-aligned Houthi rebels who have threatened maritime trade and Israel.

    The American raids have continued since then, including early on Tuesday morning.

    In addition to Ratcliffe and Gabbard, the Signal group chat included Vice-President JD Vance and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

    Watch: Mike Waltz says he doesn’t know journalist who was added to group chat

    Senators ask for answers

    The controversy overshadowed Tuesday’s hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was originally meant to focus on drug cartels and people trafficking.

    During the at-times combative session, Ratcliffe said he was not aware of any specific operational information on weapons, targets or timings discussed in the chat, as Goldberg had reported.

    Asked if he believed the leak was a huge mistake, Ratcliffe said: “No.”

    Gabbard repeatedly said “no classified information” was divulged and maintained there was a difference between “inadvertent release” and “malicious leaks” of information.

    Both pointed to Hegseth as being the authority on whether the information was classified. Goldberg reported that much of the most sensitive information shared in the chat came from the account under Hegseth’s name.

    “The Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for DoD in deciding what would be classified information,” Ratcliffe said.

    Senate Democrats assailed the Gabbard and Ratcliffe.

    Colorado’s Michael Bennet accused those involved in the chat of sloppiness, incompetence and disrespect for US intelligence agencies.

    Georgia’s Jon Ossoff described the episode – which Washington has dubbed Signalgate – as an “embarrassment”.

    “This is utterly unprofessional. There’s been no apology,” Ossoff said. “There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error.”

    Watch: President Trump says he will ‘look into’ government use of Signal messaging app

    Republicans on the panel were far more muted in their misgivings.

    “We dodged a bullet,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

    Mississippi Republican Roger Wicker, who leads the the Senate’s armed services committee, later told reporters that lawmakers will investigate the Signal chat leak.

    Wicker told reporters that he wants the investigation to be bipartisan and for the committee to have full access to the group chat’s transcript.

    “We need to find out if it’s completely factual, and then make recommendations,” he told the NewsNation network. “But I expect we’ll have the co-operation of the administration.”

    Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, who leads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also said that he expects the matter to be investigated.

    “This is a matter that’s going to be investigated, obviously, we’re going to know a lot more about it as the facts role out,” he said, quoted by The Hill newspaper.

    Trump defends his team amid backlash

    Trump and his White House team cast the controversy as a “co-ordinated effort” to distract from the president’s accomplishments.

    Throughout the day, Trump played down the leak and defended his national security adviser who was reported to have admitted Goldberg to the group chat.

    “Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,” Trump told NBC in a morning phone interview. He also said Goldberg’s addition to the group was a “glitch” that had “no impact at all” operationally.

    The Republican president indicated it was one of Waltz’s aides who had invited the journalist to the chat.

    “A staffer had his number on there,” said Trump, who has long pilloried reporting by Goldberg going back to the 2020 election.

    Watch: Goldberg says officials got ‘lucky’ it was him inadvertently added to group chat

    At an event later at the White House, Trump was joined by Waltz.

    “There was no classified information, as I understand it,” said the president. “They used an app, if you want to call it an app, that a lot of people use, a lot of people in government use, a lot of people in the media use.”

    In his own brief remarks, Waltz took aim at Goldberg. He said he had never had any contact with the reporter and accused him of wanting to focus on “more hoaxes”, rather than Trump administration successes.

    Trump later spoke to Newsmax, where he told the conservative network that “somebody that was on the line with permission, somebody that was with Mike Waltz, worked with Mike Waltz at a lower level, had, I guess Goldberg’s” phone number.

    Some national security experts have argued that the leak was a major operational lapse, and archive experts warned that it violated laws on presidential record keeping.

    On Tuesday, the non-partisan watchdog group American Oversight sued the individual officials who participated in the chat for alleged violations of the Federal Records Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

    The group said that by setting the chat to automatically delete messages, the group violated a law requiring White House officials to submit their records to the National Archives.

    The National Security Agency warned employees only last month of vulnerabilities in Signal, according to documents obtained by the BBC’s US partner CBS.

    Signal issued a new statement on Tuesday disputing “vulnerabilities” in its messaging platform.

