SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Individual E.U. countries must "now take matters into their own hands and unilaterally suspend all forms of cooperation with Israel that may contribute to its grave violations of international law," said one advocate.
The head of one of the world's top humanitarian organizations called the results of a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Brussels on Tuesday "one of the most disgraceful moments in the E.U.'s history" after the officials refused to suspend the bloc's trade deal with Israel—weeks after the E.U.'s own review found that Israel's assault on Gaza is breaching human rights obligations within the agreement.
"European leaders had the opportunity to take a principled stand against Israel's crimes, but instead gave it a green light to continue its genocide in Gaza, its unlawful occupation of the whole occupied Palestinian territory (OPT), and its system of apartheid against Palestinians," said Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International.
The meeting was held by 27 foreign ministers a week after Kaja Kallas, the E.U.'s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, forged a deal with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar in which Israel said it would allow food and fuel to enter Gaza through aid crossings after months of a near-total blockade. The vast majority of aid has been blocked from entering Gaza since Israel began its assault on the enclave in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack—an assault that, despite claims to the contrary by Israel and its allies, has targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure and not just Hamas.
The E.U. has said that about 80 aid trucks are now being allowed into Gaza per day—still a fraction of the 500 per day that entered the enclave before Israel's bombardment began.
Bushra Khalidi, policy lead in the OPT and Gaza for Oxfam International, said that "in reality," the recent aid deal "is mere bread crumbs" that "cannot stop this catastrophe."
"We cannot continue to watch children killed and say, 'We are making progress.' We cannot watch food rot in aid trucks while people starve and say, 'This is working,'" said Khalidi. "The E.U. cannot continue to maintain full ties with a government it acknowledges may be violating E.U. human rights principles, while offering humanitarian aid with one hand and enabling impunity with the other. We do not need another cautious statement nor another backroom deal. We need real leadership and decisive action. Enough of passing the buck. Enough of the delay. Enough of the bloodshed."
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said Wednesday that 1 in 10 Palestinian children in Gaza are now malnourished due to the continued blockade, and the U.N.-backed Global Protection Cluster reported that Israel's bombings and shellings are now causing an average of 10 children per day to lose at least one limb. Since Israel began its attacks, Gaza now has the grim distinction of having the highest number of child amputees per capita.
Human rights organizations and renowned experts have said Israel's assault on Gaza is a genocide.
Considering the humanitarian crisis on the ground in Gaza, directly caused by Israel's assault, Callamard said the E.U.'s refusal on Tuesday to suspend the E.U.-Israel Association Agreement or take other steps to hold Israel accountable was "a cruel and unlawful betrayal—of the European project and vision, predicated on upholding international law and fighting authoritarian practices, of the European Union's own rules and of the human rights of Palestinians."
"European leaders had the opportunity to take a principled stand against Israel's crimes, but instead gave it a green light to continue its genocide in Gaza."
Oxfam emphasized that Article 2 of the trade and cooperation agreement states that "relations between the parties, as well as all the provisions of the agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this agreement."
At the meeting in Brussels, member states were presented with 10 options, including an arms embargo, sanctions on Israeli ministers, halting visa-free travel for Israeli citizens to the E.U., or banning trade with Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.
Along with the suspension of the E.U.-Israel Association Agreement, those options were rejected by a majority of the foreign ministers.
Kallas said the E.U. will "keep these options on the table and stand ready to act if Israel does not live up to its pledges," but emphasized that "the aim is not to punish Israel. The aim is to improve the situation in Gaza."
As The Guardian reported, Saar expressed confidence on Monday that "the E.U. would not take any action" against Israel.
Only Spain advocated strongly for a suspension of the association agreement, with Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares also demanding an E.U. arms embargo on Israel.
Countries including Germany, Hungary, and the Czech Republic opposed suspending the association agreement, and Hungary, a staunch ally of Israeli Prime Minister Banjamin Netanyahu, objected to sanctions on Israeli settlers who have violently attacked Palestinians in the West Bank.
Claudio Francavilla, acting E.U. director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement that E.U. ministers had "traded away" an opportunity to hold Israel accountable for its human rights violations "for the illusory promise of a few more trucks."
"Once again, E.U. ministers have failed," said Francavilla.
Callamard called on member states to "now take matters into their own hands and unilaterally suspend all forms of cooperation with Israel that may contribute to its grave violations of international law, including a comprehensive embargo on the export of arms and surveillance equipment and related technology, and a total ban on trade with and investment in Israel's illegal settlements in the OPT."
The continued failure to act worsens "the risk of complicity in Israel's actions" and "sends an extremely dangerous message to perpetrators of atrocity crimes that they will not only go unpunished but be rewarded."
Trump’s actions are not motivated by any real economic or legal factors, but are instead about pushing his authoritarian agenda and doling out favors to Big Tech companies and other corporate cronies.
On July 9, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would impose tariffs of 50% on all imports from Brazil. In line with the latest round of tariffs announced over the past few days, these tariffs are to take effect on August 1, 2025.
Trump also announced the initiation of an investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) into Brazil’s digital economy regulations, under Section 301 of the Trade Act.
Trump’s social media post outlines three ostensible reasons for the imposition of such high tariff rates. First, the supposed “Witch Hunt” against his friend Jair Bolsonaro, the right-wing former president of Brazil, who is currently being prosecuted for allegedly initiating a coup following his electoral loss in 2022. Second, recent rulings by Brazil’s Supreme Court have sought to cast greater responsibility for content moderation on social media companies. And, third, a supposed trade deficit with Brazil caused by “many years of Brazil’s Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.” However, a cursory analysis of these reasons makes it clear that Trump’s actions are not motivated by any real economic or legal factors, but are instead about pushing his authoritarian agenda and doling out favors to Big Tech companies and other corporate cronies.
President Trump, given his predilection for authoritarian strongmen, has long supported Brazil’s controversial ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, described by some as the “Trump of the tropics.” Notably, Trump hosted Bolsonaro in the White House in 2019, while also endorsing his run for reelection in 2021 and 2022, describing him as “one of the great presidents of any country in the world.” Importantly, however, Bolsonaro, in addition to sharing a scant regard for human rights, also embraced a “strongly neoliberal agenda” during his time in office, initiating many regulatory actions that mirror Trump’s in the U.S., such as weakening environmental protections, gutting labor regulations, and the like. In contrast, Brazil’s current President Luiz Ignacio Lula de Silva has been vocal in calling out Israel’s war on Gaza, while also seeking to strengthen BRICS—something President Trump is not particularly happy about, given the broader geostrategic challenge this represents to the U.S.
Bolsonaro is currently on trial in Brazil for allegedly instigating a coup that led to violent mobs seeking to take over critical institutions following his loss in the 2022 national elections. Trump appears to see parallels in the case against Bolsonaro with the January 6 insurrection of 2021. Trump’s seemingly blatant interference with domestic political and judicial processes has been strongly condemned by President Lula, who quite rightly insists that Brazil’s sovereignty must be respected.
The second reason cited by Trump pertains to Brazil’s recent attempts at regulating the digital ecosystem in the public interest. Brazil has been at the forefront of countries seeking to find new models of regulation for the digital economy. U.S. Big Tech companies hate Brazil’s proposals to implement a network usage fee and a new digital competition law. It also recently enacted a privacy law that has been called out in an annual U.S. government report that lists supposed non-tariff trade barriers (together with privacy laws in a number of other jurisdictions, such as the E.U., India, Vietnam, etc). This report, which Trump waved around at his April 2 tariff announcement event, is essentially “Project 2025” for trade policy.
It’s clear that the Trump administration will continue to threaten tariffs to countries around the world for standing up for their people’s rights on behalf of his billionaire buddies.
More pertinently, Brazil has been engaged in a standoff with a number of social media companies over the last few years, particularly given the problems of misinformation linked to Brazil’s last election cycle. A number of studies demonstrate how the use of misinformation was widespread during Brazilian elections over the last few years, with Bolsonaro supporters in particular said to have been targeted by propaganda. Brazil’s state institutions have been grappling with how best to address this maelstrom of misinformation, including by threatening to ban X, also known as Twitter, for failing to comply with domestic laws.
More recently, however, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ruled that social media companies have a responsibility to police their platforms against unsafe or illegal content. This goes directly in the face of a model the U.S. has long sought to propagate through the rest of the world—one that replicates its laissez-faire attitude to social media regulation under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. American law provides a “safe harbor” to platforms for carrying illegal user content, arguably reducing the incentive for social media companies to regulate illicit content (while others argue that the provision reduces privatized censorship). There has been a rigorous debate around Section 230 even in the United States, while a number of countries have or are seeking to move away from this model, as the scale of harm that can be caused by social media becomes more apparent and real. This threatens the profits of big companies such as Meta and X. By directly linking the imposition of tariffs to Brazil’s attempts at regulating social media, Trump is merely helping out his billionaire tech-bro buddies—part of his shakedown on behalf of Big Tech.
We have seen similar demands aimed at a number of countries that are seeking to regulate the digital ecosystem. For example, a number of digital regulations in the E.U., such as the General Data Protection Regulation, Digital Services Act, and Digital Markets Act, are reported to be under threat in trade negotiations between the U.S. and the E.U. Trump also recently strong-armed Canada to revoke its Digital Services Tax under threat of suspending trade negotiations. The tax was estimated to cost Big Tech companies in the region of CAD 7.2 billion over five years.
Most laughably, Trump reproduces language used in tariff letters sent to a number of other countries, claiming that he needed to impose the 50% tariff as Brazil has a trade deficit with the U.S. As pointed out by numerous analysts, this is patently wrong. The New York Times notes that “for years, the United States has generally maintained a trade surplus with Brazil. The two countries had about $92 billion in trade together last year, with the United States enjoying a $7.4 billion surplus in goods.” Brazil was even not on Trump’s own list for higher “reciprocal tariffs” announced in April, as the data published by the USTR noted the U.S. trade surplus with Brazil. Trump’s justification for enacting so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries was that their trade deficits with the U.S. constitute an emergency, granting him sweeping powers. This claim has been rejected by a federal court, with appeals still underway. Brazil’s lack of any deficit, let alone an emergency-justifying one, makes these tariffs on Brazil even more legally questionable.
Trump’s letter to Brazil announcing the new tariffs. Highlighted text was present in the form of letters sent to more than a dozen other countries.
So, what are Trump’s real motivations for the imposition of these tariffs on Brazil? As indicated above, he is clearly enamoured of Bolsonaro, while he hasn’t been shy of hiding his dislike for Lula. In addition to helping out his authoritarian buddy, Trump is also clearly seeking to repay Big Tech, significant contributors to his inauguration fund. As we have pointed out previously, Trump’s trade policy has essentially been a scheme to bully countries into deregulation, particularly in the tech space. This also accords with the longstanding U.S. policy to see to it that its digital companies are not regulated by foreign countries.
Looking ahead, things are as unclear as they have always been through the course of Trump’s second term in office. While the tariffs on Brazil are scheduled to go into effect this August, Trump appears to have kept the door open to further negotiations. Barring a diplomatic resolution, the USTR’s S 301 investigation will likely find that Brazil created an unjustifiable burden or restricted American interests, though this could take some time. Such a determination could lead to the imposition of new (more legally sound) tariffs or be used to justify the already announced tariffs against Brazil.
Brazil, meanwhile, has already enacted an Economic Reciprocity law that will allow it to take retaliatory action against the U.S., including by imposing tariffs, suspending commercial concessions and investments, and obligations pertaining to intellectual property rights. It would appear that the Brazilian government is prepared to take steps to protect its sovereignty, though it will also be motivated by the need to ensure continued exports to the U.S., which is an important market for a number of Brazilian products, such as energy, aircraft and machinery, and agricultural and livestock products.
While it is difficult to predict what is likely to happen in the days and months ahead, it’s clear that the Trump administration will continue to threaten tariffs to countries around the world for standing up for their people’s rights on behalf of his billionaire buddies. The question, however, remains: Will countries stand up to Trump’s bullying and instead protect their sovereign right to regulate in the public interest and will Congress hold him accountable for his con on American workers?
One journalist accused Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney of chickening out.
Acquiescing to pressure from the Trump administration, the Canadian government announced on Sunday that the country will rescind the digital services tax, a levy that would have seen large American tech firms pay billions of dollars to Canada over the next few years.
The Sunday announcement from the Canadian government cited "anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement" as the reason for the rescission.
"Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the statement.
The digital services tax impacts companies that make over $20 million in revenue from Canadian users and customers through digital services like online advertising and shopping. Companies like Uber and Google would have paid a 3% levy on the money they made from Canadian sources, according to CBC News.
The reversal comes after U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday blasted the digital services tax, calling it a "direct and blatant attack on our country" on Truth Social.
Trump said he was suspending trade talks between the two countries because of the tax. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period," Trump wrote. The United States is Canada's largest trading partner.
Payments from tech firms subject to the digital services tax were due starting on Monday, though the tax has been in effect since last year.
"The June 30, 2025 collection will be halted," and Canada's Minister of Finance "will soon bring forward legislation to rescind the Digital Services Tax Act," according to the Sunday statement.
"If Mark Carney folds in response to this pressure from Trump on the digital services tax, he proves he can be pushed around," said Canadian journalist Paris Marx on Bluesky, speaking prior to the announcement of the rescission. "The tax must be enforced," he added.
"Carney chickens out too," wrote the author Doug Henwood on Twitter on Monday.
In an opinion piece originally published in Canadian Dimension before the announcement on Sunday, Jared Walker, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Canadians for Tax Fairness, wrote that all the money generated for the tax could mean "more federal money for housing, transit, and healthcare transfers—all from some of the largest and most under-taxed companies in the world."
Walker also wrote that the digital service tax could serve as a counterweight to the so-called "revenge tax" provision in Trump's sprawling domestic tax and spending bill.
Section 899, called "Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes," would "increase withholding taxes for non-resident individuals and companies from countries that the U.S. believes have imposed discriminatory or unfair taxes," according to CBC. The digital services tax is one of the taxes the Trump administration believes is discriminatory.
"If 'elbows up' is going to be more than just a slogan, Canada can't cave to pressure when Donald Trump throws his weight around," wrote Walker, invoking the Canadian rallying cry in the face of American antagonism when it comes to trade.
"But this slogan also means the Carney government has to make sure it is working on behalf of everyday Canadians—not just the ultra-rich and big corporations that are only 'Canadian' when it's convenient," Walker wrote.