news

The reasons Trump might have wanted to derail the negotiations — and what other surprises he might have in store

Trade talks are reportedly continuing between Canada and the U.S., with formal meetings having taken place since U.S. President Donald Trump revealed more threats and demands last week, a source close to the White House said.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday that he expected U.S. tariffs would likely be part of any future deal. “There is not much evidence at the moment — from the deals, agreements and negotiations with the Americans, for any country or any jurisdiction — to get a deal without tariffs,” Carney said. He also said he expected trade talks to “intensify” in the next few weeks.

Washington and Ottawa have been engaged in tempestuous trade talks for months. Carney’s team is desperate to end tariffs imposed by Trump on Canadian steel and aluminum exports and keep tariff exemptions for goods covered by the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade deal (USMCA).

After Carney’s election in April, things appeared to be going well for awhile: Carney visited the White House, he seemingly got Trump to drop his talk of making Canada a “51st state,” and the prime minister quickly gave in when the president threatened to end talks if Canada didn’t scrap its digital services tax (DST) on U.S. tech firms. Carney also pledged last month to increase defence expenditures dramatically to meet a higher NATO spending target by 2035, a priority of Trump’s. It looked like negotiations could lead to a new U.S.-Canada deal before the July 21 deadline the two of them had set for themselves.

Then came the letter. Trump wrote an open letter to the prime minister last week, threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods starting Aug. 1, vaguely citing as reasons Ottawa’s trade deficit, counter tariffs, dairy trade restrictions, and failure to halt fentanyl from crossing the border. What Trump didn’t do — as he had done with the DST — was outline exactly what Carney needed to do to get things back on track.

National Post looks at the reasons Trump might have wanted to derail the negotiations — and what other surprises the White House might have in store.

Trump is under pressure

Trump “likes to keep us in suspense,” says Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation. But there is a timing issue at play here that goes beyond the negotiations. “Basically, they have a window of time to use these ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs,” he says, referring to Trump’s sweeping new international tariff regime unveiled in April. Hale said there is significant legal pushback facing the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that ostensibly gives the president power to circumvent Congress to impose tariffs in urgent situations.

So far, there have been a few court rulings against Trump’s use of IEEPA tariffs. Oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals are scheduled to begin for one of those rulings on July 31, with another court set to hear two other tariff-related cases in September.

To use IEEPA, a genuine emergency needs to be declared. What Trump did was declare emergencies based on trade deficits, drug trafficking, and immigration. Well, “we’ve been running trade deficits for decades,” says Hale. U.S. judges have ruled that there is no direct connection between the national emergency declared over fentanyl and illegal migration.

The court rulings could still go either way. “(Trump’s team is) concerned that they will no longer be able to weaponize these (tariffs) in trade negotiations,” Hale adds.

“By simply heaping on the pressure and saying, ‘Bam, you get these tariffs, you’re getting increased tariffs and the rest of it,’ they’re trying to get as many concessions as possible whilst they can still use them.”

If Trump’s emergency tariffs lose in court, he’d be left with the less-powerful weapon to restrict imports deemed a national security threat, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

“I do know that Plan B is to use the 232 tariffs as an alternative more aggressively,” Hale said. But he notes that they are product-specific and do not allow for across-the-board tariffs.

Tori Smith, a senior vice president at Forbes Tate Partners, a government-relations consultancy in Washington, points out that Trump’s Aug. 1 deadline doesn’t seem random given the appeal hearing against emergency tariffs set to start on July 31.

She also notes that the review scheduled of the USMCA, as part of its original terms, begins in October. Trump’s letter, Smith said, was probably meant to “create leverage for the United States in advance of the USMCA review.”

Smith said the “long-game strategy” for the White House is to put it in the “strongest position for (the USMCA) negotiations.”

White House revenge

There may also be something more personal going on, according to a source close to the administration, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The NAFTA negotiations in Trump’s first term that led to the USMCA were headed by United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, who had a cordial relationship with Canada’s then-foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland. In the process, Lighthizer reportedly neutralized Peter Navarro, then director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, a fierce protectionist and Trump loyalist, who is now a senior adviser to the president on trade.

“He’s never really forgiven Lighthizer for that,” the source said. (Lighthizer has since returned to private life.)

While the USMCA was once touted by U.S. officials as the “gold standard” of trade deals, possibly the reason the administration has talked of ripping it up “was because Navarro sees that as Lighthizer’s golden legacy, and he has reasons … personal bitterness, to rip it up.”

David Boling, a former deputy assistant USTR for Japan, said he never witnessed the two men in meetings together and couldn’t comment on their working relationship. But they had very different styles, he recalled.

“Lighthizer skillfully renegotiated NAFTA by building up trust with Capitol Hill Democrats. Coalition-building, however, is not Navarro’s strong suit,” said Boling, who now works at the political-risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

Navarro recently said he didn’t like negotiating with Canada, while Mexico’s negotiators were a “pure joy to deal with.”

“You know, they (Mexicans) were tough negotiators, but they were reasonable, fair negotiators. The Canadians were very, very difficult, and they’ve always been very difficult,” he said in a television interview last week.

Little downside for Trump

It seems that the more Trump has pushed for concessions from Canada — on defence, on digital taxes, on fentanyl crackdowns — the more he’s been able to get.

Sources say his senior economic team feels they have to sell the president on deal structures, but that Trump often feels he can press for more.

“I think that this can be demonstrated pretty obviously by the Vietnam announcement,” says Smith, noting how Vietnam’s team thought they would be getting a lower tariff rate than 20 per cent, but then Trump “put out a different rate than had been negotiated or talked about by his team.”

Trump mentioned Canada’s highly restricted market for dairy in his open letter to Carney. But he might also start pushing for Canada to commit to more things beyond trade, as he has with fentanyl and defence.

“The Trump administration has also leveraged tariffs in matters that go well beyond trade policy with a number of countries,” said Hale. In March, the president warned countries buying Venezuelan oil they would be punished with tariffs on all U.S. exports; in the last two weeks, he’s threatened “severe tariffs” on Russia if it didn’t make peace with Ukraine, and tariffs on BRICS-aligned countries (meaning Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as well as Iran and Indonesia) because he said they wanted to undermine the U.S. dollar.

So he may want to wield economic pressure to try getting Carney to commit to helping restart a new Canada-U.S. oil pipeline after Keystone XL was killed by the last American president, the source close to the White House said. “They want the Keystone XL pipeline big time,” the source said.

Trump has never stopped wanting that pipeline since he approved it in his first term, and has raised it repeatedly since his re-election, noted Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation.

“Everybody knows that Prime Minister Carney has a focus on the environment, rather than fossil fuel production, so I imagine that it might be a sticking point,” she added. So would the fact that, right now, there is no company proposing that project, since the former proponent, TC Energy, abandoned it.

Apparently, the White House also wants Carney to loosen up on Liberal social objectives, like ESG (environment, social and governance) and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), that have in recent years complicated regulation in Canada, including for American companies that do business here. Trump has been aggressive about deregulating away from social and climate rules in the U.S. since he took office.

But Carney is “religious” about ESG, said the Washington source, which could be a “real barrier to these things getting forward.” Yet, if Carney got rid of net-zero targets and environmental impediments, “I think there’d be a massive love-in,” the source added.

How many of these new lines of negotiation — dairy, defence, oil, DEI,

The system is rigged.

The system is rigged when 4.5 million children live in poverty in the sixth richest country in the world. The system is rigged when giant corporations make a fortune from rising bills. The system is rigged when this government says there is no money for the poor, but billions for war.

We cannot accept these injustices – and neither should you.

We will only fix the crises in our society with a mass redistribution of wealth and power. That means taxing the very richest in our society. That means an NHS free from privatisation and bringing energy, water, rail and mail into public ownership. That means investing in a massive council-house building programme. That means standing up to fossil fuel giants putting their profits before our planet.

Meanwhile, millions of people are horrified by the government’s complicity in crimes against humanity. Now, more than ever, we must defend the right to protest against genocide. We believe in the radical idea that all human life has equal value. That is why we will keep demanding an end to all arms sales to Israel, and for the only path to peace: a free and independent Palestine. [1/2]

Our movement is made up of people of all faiths and none. The great dividers want you to think that the problems in our society are caused by migrants or refugees. They’re not. They are caused by an economic system that protects the interests of corporations and billionaires. It is ordinary people who create the wealth – and it is ordinary people who have the power to put it back where it belongs.

It’s time for a new kind of political party. One that is rooted in our communities, trade unions and social movements. One that builds power in all regions and nations. One that belongs to you.

Sign up at www.yourparty.uk to be part of the founding process, leading to an inaugural conference. At this conference, you will decide the party’s direction, the model of leadership and the policies that are needed to transform society. That is how we build a democratic movement that can take on the rich and powerful - and win.

Real change is coming.

          Jeremy Corbyn MP                                   Zarah Sultana MP

Buenos Aires, Jul 21 (Prensa Latina) 57.5 percent of those polled in a survey circulating today in the media and social networks have a negative image of President Javier Milei one year and seven months after taking office.

The study carried out by the consulting firm Zuban Córdoba also detected that 56.8 percent of Argentines reject the policies of his government, which represents an increase in social dissatisfaction with the Libertarian administration at a time when the elections in the province of Buenos Aires (September 7) and the national elections (October 26) are getting closer.

At the same time, the survey indicates that 41.9 percent have a good opinion of the president and 42.8 percent still maintain their support to the executive.

In other interesting data, 53.6 percent of those polled define themselves as anti-military and 28.1 percent as militia members. In addition, 55.4 percent consider that the head of state represents “a risk for society” and 37.8 percent that “he is still the change”.

With a view to the next elections, both provincial and national, the survey also pointed out that 52.8 percent of those polled intend to “punish the management of the current government” with their vote, while 38.3 percent will reward it.

On August 31, the province of Corrientes will hold its legislative elections in which the probabilities of Milei's La Libertad Avanza are low, while on September 7 they will take place in the Province of Buenos Aires.

According to Zuban Córdoba's opinion survey, half of the people who would reject Milei at the polls condemn him for “destroying the State and public policies” and for “being a cruel government”.

At the same time, in the midst of the popular tension regarding the president, the survey also indicates that 55.3 percent of Argentines have a poor image of Vice President Victoria Villarruel, while 38.6 percent said they have a good perception of her.

In a marked shift in military tactics, the Israeli Air Force launched a new wave of airstrikes on Yemen’s western coast, targeting the strategic port of Hodeidah without issuing prior evacuation warnings in Arabic—a practice previously considered standard. This twelfth Israeli strike on Yemen since October 2023 focused on fuel containers, engineering vehicles, and naval assets allegedly used by the Iran-backed Houthi movement for attacks on Israel and commercial shipping.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that the operation aimed to prevent the reconstruction of military infrastructure previously destroyed, warning that “Yemen’s fate will be the same as Tehran’s” if attacks continue.

The absence of evacuation alerts has raised concerns among humanitarian groups and Yemeni officials, who say the tactic increases the risk to civilians and reflects a psychological shift in Israel’s approach to the conflict.

Local reports confirmed that 30 Israeli warplanes participated in the strikes, damaging port docks, fishing vessels, and equipment brought in for post-strike repairs.

Despite the escalation, Yemeni air defenses reportedly intercepted several Israeli aircraft, forcing them to retreat before completing their missions.

The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, have vowed continued support for Gaza and condemned what they call Arab and Islamic silence in the face of Israel’s war on Palestinians.

Since November 2023, the Houthis have launched missiles, drones, and unmanned boats targeting Israeli-linked vessels in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Arabian Sea, citing solidarity with Gaza.

The latest Israeli strikes follow the Houthis’ attack on Ben Gurion Airport with a hypersonic missile and the sinking of the Magic Seas cargo ship, which had previously docked in Israel.

Regional analysts warn that continued escalation could destabilize maritime trade, threaten energy infrastructure, and draw in additional foreign powers, including the United States and Gulf states.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. Artificial intelligence (AI) will play a critical role in how Americans of all ages learn new skills, consume information, and navigate their daily lives. Americans will require reliable outputs from AI, but when ideological biases or social agendas are built into AI models, they can distort the quality and accuracy of the output.

One of the most pervasive and destructive of these ideologies is so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). In the AI context, DEI includes the suppression or distortion of factual information about race or sex; manipulation of racial or sexual representation in model outputs; incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism; and discrimination on the basis of race or sex. DEI displaces the commitment to truth in favor of preferred outcomes and, as recent history illustrates, poses an existential threat to reliable AI.

For example, one major AI model changed the race or sex of historical figures — including the Pope, the Founding Fathers, and Vikings — when prompted for images because it was trained to prioritize DEI requirements at the cost of accuracy. Another AI model refused to produce images celebrating the achievements of white people, even while complying with the same request for people of other races. In yet another case, an AI model asserted that a user should not “misgender” another person even if necessary to stop a nuclear apocalypse.

While the Federal Government should be hesitant to regulate the functionality of AI models in the private marketplace, in the context of Federal procurement, it has the obligation not to procure models that sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas. Building on Executive Order 13960 of December 3, 2020 (Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal Government), this order helps fulfill that obligation in the context of large language models.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) The term “agency” means an executive department, a military department, or any independent establishment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 104(1), respectively, and any wholly owned Government corporation within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9101.

(b) The term “agency head” means the highest-ranking

official or officials of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, Director, Commissioners, or Board of Directors.

(c) The term “LLM” means a large language model, which is a generative AI model trained on vast, diverse datasets that enable the model to generate natural-language responses to user prompts.

(d) The term “national security system” has the same meaning as in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6).

Sec. 3. Unbiased AI Principles. It is the policy of the United States to promote the innovation and use of trustworthy AI. To advance that policy, agency heads shall, consistent with applicable law and in consideration of guidance issued pursuant to section 4 of this order, procure only those LLMs developed in accordance with the following two principles (Unbiased AI Principles):

(a) Truth-seeking. LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis. LLMs shall prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and shall acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory.

(b) Ideological Neutrality. LLMs shall be neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI. Developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments into an LLM’s outputs unless those judgments are prompted by or otherwise readily accessible to the end user.

Sec. 4. Implementation. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall issue guidance to agencies to implement section 3 of this order. That guidance shall:

(i) account for technical limitations in complying with this order;

(ii) permit vendors to comply with the requirement in the second Unbiased AI Principle to be transparent about ideological judgments through disclosure of the LLM’s system prompt, specifications, evaluations, or other relevant documentation, and avoid requiring disclosure of specific model weights or other sensitive technical data where practicable;

(iii) avoid over-prescription and afford latitude for vendors to comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and take different approaches to innovation;

(iv) specify factors for agency heads to consider in determining whether to apply the Unbiased AI Principles to LLMs developed by the agencies and to AI models other than LLMs; and

(v) make exceptions as appropriate for the use of LLMs in national security systems.

(b) Each agency head shall, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law:

(i) include in each Federal contract for an LLM entered into following the date of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section terms requiring that the procured LLM comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and providing that decommissioning costs shall be charged to the vendor in the event of termination by the agency for the vendor’s noncompliance with the contract following a reasonable period to cure;

(ii) to the extent practicable and consistent with contract terms, revise existing contracts for LLMs to include the terms specified in subsection (b)(i) of this section; and

(iii) within 90 days of the OMB guidance issued under subsection (a) of this section, adopt procedures to ensure that LLMs procured by the agency comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the General Services Administration.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 23, 2025.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines have reached a trade agreement. Shortly after, he also revealed more detailed terms of an agreement with Indonesia.

Both agreements call for 19% tariffs on goods the US imports from the two countries, paid by American businesses, while American goods shipped there won’t be charged a tariff.

Trump’s announcement of the agreement with the Philippines came after he met with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. at the White House on Tuesday.

“It was a beautiful visit, and we concluded our Trade Deal,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. However, it was not immediately apparent if the two leaders formally signed anything. Similar to other recent trade announcements, few details were initially revealed.

The agreement with the Philippines marks the fifth struck over the past three months. No new details have come to light on the agreement Trump announced with Vietnam earlier this month. Administration officials have not revealed why that’s the case.

Trump and administration officials promised dozens more trade deals in April after they paused “reciprocal” tariffs. More recently, they’ve changed their tone, stressing that Trump is focusing on the quality of deals rather than quantity.

Trump has put much of the global economy on notice, threatening a slew of higher tariffs, including rates going as high as 50% on trading partners and a 50% copper import tax across the board — set to take effect next week. He’s said he’ll stand firm on the August 1 deadline for countries to make deals or risk facing higher tariffs, yet investors have largely shrugged off that possibility.

Philippines on Trump’s ‘good list’

Earlier Tuesday in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he was not ready to make a trade deal with Marcos because “he’s negotiating too tough.” But he said they’d “probably agree to something.”

The agreement is somewhat unusual given that other countries Trump claims to have reached agreements with call for lower tariff rates compared to levels the president threatened to impose in April. Meanwhile, goods from the Philippines were charged a minimum 17% “reciprocal” tariff in April before Trump paused those. Earlier this month, he threatened a 20% tariff on goods from the Philippines as of August 1.

The US imported $14 billion worth of goods from the Philippines last year, according to data from the US Commerce Department. Top goods shipped from there include computers and other electronics, processed foods, machinery and apparel. Meanwhile, the US exported $9 billion worth of Filipino goods. Computers and other electronics, as well as processed foods, were also among the top goods the US shipped there.

Indonesia agreement terms spelled out

Trump announced a similar agreement with Indonesia last week, calling for the same tariff rates. On Tuesday, more details were revealed in a joint statement published by the United States and Indonesia.

“It is my Great Honor to announce our Trade Agreement with the Republic of Indonesia, as represented by their Highly Respected President, Prabowo Subianto,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump and administration officials highlighted non-tariff trade barriers that Indonesia agreed to modify. Those include eliminating taxes on digital service revenue, like advertising on streaming and social media sites; and “pre-shipment inspection or verification requirements” on American goods, administration officials said on a call on Tuesday.

On the latter, officials told reporters these systems were especially burdensome for farmers to export their goods and that eliminating them will help open up the market to them.

Additionally, Indonesia agreed to accept US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and remove export restrictions on critical minerals.

Goods from Indonesia briefly faced a 32% tariff in April before Trump paused “reciprocal” tariffs. Countries that were due to face those tariffs have been charged a minimum 10% tariff for the past three months. That’s due to end August 1.

Indonesia is America’s 23rd top trading partner, according to US Commerce Department data from last year. The United States imported $28 billion worth of merchandise from there last year. Apparel and footwear were the top two goods Americans bought.

Meanwhile, the United States exported $10 billion worth of goods to Indonesia last year. Oilseeds and grain as well as oil and gas were the top two exports.

On Friday, July 18, Venezuela marked a significant triumph with the arrival of a group of migrants previously deported from the United States and subsequently detained in El Salvador. This cohort, comprised of 252 individuals, is set to touch down at Simon Bolivar International Airport on Tuesday, where Venezuelan authorities are prepared to welcome them.

Background of the Migration Crisis The journey of these migrants has been fraught with hardship. Initially deported by the United States, they found themselves victims once more, this time at the hands of the Salvadoran government. Interned in the infamous Center for Containment of Terrorism (CECOT), their plight drew international attention and condemnation. The Venezuelan government stepped in, orchestrating a complex rescue operation that culminated in their safe return.

The Significance of the Rescue Operation This event transcends the mere act of repatriation; it symbolizes hope and resilience against odds. Venezuela’s government intervention signals its commitment to protecting nationals, asserting sovereignty, and challenging international migration/asylum norms.

President Nicolas Maduro’s administration has positioned this as a moral victory, highlighting the state’s dedication to safeguarding its citizens regardless of geopolitical hurdles. This narrative is strategically amplified through state-controlled media, portraying Maduro as a steadfast leader who prioritizes the well-being of Venezuelans above external pressures.

The government’s actions are framed as a defense against foreign interference, reinforcing a sense of national unity and resilience in the face of ongoing challenges.

Simultaneously, critics argue that these actions are a smokescreen, deflecting attention from deeper structural issues and economic hardships that continue to plague the nation.

The government’s focus on external threats is seen as a power grab that suppresses dissent and ignores the country’s socio-economic problems.

The Plight of Migrants: A Closer Look

Migrants often face treacherous conditions, navigating perilous routes in search of better lives. Their journeys are compounded by hostile policies, detention centers, and exploitation. For the 252 Venezuelans, the ordeal began with deportation under President Donald Trump’s administration, followed by a harrowing stint in El Salvador’s CECOT.

Their return marks not only an end to their suffering but also serves as a poignant reminder of the broader struggles faced by migrant communities globally.

Community Mobilization and Advocacy

Coinciding with this rescue operation was a significant mobilization of Venezuelan citizens. On Friday, protests swept across the country, demanding the return of children detained in the United States under Trump’s administration.

This civic action underscores the intertwined fates of migrants and their families, highlighting the urgency for humane treatment and policies that respect human rights.

Arrival and Reception in Venezuela

As the 252 migrants arrive at Simon Bolivar International Airport, arrangements are in place to ensure their smooth reintegration. Authorities have planned medical checkups, psychological support, and temporary housing to ease their transition. Families eagerly await reunions, and communities prepare to extend solidarity and assistance.

International Implications and Diplomatic Tensions

This episode adds another layer to the complex relations between Venezuela, the United States, and El Salvador. The detention and subsequent rescue of migrants reflect broader diplomatic tensions and criticisms of how different nations handle migration issues.

Venezuela’s successful intervention casts a critical eye on the policies of others and invites discourse on the responsibilities of nations towards migrants.

Future Prospects and Policy Recommendations

For a sustainable resolution to migration crises, comprehensive policy reforms are essential. Countries must collaborate to ensure safe passage and humane treatment for migrants. International bodies can play pivotal roles in monitoring and mediating conflicts arising from migration disputes.

Venezuela’s recent actions suggest possible pathways, emphasizing cooperation, respect for human rights, and the importance of diplomatic engagement.

Justice and Dignity

The return of the 252 migrants marks a poignant chapter in Venezuela’s ongoing narrative of resilience and advocacy. Their arrival brings renewed hope to all who fight for justice and dignity. As these individuals reunite with their families and rebuild their lives, their story serves as a powerful testament to the strength of human spirit and the imperative for nations to uphold humanitarian principles.

London, Ontario, a city of over 420,000, is home to Max Brose Drive, named for German industrialist Max Brose.

Edmonton has a street honoring Peter Savaryn, a veteran of SS Galizien, a Ukrainian division in the Waffen-SS, which was the military arm of the Nazi Party

Two Nazi collaborator honors in New Jersey have been added to the project. The first is SS Galizien’s divisional insignia on a monument celebrating “Fighters for Ukrainian Freedom” in a cemetery owned by Saint Andrew Ukrainian Orthodox Memorial Church in South Bound Brook. It was originally reported on by researcher Moss Robeson on X.

In 2023, a similar monument in Philadelphia was boarded up following a Forward investigation.

The nearby city of New Brunswick has a scout lodge named after Hungarian Prime Minister Pál Teleki, who had championed and enacted numerous antisemitic laws stripping his country’s Jews of their rights, a key prelude on the road to genocide; around 550,000 Hungarian Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust.

Readers have continued contacting the Forward with streets and monuments that had been previously overlooked. One such case is Finland’s monuments to the nation’s SS volunteers. Several years ago, research by Dr. André Swanström resulted in a report concluding it was “very likely” these soldiers murdered Jews.

We’ve also seen Nazi honors removed: In addition to Philadelphia, a second SS Galizien monument in a Toronto suburb was taken down in 2024, while NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida recently renamed a conference facility that honored an SS officer.

Basically it is a commitment on behalf of participating global south countries to prevent the movement of even potentially military good through their territories if they will be used in the genocide of Palestinians. To implement BDS-type policies on their public spending. To arrest any war criminals and facilitate legal proceedings. For details see the Statement linked above. It is short to read.

Nations who have already agreed to immediately adhere were: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa.