tariff

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump administration targeted California and other blue states for clean energy cuts
The deep dive: Justice Kennedy reflects on his time deciding the Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality
The L.A. Times Special: His nickname was ‘Satan.’ His political influence was immense
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

July 20 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed orders Monday to impose a new 50% tariff on many Canadian imports, saying it’s because of “discriminatory treatment” of U.S. products.

The tariffs take effect Aug. 19 and affect a wide range of goods including wine, hockey sticks, electrical equipment and concrete.

Trump cited part of the Tariff Act of 1930 that allows a U.S. president to mandate a tariff up to 50% without congressional approval if a country is believed to be discriminating against U.S. goods. However, the law has not been applied this way before, CNN reported.

The Trump administration said the tariffs cover $20 billion worth of imports. They join ongoing tariffs from 15% to 50% imposed by the United States on Canadian steel, aluminum and copper, as well as Canadian softwood lumber, BBC News reported.

Last week, Trump threatened new tariffs on Canada as punishment for the smoke from hundreds of wildfires that drifted over the border and affected some U.S. cities. However, there was no mention of the wildfires in the orders signed Monday.

The tariffs affect all the goods in each category even if they are included under the existing free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The Trump administration named dairy products, U.S. motor vehicles and alcohol Monday as the three U.S. products it says Canada discriminates against.

“President Trump is taking action to hold Canada accountable for its continued discrimination against and unreasonable and unequal treatment of U.S. commerce that has burdened and disadvantaged hard-working Americans,” a statement released by the White House said.

A few key Canadian imports are excluded from the new tariffs. These include energy products, potash, critical minerals, fish and some other goods.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the international tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump said at the time that he would find other ways to impose tariffs.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Monday that Canada should retaliate against the new tariffs.

“If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff fortariff, dollar for dollar,” Ford posted on social media.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose additional tariffs against Canada, as a penalty for the wildfire smoke that has clouded cities across North America.

On Friday, Trump complained about the air quality on social media, as officials in Canada continue to battle 896 active blazes across the country.

Roughly 200 are burning in the province of Ontario, where Premier Doug Ford said 81 are still out of control. Trump, however, blamed the fires on Canadian governance.

“We are holding Canada responsible for the fact that they are not properly maintaining their Forests, and Brush,” Trump wrote.

“The United States is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air, the quality of which is dangerous, and totally unacceptable!”

He pledged to call Prime Minister Mark Carney, accusing the Canadian leader’s government of negligence.

“The cost is incalculable,” Trump added, saying the expense would be added to existing tariffs against Canadian exports to the US.

The post is the latest example of the US president wielding the threat of heightened tariffs to impose a wide range of demands on foreign countries.

Since returning to the White House for a second term in January 2025, Trump has ratcheted up pressure against Canada, using tariffs as a means of pressuring the country to increase border security and change trade practices he considered unfair.

Trump has also pushed Canada to cede its sovereignty and become the “51st” US state.

Scientists have attributed the proliferation of wildfires across North America to a range of factors, including hot and dry conditions worsened by climate change.

But the right-wing Trump has repeatedly blamed left-leaning and centrist politicians for mismanagement when powerful wildfires erupt.

Trump, for example, repeatedly attacked California Governor Gavin Newsom when his state was fighting wildfires around the city of Los Angeles in 2025.

He blamed the fire destruction on the state’s approach to water management and its endangered species protections.

“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this,” Trump wrote at the time, though experts say his accusations had little basis in fact.

During his first term, Trump also attacked California, saying that the state should have raked its forest floors to prevent wildfires.

“I said, you’ve got to clean your floors. You’ve got to clean your forests,” Trump told a rally in 2020.

Scientists say that multiple factors can contribute to large wildfires, including heightened heat, drought and overly repressive fire policies that prevent natural burns, resulting in overgrown landscapes.

The risk of damage is also heightened by the increasing number of people living in areas where the wildlands meet urban development.

In mid-July, Ontario saw its largest conflagration of the year so far, when several smaller fires merged in Wabakimi Provincial Park, destroying First Nations communities.

Ford, Ontario’s premier, said on Friday morning that 10 communities had been evacuated.

He thanked leaders across Canada, as well as in US states like Massachusetts and Minnesota, for providing support.

“Neighbours have each other’s backs, which is why Ontario has always been there for our American partners in their time of need,” he wrote on social media.

But Republicans, including Trump and US Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan, have used the recent blazes to criticise Canada for its fire policy.

“Canada’s inability to mitigate, contain, and prevent its wildfires must be addressed,” Huizenga wrote on social media on Thursday. “These annual fires significantly harm not only our health and quality of life, but also our economic prosperity.”

On Friday, Trump reiterated his position that Canada’s fires could have been prevented through debris removal.

“Canada has refused to engage in basic Forest Management and Debris Removal, knowing that such refusal will lead to exactly this result,” Trump wrote.

“This is Willful Negligence, and becoming a yearly occurrence, costing the United States Billions of Dollars, which cost of this pollution must of necessity be added to the TARIFFS Canada is currently paying.”

The wildfire smoke has prompted concerns about the viability of hosting the FIFA World Cup final in New Jersey this weekend.

But the Trump administration itself has faced pushback over its wildfire preparedness.

The New York Times reported on Friday that the Trump administration had slashed funding for wildfire research, including laboratories that study the effects of wildfire smoke on human health.

BRASILIA, Brazil, July 17 (UPI) — Brazil’s government has delayed plans to invoke its Reciprocity Law after the United States imposed a 25% tariff on Brazilian exports. It opted instead for a more cautious strategy aimed at avoiding a broader trade conflict.

After meetings between the government’s economic team and the country’s leading industrial groups, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva‘s administration paused previous plans for immediate retaliatory measures.

According to Brazilian media reports, officials are concerned that reciprocal tariffs could trigger a trade war, increase the cost of imported inputs and drive up consumer prices in Brazil.

Industrial associations argued that the production chains of both countries are highly integrated, and that making U.S. imports more expensive would also hurt Brazilian manufacturers, CNN Brasil reported.

The Brazilian government also announced a support program for companies affected by the U.S. tariff.

“We already have mechanisms to protect our companies and our jobs,” Deputy Finance Minister Dario Durigan said. He added that, in coordination with affected industries, the government will strengthen the Brazil Sovereign Plan, which supports businesses “unfairly harmed by the increase in U.S. tariffs,” according to G1.

Analysts say Lula’s administration is expected to exhaust all negotiation channels before escalating the dispute, although they acknowledge that the prospects for direct bilateral negotiations with Washington are limited.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has concluded its Section 301 investigation, determining that Brazil maintains “unfair trade practices.” That finding has left Brazilian diplomats with little room to continue technical negotiations.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira on Thursday rejected Washington’s demands as “excessive and unreasonable.” He said U.S. negotiators had sought concessions that would undermine Brazil’s economic sovereignty in sensitive areas, including the country’s Pix instant payment system and environmental regulations.

Brazil’s manufacturing sector, particularly higher value-added industries, is expected to suffer the greatest impact from the 25% tariffs scheduled to take effect July 22. The measure will affect about 3,000 Brazilian products, representing nearly 18% of Brazil’s exports to the U.S. market, according to O Globo.

To limit the impact on everyday consumer goods in the United States, the Trump administration excluded products such as coffee, oranges and concentrated orange juice, beef and grains from the new tariffs.

With little indication that the White House will soften its position, Brazil has shifted its strategy away from direct bilateral negotiations and toward legal challenges before the World Trade Organization and the gradual use of its Reciprocity Law.

The government’s primary legal strategy will be to challenge the legality of the unilateral tariffs before the World Trade Organization.

Brazil has not ruled out using the Reciprocity Law, which was unanimously approved by Congress. The legislation authorizes Brazil to impose tariffs on the 76% of U.S. products that currently enter the country duty-free and even suspend intellectual property rights.

However, officials said implementation will be delayed while the government evaluates the economic impact of the U.S. measures.

“It is important to emphasize that we have the Reciprocity Law, unanimously approved by the National Congress, and the government will know how to implement it at the appropriate time,” Vice President Geraldo Alckmin said.

He said the law is not intended as retaliation but rather as a measure “that defends the national interest, the interests of Brazilians and the Brazilian economy.”

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticised a proposal by US President Donald Trump to impose charges on goods passing through the Strait of Hormuz, saying such a measure would amount to “piracy.”

Speaking at a public event in São Paulo state on Monday, Lula said “In the past, that would have been considered piracy.”

“The United States is an important country, and I believe it fought piracy for a long time. It cannot act like a pirate today” he added.

Lula’s comments followed Trump’s announcement that the United States would seek to impose a 20 percent tariff on goods transported through the Strait of Hormuz while reimposing a naval blockade on Iran.

According to Trump’s statement, the measure was presented as a response to Iran’s announcement that it intended to close the strategic waterway. He argued that the United States would ensure freedom of navigation through the strait and that commercial shipping benefiting from that protection should contribute to its cost.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “The Strait of Hormuz is open, and will remain open, with or without Iran. We will reimpose the blockade on Iran.”

The proposed tariff has drawn international attention because the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, carrying a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports. Any changes to shipping arrangements or transit costs could have broad implications for international trade and energy markets.

Based on the words of President Trump, America is well on the way to becoming a “global superpower in manufacturing” — indeed, as he declared in a Father’s Day social media post, we are already experiencing the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.” (Capitalization’s his.)

Here’s what the government’s own statistics tell us: Manufacturing investment has crashed during his watch, with construction spending in the manufacturing sector down 26.4% from Trump’s inauguration through May, to $174.8 billion. That’s the lowest figure since February 2023, when the economy was in the midst of a post-pandemic recovery.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email that “the last two jobs reports” showed manufacturing job growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a seasonally-adjusted decline of 2,000 manufacturing workers in May and a gain of 3,000 in June. But the June 2026 figure was 38,000 jobs, or about 0.3% below the level in June 2025, and 75,000 or about 0.6% below the level in January 2025, when Trump took office.

Desai said that “thanks to President Trump’s proven agenda of tariffs, deregulation, and tax cuts, American manufacturing will continue to rebound.”

There’s little mystery about what has come between Trump’s ambition and the real world. To a large extent it’s Trump’s economic program, particularly his tariff policies and, more recently, his war with Iran. Those have injected a level of uncertainty for corporate managements pondering whether to spend money on expansion that they haven’t had to confront in years.

The tariffs and the war have driven up manufacturers’ costs for raw materials and overseas shipping. The general economic atmosphere doesn’t help. U.S. gross domestic product growth came in at a 2.1% annualized rate in the first quarter of this year, but the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta expects it to have fallen to 1.3% in the second quarter ended June 30.

Meanwhile, the University of Michigan consumer confidence index reached 44.8 in May, its lowest level ever (though it improved to 49.5 in June). Wages have been rising modestly, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but those gains have been eaten up by higher prices, especially for gasoline and food.

To put things another way, the actual figures show the U.S. economy to be sputtering, and the “vibe economy” as measured by consumer confidence is doing even worse.

Now that Trump’s second term is about to reach its 18-month mark, let’s unpack the factors causing the discrepancy between his ambitions and claims, and the reality.

Trump declared economic victory just as his term was starting. On March 20, 2025, he proclaimed a “manufacturing renaissance” in the U.S. That was based on what he said were “trillions of dollars in new investments” he had “already secured in tech-based manufacturing.”

A White House statement said “the list of manufacturing wins is endless.” The provided list was a roster of announcements, not groundbreakings, much less completed ventures.

Business executives quite properly have taken these pledges with mounds of salt. “Announcements are what people say they’re going to do, but dollars spent is what’s actually happening,” Didi Caldwell, chief executive of a firm that helps companies find factory sites, told the Financial Times. “From where we’re standing, we are not seeing signs of a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S.”

Indeed, at least some of these announcements have had the flavor of performative efforts to satisfy Trump’s amour propre and extract government concessions.

For example, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook appeared with Trump at the White House in August to announce a $600-billion U.S. spending plan to take place over four years. That was a $100-billion increase over its previously-announced program.

More to the point, however, it incorporated spending with suppliers that Apple had been working with for years. Mentioned in the news announcement was a commitment to buy cover glass for iPhones from Corning. But Corning has been supplying that glass since the first iPhone appeared in 2007. In any case, the announcement appeared to secure a commitment from Trump to exempt Apple from tariffs imposed on imported chips.

Apple’s announcement Wednesday that it will spend $30 billion to buy chips from Broadcom was similarly ambiguous. The announcement didn’t provide details about the terms of the commitment or the timing of its expenditures. I asked Apple for details and whether the deal was related to a desire to remain in Trump’s favor, but didn’t hear back.

A similar phenomenon occurred during Trump’s first term; Trump had built much of his 2016 presidential campaign on a promise to increase manufacturing jobs in the United States. He blamed shrinkage in the manufacturing sector on trade agreements such as NAFTA and the policies of the Chinese, and took credit when an American manufacturer agreed to create or save jobs in the United States.

As I reported in 2019, many of those arrangements turned out to be exaggerated or bogus, or predated Trump’s claim. Some disappeared as soon as public attention turned elsewhere, or were outweighed by job cuts made elsewhere by the same companies.

Trump’s tariffs appear to have had a direct effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. Since Trump’s inauguration, the manufacturing sector has shed about 75,000 jobs, or 0.6%. After April 2, 2025, when he announced global “liberation day” tariffs supposedly as a response to years of unfair treatment of American exports, the decline picked up pace, with a shrinkage of 68,000 manufacturing jobs.

The Supreme Court invalidated those tariffs in February, but others are still in place, including tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and on goods from China. Nor has he ceased threatening partners with trade wars. As recently as Tuesday, he said he would cut off all trade with Spain because of that country’s disagreement with him over its defense spending and its criticism of his Iran war.

As it happens, Spain is one of the few countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus. That means that any cutoff, which trade experts think will be unlikely, would come at a cost to the U.S.

One might have hoped that Trump had learned a lesson from his first-term trade war with China. That conflict provoked a sharp contraction in the manufacturing economy, with the Institute for Supply Management’s purchasing managers index falling to 49.1 by mid-2019. (A reading below 50 signifies contraction.)

The ISM index began to recover toward the end of Trump’s term but fell again during the pandemic. Lately it has been falling again, to 53.3 in June from 54 in May.

The Iran war is another deadweight on domestic manufacturing. That’s partially the consequence of blockages of the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial thoroughfare not only for middle eastern oil, but also for such industrial inputs as fertilizer and aluminum. Cement, concrete, olive oil and spices are also among commodities produced in the region that use the strait as an outlet to reach the outside world.

Uncertainties in the region, tensions between the U.S. and China, and heightened concerns over the safety of shipping overall have driven up shipping costs between the far east and the U.S. The price of shipping a benchmark 40-foot container from China to the West Coast has nearly quadrupled to $6,687 now from about $1,700 just before the Iran war began, according to an index maintained by the cargo firm Freightos — even though shipping prices typically decline during this time of year.

There can be little doubt that the U.S. would benefit from an industrial policy — if it’s coherent. China supplanted America as the world’s leading exporter of manufactured goods in 2010, and the gap has only widened since then. China’s dominance may be hard to reverse, as it’s built on lower labor costs and transport infrastructure that enjoys focused government investment.

Tariffs could be a component of a new industrial policy, but Trump’s tariffs aren’t rationally geared to protecting domestic industries that need protection. They’re expressions of his whims, and as such they’re totally ineffective. If there are government investment policies targeting industries that need assistance, they’re not apparent to economists or industrialists.

Trump can talk as much as he likes about a golden age for U.S. manufacturing, but from his first term through this one, it’s nothing but talk. And talk, of course, is cheap.

WASHINGTON — The relationship between President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron started simply enough, with a handshake, nearly a decade ago.

But even then, there were signs of strain in their relationship — tensions that could be on full display during next week’s G7 summit in France.

Back in 2017, Trump was a brash businessman just elected to America’s most powerful office, and Macron was an upstart politician who had won his race in a landslide. At a NATO summit in Brussels, they clinched hands far longer than most people do when they meet for the first time. Neither seemed to want to be the first to break a grip so tight that it exposed white knuckles.

Nevertheless, a friendship was born. And early on, Macron seemed to be the one European leader with a knack for managing his mercurial, three-decades-older counterpart.

Macron invited the Republican president to join him for Bastille Day celebrations in July 2017, including an Eiffel Tower dinner date with their wives. Trump reciprocated by making Macron the guest of honor the following year at his first White House state dinner, the highest diplomatic honor the United States can extend to an ally.

But by the end of Trump’s first term, the bromance had faded. And in his second term, the leaders now openly trade barbs, disagreeing over tariffs, Ukraine and the Iran war. That dynamic will be scrutinized next week when Trump and the leaders of Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy and Japan join Macron in the French lakeside resort of Evian-les-Bains for the G7 summit.

Trump’s long-simmering frustrations with US allies could be on display

There could be awkward moments between Trump and Macron, as well as among Trump and the other G7 leaders he’s criticized for not joining him in Iran.

“But I also think European leaders are quite professionals when it comes to politics, and in some ways diplomacy at this point, and will maybe see it as an opportunity as well,” Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview.

Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, said the Trump-Macron relationship has been further complicated by the Iran war and Trump’s complaints “that Europeans weren’t helping, when they hadn’t been consulted, and their interests are very much affected by this.”

“I think that was a negative for Macron,” Volker said.

Trump joined Israel in a war against Iran over its nuclear program back in February without consulting other U.S. allies. He then complained publicly when European countries spurned his requests for their help.

Waning support for Ukraine in its war against Russia from the Trump administration “has really irritated the French,” Volker said. “They feel this is important and we’re not paying attention to it.” Macron invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to join the leaders’ discussions on Tuesday.

Macron is the G7 member who has dealt with Trump the longest

In Trump’s first term, Macron appeared confident that he could persuade and influence the U.S. leader, but the relationship increasingly has come to be defined by their disagreements.

Macron now says he is “careful” about Trump’s statements, suggesting he no longer takes them at face value. Their relationship remains cordial as each calls the other “my friend.” But the relationship has also experienced some ups and downs.

As president-elect, Trump attended the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in late 2024 at Macron’s invitation. After Trump began his second term in 2025, Macron was an early Oval Office visitor. The president wrote on social media that he was “delighted” to welcome Macron back to the White House and said the relationship with France has been “very special.”

But at one point during the meeting, the French president publicly corrected Trump after he wrongly suggested that Europe would recover the money it had provided to support Ukraine. With a smile, Macron touched Trump’s forearm and replied, “We provided real money.”

Macron also condemned as “brutal and unfounded” new tariffs that Trump slapped on steel, aluminum and a broader range of European imports in early 2025.

But there have also been some lighter moments mixed with the tensions.

A documentary aired last year on French television showed Macron telling Trump during a phone call that Zelenskyy had agreed to a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal. Trump replied, “You’re the greatest.”

Macron has often said he can reach Trump directly whenever he needs to — and proved his point during last year’s U.N. General Assembly session in New York. After police officers blocked the French leader from crossing a street because traffic had been halted for Trump’s motorcade, Macron whipped out his cellphone and dialed the U.S. president.

“How are you?” Macron said. “Guess what? I’m waiting in the street because everything is frozen for you!”

‘This is not a show,’ Macron has said about Trump’s NATO ambiguity

Macron has argued that Trump’s “America first” policies bolstered his case for a stronger European defense capability that would lessen reliance on the United States.

In April of this year, as Trump sent mixed signals about Washington’s commitment to NATO after the start of the war in Iran, Macron delivered some of his sharpest criticism of the U.S. president.

“There is too much talk, and it’s going in all directions,” Macron said. “We all need stability, calm and a return to peace. This is not a show.”

“You have to be serious, and when you want to be serious, you don’t say the opposite every day of what you said the day before,” he said.

Trump, while mimicking a French accent, recently has taken to reenacting a conversation he says he had with Macron over drug prices and tariffs. Trump also poked Macron by telling a private luncheon in April that his wife, Brigitte Macron, treats her husband badly. The comments were in a video the White House had posted on its YouTube channel before blocking access.

Macron didn’t see any humor in Trump’s comments. “The remarks I heard were neither elegant nor appropriate,” he said. “They do not deserve a response.”

Still, Macron has tried to accommodate Trump’s schedule to ensure his presence at the summit in Evian-les-Bains, knowing that he has a record of leaving such gatherings early.

Macron originally had set Sunday, which is Trump’s 80th birthday, as the opening day of the summit, but he pushed the start back a day because Trump is celebrating the occasion with a UFC show staged on the White House grounds.

Superville and Corbet write for the Associated Press. Corbet reported from Paris.