    “Signal is open source, so our code is regularly scrutinized in addition to regular formal audits,” the statement said, calling the app “the gold standard for private, secure communications”.

    Mick Mulroy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence (DASD) for the Middle East and a retired CIA paramilitary officer, told the BBC that holding sensitive discussions on a “unsure commercial application” was “unacceptable”.

    “And everyone on that chat knew it,” he added. “You do not need to be a member of the military or intelligence community to know that this information is exactly what the enemy would want to know.”

  • Trump orders an overhaul of how elections are run, inviting a likely legal challenge – Votebeat

    Trump orders an overhaul of how elections are run, inviting a likely legal challenge – Votebeat

    Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

    President Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order Tuesday that would dramatically change the administration of U.S. elections, including requiring people to prove their citizenship when registering to vote, but experts and voting rights advocates said they expect the order to face quick legal challenges.

    The order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” also would change the certification standards for voting systems, potentially forcing states to rapidly replace millions of dollars in voting equipment, and it would prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterwards, which 18 states and Washington, D.C., currently permit.

    Voting rights advocates and legal experts said the bulk of the executive order will certainly be challenged in court, as the Constitution grants authority over elections to states and to Congress, not the president. Should it take effect, they say, millions of voters could be disenfranchised.

    Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, said: “There are many moving parts here, but the short answer is that none of this is within the province of the president, and I would expect that he’ll be met with legal challenges.”

    Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School and expert on election law, told Votebeat he expects litigation over the issue to be filed immediately.

    Hasen said the order assumes that the White House has more power over independent agencies — in this case the U.S. Election Assistance Commission — than was previously understood. “It was thought to be that he has no power over the Election Assistance Commission,” he said. “This would be quite the sea change.”

    While much of the order may ultimately be unenforceable, he said, it offers insight into Trump’s election priorities: “It’s a messaging document even if it’s not successful.”

    Trump and his allies have made repeated claims of voter fraud, especially involving the 2020 election, and suggested that it is widespread enough to affect the outcome of elections, even though audits, recounts, and the courts have consistently found no evidence of significant problems. While signing the executive order Tuesday, Trump said that “this country is so sick because of the elections, the fake elections, and the bad elections, and we’re going to straighten it out one way or the other.” He also promised his administration would take “other steps” on elections in the coming weeks.

    Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies in some instances to withhold federal funds from states that are unwilling to comply, or share information with federal agencies as laid out in his order. It’s unclear how effective a cudgel that will be. States have long complained that Congress allocates little money for elections, and much of it has long since been spent. In its most recent spending legislation, Congress allocated $15 million in grants that must be divided among the 50 states and U.S. territories.

    “I would love for there to be more of a pool of money at jeopardy here,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in California, who was a civil-rights official in the U.S. Justice Department and a former adviser on voting rights to the Biden administration.

    “‘Would you like me to take away a penny?’ That’s what he’s essentially saying to states,” he added wryly.

    Get more like this delivered to your inbox.

    Read insights and original reporting from Votebeat’s editors every Saturday morning in our free national newsletter, featuring stories like this one, historical context, the latest from our state bureaus, and more voting and elections news curated for you.

    Many officials were still assessing the ramifications of the executive order Tuesday, though it drew quick praise from Trump’s supporters and some Republican secretaries of state, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who lauded the citizenship documentation requirement. Some provisions, such as directing the Justice Department to prioritize enforcement of laws against voting by noncitizens, fall within a more traditional view of presidential power.

    But some Democratic secretaries of state said they were considering asking the courts to intervene. In Michigan, the Secretary of State’s Office did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon, but Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson wrote a post about the order from her personal social media account and tagged state Attorney General Dana Nessel.

    “If the election denier-in-chief tries to interfere with any citizen’s right to vote, we’ll see him in court,” wrote Benson, who is running for governor. Nessel’s office said it was reviewing the order.

    Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said that he and state Attorney General Kris Mayes are already discussing whether to sue over what he described as “an attempt to federalize elections.” He also called the order “a massive unfunded mandate.”

    Fontes said he believes the intent of the order is to make it look as though something improper occurred in the conduct of the election, so you can justify “canceling the election later.”

    “It’s very methodical, and very, very dangerous,” he said in an interview with Votebeat Tuesday. “You have to pay attention not to what the executive order says, but what the end game may be. I believe the end game may be that Donald Trump wants to stay in office in perpetuity.”

    Push for proof-of-citizenship laws accelerates

    Trump and other Republicans have long been calling for requiring proof of citizenship when people register to vote, which they have portrayed as a necessary check against the threat of voting by noncitizens.

    Noncitizen voting is already illegal and carries harsh legal penalties — including prison time and loss of residency status — and audits and investigations have found it to be extremely rare. People who register must already attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury.

    Nonetheless, Republicans have accelerated their push for federal and state-level legislation to require proof of citizenship for new registrants, and in some cases, already-registered voters.

    As early as next week, the GOP-controlled U.S. House could consider a bill, known as the SAVE Act, to require documented proof of citizenship. Multiple states have passed such legislation, and others, including Michigan and Texas, are considering it. Arizona already requires documentation of citizenship to vote in state and local elections, but after a legal fight that went to the U.S. Supreme Court years ago, must permit voters without such proof to vote in federal elections.

    Congress has considered imposing this type of requirement before, but so far, it hasn’t adopted it.

    Trump’s executive order would circumvent Congress to require documented proof of citizenship by ordering the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to update a national mail voter registration form that most states are required to accept under the National Voter Registration Act.

    Levitt said courts might be reluctant to let the president give the EAC such powers while Congress is considering legislating similar actions under its own authority.

    And there are other considerations. Six states are exempt from the NVRA, including Wisconsin, where, in 2023 a conservative Waukesha County judge blocked election officials from using the federal form.

    “Under the Constitution, states are, in fact, tasked with the administration of elections,” said Ann Jacobs, the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s Democratic chair. “So you’d have a conflict between a federal law and a state judge.”

    In addition, voting rights advocates have said millions of Americans do not have ready access to documentation that would meet the requirements, or the ability to show it to election officials in person. In Michigan, for example, many local clerks work only part-time, which means it can be hard for a voter to go in person to show documentary proof of citizenship.

    “This would impact Michigan’s rural voters tremendously,” said Barb Byrum, the clerk in Ingham County, Michigan.

    Byrum said she thought such a requirement could be the end of online voter registration. And automatic registration, which Michigan residents use when they get a drivers license or state ID, “appears to be essentially nullified,” said Michael Siegrist, the clerk in Canton Township, Michigan, a Detroit suburb.

    This could increase the workload for local election officials, which has already grown in recent years because of what Siegrist called a “gross misunderstanding of how secure our voter rolls are.”

    “What I find most concerning about all of it is that there are some points where it’s a regurgitation of election conspiracies, whether it’s this false notion that non-citizens are voting or election systems are attached to the internet,” he told Votebeat by text message.

    More instructions for the EAC on voting machines

    Donald Palmer, chair of the EAC, said the agency is reviewing Trump’s order “and determining the next steps in enhancing the integrity of voter registration and state and federal elections.”

    “We also anticipate consulting with state and local election officials,” he said in a statement.

    State and local officials deal with the EAC on a largely voluntary basis. The agency oversees the minimum standards used to test and certify voting machines — Voluntary Voting System Guidelines — which many states have adopted.

    The order requires the EAC to update the guidelines to disallow the use of QR codes or similar barcodes that get printed on ballots produced by voting machines, and to require the use of voter-verifiable paper records. Within 180 days, the order says, the EAC must review and potentially recertify voting systems under these updated standards, rescinding certifications based on previous guidelines.

    VVSG standards were updated just last year to require paper records, but they currently do not ban QR codes. The executive order encourages all states to use machines compliant with the new standards, and directs both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to “heavily prioritize” allocating funding to local and state agencies whose systems are compliant.

    While the new standards have been approved, there are currently no voting machines on the market that have been certified to these standards. So no jurisdiction in the country currently uses such systems — nor could they begin to within 180 days, because none are available for purchase.

    Levitt said the president does not have the authority to direct the EAC to update guidelines that were previously passed by the independent agency. “He’s presenting this as an order I don’t think they have to pay attention to,” he said.

    Many jurisdictions — including some in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the entire state of Georgia — use systems that record votes as a barcode printed on the ballot, along with a written record of the voters’ selections. Some critics of this process have argued that since the machine actually records votes via the barcode and not the written text, and since humans cannot read barcodes or QR codes, systems like this do not actually produce voter-verifiable records.

    This became an issue in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, in 2023, when a programming error caused the written portion of the results to incorrectly display voter’s choices in a judicial retention race, but county officials said the barcodes recorded the selections accurately.

    Order says late-arriving ballots can’t be counted

    The executive order also asserts that federal law does not allow mail and absentee ballots to be counted if they arrive after polls close on Election Day. It relies on the same logic as a ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently invalidated a Mississippi statute that allowed counting ballots that arrived up to five days after the election. The ruling has been criticized by legal experts, and similar litigation is working its way through federal courts in California.

    Eighteen states, plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, allow ballots that are received in the days after the election to be counted, as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day. The number of days varies by state. Utah — which Trump carried by more than 20 points — counts ballots received up to the day the vote is canvassed, which may be more than a week after Election Day.

    Most likely to be impacted by a change in the rules are military voters, who are given leeway in several states if their ballots arrive late. In Michigan, for example, voters amended the state Constitution in 2018 to allow military and overseas voters six extra days to get their ballots in as long as those ballots are postmarked by Election Day. Trump’s order allows no exception for military ballots, and would throw the Michigan law into doubt, said Byrum, the clerk in Ingham County.

    DOGE gets power to inspect voter rolls

    The executive order envisions a new role for federal agencies in scrutinizing the voter rolls maintained by states and municipalities. It allows the Department of Government Efficiency, the newly created arm of government led by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk, and the Department of Homeland Security to view publicly available voter files and other unspecified “available records” to ensure the rolls are being cleaned to federal standards.

    Trump attempted something similar when he established his Presidential Commission on Election Integrity in 2017, shortly after he took office in his first term. Delbert Hosemann, then the Republican secretary of state in Mississippi, said at the time that the commission could “jump into the Gulf of Mexico” before he would comply with the request for records.

    “Trump has more control over the party than he had before,” said Hasen. “Now, of course, [Hosemann] couldn’t call it the ‘Gulf of Mexico.’”

    Levitt said he does not anticipate as much Republican pushback either. But he said he does not believe states are OK with “giving Elon the voter rolls and having him tell us what to do with them.”

    DOGE is already facing multiple lawsuits about data privacy as it prods other areas of the government for purported waste. Levitts said he expects the same here. Every complaint in those lawsuits, he said, “applies on steroids to DOGE deciding to amass a national voter file, which is essentially what this is.”

    Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

    Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s interim editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. She edits and frequently writes Votebeat’s national newsletter. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

    Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.

    Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

    Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

    Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

    Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

  • Trump signs executive order that will upend US voter registration processes – The Guardian US

    Trump signs executive order that will upend US voter registration processes – The Guardian US

    Donald Trump has signed a far-reaching executive order that promises to fundamentally disrupt American voter registration processes, introducing measures so restrictive they could in effect disenfranchise millions of citizens if enacted.

    Described by Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary, on Tuesday as “the farthest reaching executive action taken” in the nation’s history, the order represents the latest in a long list of assaults against immigration, but also on current voting systems.

    The sweeping order amends the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship in order to vote. It demands documentary proof for citizenship such as a passport to be eligible to vote in federal elections, empowers federal agencies to cut funding to states deemed non-compliant and instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute what the White House paints as “election crimes”.

    The measure also seeks to block states from accepting mail-in ballots after election day, regardless of when they are mailed in.

    Many of the provisions in the order are likely to be quickly challenged and are legally suspect. The US constitution explicitly gives states and Congress the authority to set the rules for election and does not authorize the president to do so.

    “The short answer is that this executive order, like all too many that we’ve seen before, is lawless and asserts all sorts of executive authority that he most assuredly does not have,” said Danielle Lang, a voting rights lawyer at the non-profit Campaign Legal Center.

    Republicans have long sought to add a citizenship to the federal form and been stymied by the courts. In a 7-2 decision in 2013, for example, the US supreme court said that Arizona could not require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. The power to set the requirements on the federal form is left to the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission. Courts have also blocked efforts to short-circuit efforts to add the question.

    The order tracks with a controversial bill in Congress Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, which would require Americans to prove citizenship in person – a requirement that could immediately eliminate mail-in and online voter registration already across 42 states, as well as DC and Guam.

    All metrics point to these actions making it harder, not easier, for Americans to vote. According to the state department in 2023, fewer than half of all Americans had a valid passport, and nearly 69 million women who have changed their names would struggle to produce matching documentation, according to a Center for American Progress analysis.

    Kansas had a law requiring proof of citizenship in effect between 2013 and 2016. It wound up putting the registrations of 30,000 people in jeopardy – the vast majority of whom were eligible to vote.

    The Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement reported in 2024 that roughly 21 million voting-age Americans, about 9% of the population, do not have a current, valid ID.

    Despite Trump’s claims of widespread election fraud, federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting, with penalties including up to five years in prison. Current election systems already use multiple federal databases to verify voter eligibility, including citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    A day after the 2024 elections, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) director, Jen Easterly – the agency in charge of overseeing election security in the United States – said: “Our election infrastructure has never been more secure and the election community never better prepared to deliver safe, secure, free and fair elections for the American people.

    “Importantly, we have no evidence of any malicious activity that had a material impact on the security or integrity of our election infrastructure,” Easterly added.

    Still, Trump framed the order as a critical step in “straightening out our election”, claiming the country is “sick” from what he termed “fake elections.” He added that “there are other steps that we will be taking as the next in the coming weeks” when it comes to the electoral process.

    This action continues Trump’s long-term efforts to reshape democratic participation, a throwback to his 2020 memo to exclude non-citizens from census population counts that would be used to shape congressional districts. The rhetoric and subsequent follow through represents a potentially transformative – and deeply controversial – approach to voter eligibility that could redefine access to the ballot box.

    “Perhaps some people think I shouldn’t be complaining because we won in a landslide, but we got to straighten out our election,” Trump said as he signed Tuesday’s order.

  • Mark Carney Calls Snap Elections in Canada Amid Trump Threats – The New York Times

    Mark Carney Calls Snap Elections in Canada Amid Trump Threats – The New York Times

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    Mark Carney, who has only been prime minister for 10 days, has called for a general election to be held on April 28.

    Mark Carney speaking at a podium outdoors.
    Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada speaking on Sunday in Ottawa, where he called for federal elections next month.Credit…Blair Gable/Reuters

    Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada called on Sunday for a federal election to take place on April 28, cementing on the calendar another major event as the country experiences one of its most tumultuous and unpredictable periods.

    President Trump has imposed painful tariffs on Canada and said more are coming, while also threatening its sovereignty, turning on America’s closest ally and trading partner and upending decades of close cooperation in every sphere.

    “We are facing the most significant crisis of our lifetimes because of President Trump’s unjustified trade actions and his threats to our sovereignty,” Mr. Carney said, speaking to the news media in Ottawa.

    “President Trump claims that Canada isn’t a real country. He wants to break us so America can own us,” he added. “We will not let that happen. We’re over the shock of the betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons.”

    Mr. Carney, 60, a political novice with a long career in central banking and finance, was only elected leader of Canada’s Liberal Party on March 9, and was sworn in as prime minister on March 14. He replaced Justin Trudeau, who had led the Liberals for 13 years and the country for nearly a decade, but had grown deeply unpopular.

    Mr. Carney had been widely expected to call for a quick election. He does not have a seat in Canada’s parliament, and the Liberals do not command a majority, meaning that their government was likely to fall in a vote of no-confidence as early as Monday had he not called for the election.

    The Liberals’ main opponents are the Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre.

    Mr. Trump’s aggressive stance toward Canada has been a boon for the Liberals and Mr. Carney. Before Mr. Trump took office, the Conservatives had been ahead by double digits in polls and a victory for Mr. Poilievre seemed a foregone conclusion.

    But voters have grown concerned that Mr. Poilievre is too ideologically similar to Mr. Trump to stand up to him, and many are drawn to Mr. Carney’s economics experience and long career on the international stage.

    Polls show that Mr. Carney and the Liberals have eliminated a 25-percentage-point lead held by the Conservatives, and the two enter the election period neck-and-neck.

    Speaking just before Mr. Carney called the election on Sunday morning, Mr. Poilievre tried to distance himself from the perception that he’s aligned with Mr. Trump.

    “What we need to do is put Canada first for a change,” Mr. Poilievre said, echoing his campaign’s core slogan. “When I say I want to cut taxes, unleash our resources, bring back jobs, that’s bad news for President Trump.”

    Mr. Carney and the Liberals will square off against the Conservatives and Mr. Poilievre, 45, a career politician who made his name as an aggressive orator unafraid to adopt some of Mr. Trump’s style.

    Mr. Poilievre is a mainstream conservative, who has long supported deregulation, tax cuts and an abandonment of Trudeau-era environmental policies in order to enable Canada to ratchet up the exploitation of its vast natural resources, predominantly oil and gas.

    Image

    The leader of the Conservatives, Pierre Poilievre, greeting workers at Pioneer Construction in Sudbury, Ontario, on Wednesday.Credit…Gino Donato/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press

    Mr. Poilievre has also waded into culture war topics and borrowed language from Mr. Trump: He attacks practices and politicians as “woke,” has called for the defunding of the Canadian national broadcaster and has said he believes there are only two genders.

    He has also said he wants to make Canada the world’s cryptocurrency capital, showing the same affinity for the alternative financial asset as Mr. Trump.

    Mr. Carney, by contrast, has been in the public eye for decades but not in a political capacity. He was governor of the Bank of Canada during the global financial crisis of 2008, and the Bank of England during Brexit.

    Since then he has been working in senior roles in the private sector and has, in recent years, become a prominent advocate for sustainable investment, taking on a role as a United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance.

    In the few short days that he has been in office, Mr. Carney has come across as fluent in economics and comfortable on the global stage, but less accustomed to the close scrutiny of his personal affairs, which is not unusual for people running for high public office.

    He’s shown himself to be more centrist than his predecessor, Mr. Trudeau. On Sunday, as he announced the snap elections, Mr. Carney also pledged tax cuts for the lowest income bracket. In the past few days he has adopted some of Mr. Poilievre’s more centrist positions, including scrapping a household- and small-business tax on carbon emissions and canceling a planned tax hike on capital gains.

    The third party in the House of Commons, the Bloc Quebecois, is led by Yves-François Blanchet and is dedicated to Quebec nationalism.

    Canada’s fourth-largest party, the New Democratic Party, led by Jagmeet Singh, is to the left of the Liberals. The N.D.P. offered support for the Liberal minority government in the House of Commons until September, and was able to get some of its core social policies approved in exchange, but polls suggest its support is weakening.

    Canada has a first-past-the-post electoral system, which means that candidates who get the most votes in their district win, regardless of whether they secure a majority. Voters elect local members of the House of Commons, not individual party leaders as they would in a presidential system. Parties select their leaders, who then can become prime minister.

    Image

    Voters preparing to cast ballots in Montreal, Quebec, during national elections in 2021.Credit…Andrej Ivanov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

    The country is divided into 343 electoral districts, known in Canada as ridings, each one corresponding to a seat in the House of Commons.

    To form a majority government, a party needs to win 172 seats. If the party with the most seats has fewer than 172, it can still form a minority government, but would need the support of another party to pass legislation.

    In the run-up to the election, Mr. Carney will remain prime minister and will technically continue to lead the country together with his cabinet. But they will be in “caretaker” mode and, under Canada’s conventions, can only focus on necessary business, such as dealing with routine or urgent matters. They cannot make new major or controversial decisions.

    The parties and their leaders will hit the campaign trail immediately. For Mr. Carney, this will be a critical time since he is not an experienced campaigner, unlike Mr. Poilievre, who is seasoned in retail politics.

    Both men will travel the vast country to try to secure support. Mr. Carney’s campaign will be open to journalists paying their own way to travel with him on the trail.

    Mr. Poilievre’s campaign said it would not allow the news media to join him on trips, stressing that its decision was for logistical reasons and that news coverage was welcomed.

    A version of this article appears in print on  , Section

    A

    , Page

    8

    of the New York edition

    with the headline:

    Carney, Canada’s Leader for 10 Days, Calls a Snap Election After Trump’s Threats. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

  • Tiger Woods confirms relationship with Vanessa Trump – BBC.com

    Tiger Woods confirms relationship with Vanessa Trump – BBC.com

    Tiger Woods confirms relationship with Trump’s ex daughter-in-law

    TIGER WOODS Tiger Woods and Vanessa Trump stand together in front of a wall covered by leaf trellisesTIGER WOODS

    Golfer Tiger Woods has announced he is dating Vanessa Trump, the former daughter-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

    Vanessa was previously married to Donald Trump Jr for 13 years, with whom the 47-year-old has five children. The pair divorced in 2018.

    On Sunday, Woods, 49, posted pictures of Vanessa and himself on social media saying: “Love is in the air and life is better with you by my side! We look forward to our journey through life together.”

    “At this time we would appreciate privacy for all those close to our hearts.”

    It is unclear what prompted the public announcement, but rumours of their relationship had been reported in gossip magazines in recent weeks.

    Woods, who has won 18 World Golf championships, is known for being guarded about his personal life after exposure of his marital infidelities and sex scandals damaged his public standing in the 2000s and affected his playing career.

    He admitted himself into a sex addiction rehab clinic, and went through an acrimonious split from his first wife Elin Nordegren months later after six years of marriage. The couple have two children together.

    US media outlets report that Tiger Woods’ children attend the same school as Vanessa Trump’s. She has five children with Donald Trump Jr.

    One of them, 17-year-old Kai, is set to play golf at the University of Michigan in 2026.

    As the former wife of Donald Trump’s eldest son, Vanessa had been a regular attendee at official events involving Trump’s extended family during his first term in office.

    Getty Images Ivanka Trump speaking with Michelle Obama while Vanessa Trump and Jared Kushner look on, smiling.Getty Images

    Vanessa Trump looks on as Ivanka Trump (left) greets Michelle Obama at Donald Trump’s first presidential inauguration in 2017

    Woods, the former world number one, is also known to have played golf with President Trump on several occasions, including last month. Trump loves golf and owns more than a dozen courses.

    In February, Woods attended a meeting with Trump and Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) heads at the White House about the future of the sport’s tournaments and current division with the Saudi Arabia- LIV league.

    Woods wore his Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was bestowed on him by Trump in 2019 during the president’s first term.

    Getty Images Donald Trump stands behind Tiger Woods as he delivers remarks at a golf-themed reception in the White HouseGetty Images

    Tiger Woods wore his Presidential Medal of Freedom while speaking at the White House in February

    Woods has previously announced relationships with World Cup champion ski racer Lindsey Vonn and Erica Herman, his former restaurant manager.

    That relationship ended badly – Herman filed law suits against Woods and his trust in 2023, which she later withdrew.

  • In Canada, I saw how Trump is ripping North America apart – and how hard its bond will be to repair | Andy Beckett – The Guardian

    In Canada, I saw how Trump is ripping North America apart – and how hard its bond will be to repair | Andy Beckett – The Guardian

    As wealthy but lightly defended countries have often learned, being close to a much more powerful state – geographically or diplomatically – can be a precarious existence. All it takes is an aggressive new government in the stronger state and a relatively equal relationship of economic and military cooperation can suddenly turn exploitative, even threatening.

    Since Donald Trump’s second inauguration, this realisation has been dawning across the west, but nowhere more disconcertingly than in Canada. Its border with the US is the longest in the world: 5,525 miles of often empty and hard to defend land, lakes and rivers. Canada’s two biggest cities, Toronto and Montreal, are only a few hours to the north, were you to approach them in a US army tank.

    Earlier this month, I spent a week in some of this particularly vulnerable stretch of Ontario and Quebec, visiting my daughter at university and encountering a new, more anxious Canada. At times, as the trains I took crawled along the congested trans-Canadian rail corridor, the roofs of individual American buildings were visible, glinting in the cold sun across the border. The feeling of being a foreigner in a tense, contested place reminded me of when I lived in West Germany, near the East German border, during the early 1980s, one of the most fraught phases of the cold war.

    Until Trump started talking so insistently about making Canada his country’s “51st state”, that would have been an absurd comparison. But not any more. “The Americans want our resources, our water, our land, our country,” said the new Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, in his first speech as Liberal leader. “If they succeed, they will destroy our way of life.” Supposedly one of the most harmonious – and strategically important – relationships between rich western countries appears to have changed radically.

    The Canadians I spoke to, in shops, at bus stops and stations, at home and by email, were generally less dramatic about the situation than Carney, who has a reputation as a leader to establish, and now an election to win next month. There was some anger at the US – and at Britain’s failure to condemn Trump’s threats against a Commonwealth country. “The king is proud to align himself with a despot for … a dangled trade agreement,” a Montreal academic told me, referring to King Charles’s recent invitation to Trump to make a second state visit to Britain. “A bold response from us in Canada would be to cut our ties with the monarchy.”

    More often, however, people shook their heads or rolled their eyes at Trump’s behaviour. He was crazy, chaotic, totally inconsistent, people told me – not like a steady and realistic Canadian, they implied. There were satisfied smiles at the tariff-driven slide in the US stock market. And yet, people also said, Trump’s threats meant that Canadian life would have to change profoundly. Though what those changes might be was a topic they generally avoided – except for a baker in Montreal, who sold me some sourdough while we discussed whether Canada would need to get nuclear weapons.

    Relations between America and Canada have not always been peaceful. The US invaded Canada in 1775 and 1812, without success. During the 1920s and 1930s it drew up a more hypothetical invasion scheme, War Plan Red. In fundamental ways, fear of the US shaped Canada, encouraging its unification out of what had originally been disparate territories, and also the decision to site its capital in Ottawa, further from the border than its other eastern cities.

    As in Britain, in the mid-20th century the Canadian state sought to create what it called a “special relationship” with the US. Canada’s export-oriented economy – necessary because of the country’s relatively small and scattered population – got access to US markets. US businesses got access to prosperous Canadian consumers, often close to America’s manufacturing heartlands. During the cold war, both countries saw Canada as a key place to build defences against Russian attack.

    With Trump seemingly much closer to Moscow than Ottawa, that North American alliance may in effect be dead. By area, Canada is the world’s second-biggest country after Russia, but its armed forces are tiny, about half the size of Britain’s. The feeling that Canada has been abandoned militarily by the US possibly explains the huge “Fuck Trump” flag I saw flying from the back of a pickup truck in the usually polite city of Kingston, Ontario, home of the Royal Military College of Canada.

    Economic ties will take longer to unravel. There were still California carrots on Montreal supermarket shelves, and my trains were passed by endless goods wagons from the famous old American freight company Union Pacific. Yet the number of Canadians visiting the US is already plummeting: last month it was as low as during the latter stages of the pandemic. In this, as in much else, Canada may be an early adopter of new habits regarding the US which then spread across what is left of the liberal west. For left-leaning foreigners, Americana and American places may lose much of their appeal, because the US has been made so authoritarian and hostile to outsiders by such a quintessentially American figure.

    Canada is self-consciously following another path. “Canada is a mosaic,” says Carney, and pro-diversity messages pour out of its government and businesses, as if calculated to wind up US conservatives. As well as vast, increasingly coveted supplies of water and minerals, Canada – despite its considerable inequalities and very heavy per capita carbon footprint – offers an increasingly different model of how to live on the North American continent.

    Will Trump or any hard-right successors in the White House allow this provocation to continue? Another US invasion may not actually be imminent. Trump already has too many ambitious policy goals. Conquering, let alone occupying, as enormous and physically extreme a country as Canada would be an intimidating prospect even for the fantasy-driven Republicans.

    Yet it’s equally hard to imagine US-Canadian relations returning quickly to their former state. Too many imbalances and contrasts between the countries have been pointed out, too many threats offered. Trust has been lost. Political careers are being made on both sides by acting tough towards the neighbouring government.

    Canadians are less known than Americans for flying the flag, but there were a lot of them fluttering along the border this month. It may be many years before they come down.

    • Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist