WASHINGTON — President Trump greeted Lee Jae Myung, the new president of South Korea, by asserting that a “Purge or Revolution” was taking place there and threatening to not do business with Seoul as he prepared to host the new leader at the White House later Monday.
Trump elaborated later Monday that he was referring to raids on churches and on a U.S. military base by the new South Korean government, which they “probably shouldn’t have done,” the president argued.
“I heard bad things,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday morning. “I don’t know if it’s true or not. I’ll be finding out.”
The warning shot previewed a potentially hostile confrontation later Monday as Lee, the liberal leader and longtime critic of Seoul’s conservative establishment, sits down with Trump to discuss Seoul and Washington’s recent trade agreement and continued defense cooperation. Lee leads a nation that has been in a state of political turmoil for the last several months after its former leader, the conservative Yoon Suk Yeol, briefly imposed martial law last December which eventually led to his stunning ouster from office.
Trump did not identify specific raids. But earlier this month, South Korean police conducted a raid on a church led by a conservative activist pastor whom authorities allege is connected to a pro-Yoon protest in January that turned violent, according to Yonhap news agency. A special prosecutor’s team that is investigating corruption allegations against Yoon’s wife, former first lady Kim Keon Hee, also raided the facilities of the Unification Church after allegations that one of its officials gave Kim luxury goods.
Meanwhile, Osan Air Base, which is jointly operated by the United States and South Korea, was also the target of a raid last month by investigators looking into how Yoon’s activation of martial law transpired, according to the Chosun Ilbo newspaper. South Korean officials have insisted the raid was in the areas controlled by Seoul.
“WHAT IS GOING ON IN SOUTH KOREA? Seems like a Purge or Revolution. We can’t have that and do business there,” Trump posted on social media Monday morning. “I am seeing the new President today at the White House. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!”
Yoon, who was elected to a five-year term in 2022, was considered more ideologically aligned with Trump and had even taken up golfing again after the U.S. president was reelected last November to try to forge a bond with him.
The liberal Lee, an outspoken critic of Seoul’s conservative establishment who had narrowly lost to Yoon in that 2022 election, led the South Korean parliament’s efforts to overturn Yoon’s martial law decree while impeaching him. The nation’s Constitutional Court formally dismissed Yoon in April.
Before Trump’s Truth Social post Monday morning, the first in-person meeting between Trump and Lee had been expected to help flesh out details of a July trade deal between the two countries that has Seoul investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. The agreement set tariffs on South Korean goods at 15% after Trump threatened rates as high as 25%.
Trump declared at the time that South Korea would be “completely OPEN TO TRADE” with the U.S. and accept goods such as cars and agricultural products. Automobiles are South Korea’s top export to the U.S.
Seoul has one of the largest trade surpluses among Washington’s NATO and Indo-Pacific allies, and countries where the U.S. holds a trade deficit has drawn particular ire from Trump, who wants to eliminate such trade imbalances.
Lee’s office said in announcing the visit that the two leaders plan to discuss cooperating on key manufacturing sectors such as semiconductors, batteries and shipbuilding. The latter has been a particular area of focus for the U.S. president.
On defense, one potential topic is the continued presence of U.S. troops in South Korea and concerns in Seoul that the U.S. will seek higher payments in return.
Ahead of his visit to Washington, Lee traveled to Tokyo for his first bilateral visit as president in a hugely symbolic trip for the two nations that hold longstanding historical wounds. The summit with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was interpreted by analysts as a way to show unity and potential leverage as Japan and South Korea face new challenges from the Trump administration.
Lee was the first South Korean president to choose Japan for the inaugural bilateral visit since the two nations normalized ties in 1965.
Elected in June, Lee was a former child laborer with an arm deformity who rose his way through South Korea’s political ranks to lead the liberal Democratic Party and win the presidency after multiple attempts.
Lee faced an assassination attempt in January 2024, when he was stabbed in the neck by a man saying he wanted Lee’s autograph and later told investigators that he intended to kill the politician.
Lee arrived in the U.S. on Sunday and will leave Tuesday. He headlined a dinner Sunday evening with roughly 200 local Korean-Americans in downtown Washington on Sunday night.
WASHINGTON — After styling himself for decades as a dealmaker, President Trump is showing some receipts in his second term of ceasefires and peace agreements brokered on his watch. But the president faces extraordinary challenges in his latest push to negotiate ends to the world’s two bloodiest conflicts.
Stakes could not be higher in Ukraine, where nearly a million Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in pursuit of Vladimir Putin’s war of conquest, according to independent analysts. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers add to the catastrophic casualty toll. Trump’s struggle to get both sides to a negotiating table, let alone to secure a ceasefire, has grown into a fixation for Trump, prompting rare rebukes of Putin from the U.S. president.
And in the Gaza Strip, an alliance that has withstood scathing international criticism over Israel’s conduct of its war against Hamas has begun to show strain. Trump still supports the fundamental mission of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to destroy the militant group and secure the release of Israeli hostages in its possession. But mounting evidence of mass starvation in Gaza has begun to fray the relationship, reportedly resulting in a shouting match in their most recent call.
Breakthroughs in the two conflicts have evaded Trump, despite his efforts to fashion himself into the “peacemaker-in-chief” and floating his own nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In Turnberry, Scotland, last month, Trump claimed that six wars had been stopped or thwarted under his watch since he returned to office in January. “I’m averaging about a war a month,” he said at the time.
He has, in fact, secured a string of tangible successes on the international stage, overseeing a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda; hosting a peace ceremony between Armenia and Azerbeijan; brokering a ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand, and imposing an end to a 12-day war between Israel and Iran after engaging U.S. forces directly in the conflict.
Olivier Nduhungirehe, Rwanda’s foreign minister, from left, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Democratic Republic of the Congo foreign minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner in the Oval Office of the White House on June 27. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda agreed to a U.S.-backed peace deal meant to end years of deadly conflict and promote development in Congo’s volatile eastern region.
“We’ve only been here for six months. The world was on fire. We took care of just about every fire — and we’re working on another one,” he said, “with Russia, Ukraine.”
Trump also takes credit for lowering tensions between Serbia and Kosovo, and for brokering a ceasefire between two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, a claim the latter supports but the former denies.
“Wars usually last five to 10 years,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, chair in defense and strategy at the Brookings Institution. “Trump is tactically clever, but no magician. If he actually gets three of these five conflicts to end, that’s an incredible track record.
“In each case, he may exaggerate his own role,” O’Hanlon said, but “that’s OK — I welcome the effort and contribution, even if others deserve credit, too.”
One-on-one with Putin
Well past his campaign promise of ending Russia’s war with Ukraine “within 24 hours” of taking office, Trump has tried pressuring both sides to come to the negotiating table, starting with the Ukrainians. “You don’t have the cards,” Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an infamous Oval Office meeting in February, chastising him to prepare to make painful concessions to end the war.
But in June, at a NATO summit in the Netherlands, Trump’s years-long geniality with Putin underwent a shift. He began criticizing Russia’s leader as responsible for the ongoing conflict, accusing Putin of throwing “meaningless … bull—” at him and his team.
“I’m not happy with Putin, I can tell you that much right now,” Trump said, approving new weapons for Ukraine, a remarkable policy shift long advocated by the Europeans.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and King of Malaysia Sultan Ibrahim walk during a welcoming ceremony at the Grand Kremlin Palace on Wednesday in Moscow. Malaysian King Sultan Ibrahim is on an official visit to Russia.
(Getty Images)
The Trump administration set Friday as a deadline for Putin to demonstrate his commitment to a ceasefire, or otherwise face a new round of crushing secondary sanctions — financial tools that would punish Russia’s trading partners for continuing business with Moscow.
Those plans were put on hold after Trump announced he would meet with Putin in Alaska next week, a high-stakes meeting that will exclude Zelensky.
“The highly anticipated meeting between myself, as President of the United States of America, and President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the Great State of Alaska. Further details to follow,” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Friday. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Meeting Putin one-on-one — the first meeting between a U.S. and Russian president in four years, and the first between Putin and any Western leader since he launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — in and of itself could be seen as a reward for a Russian leader seeking to regain international legitimacy, experts said.
In this June 28, 2019, file photo, President Trump, right, meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan.
(Susan Walsh/Associated Press)
Worse still, Putin, a former KGB officer, could approach the meeting as an opportunity to manipulate the American president.
“Putin has refused to abandon his ultimate objectives in Ukraine — he is determined to supplant the Zelensky government in Kyiv with a pro-Russian regime,” said Kyle Balzer, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “He wants ironclad guarantees that Ukraine will never gain admittance to NATO. So there is currently no agreement to be had with Russia, except agreeing to surrender to Putin’s demands. Neither Ukraine nor Europe are interested in doing so.
“Put simply, Putin likely believes that he can wear down the current administration,” Balzer added. “Threatening Russia with punitive acts like sanctions, and then pulling back when the time comes to do so, has only emboldened Putin to strive for ultimate victory in Ukraine.”
A European official told The Times that, while the U.S. government had pushed for Zelensky to join the initial meeting, a response from Kyiv — noting that any territorial concession to Russia in negotiations would have to be approved in a ballot referendum by the Ukrainian people — scuttled the initial plan.
The Trump administration is prepared to endorse the bulk of Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory, including the eastern region of Donbas and the Crimean peninsula, at the upcoming summit, Bloomberg reported. On Friday, Trump called the issue of territory “complicated.”
“We’re gonna get some back,” he said. “There will be some swapping of territories.”
Michael Williams, an international relations professor at Syracuse University, said that Trump has advocated for a ceasefire in Ukraine “at the expense of other strategic priorities such as stability in Europe and punishment of Russia through increased aid to Ukraine.”
Such an approach, Williams said, “would perhaps force the Kremlin to end the war, and further afield, would signal to other potential aggressors, such as China, that violations of international law will be met with a painful response.”
Gaza
At Friday’s peace ceremony, Trump told reporters he was considering a proposal to relocate Palestinian refugees to Somalia and its breakaway region, Somaliland, once Israel ends hostilities against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
“We are working on that right now,” Trump said.
It was just the latest instance of Trump floating the resettlement of Palestinians displaced during the two-year war there, which has destroyed more than 90% of the structures throughout the strip and essentially displaced its entire population of 2 million people. The Hamas-run Health Ministry reports that more than 60,000 civilians and militants have died in the conflict.
Hamas, recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union and others, has refused to concede the war, stating it would disarm only once a Palestinian state is established. The group continues to hold roughly 50 Israeli hostages, some dead and some alive, among 251 taken during its attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which also killed about 1,200 people.
Protesters gather in a demonstration organized by the families of the Israeli hostages taken captive in the Gaza Strip since October 2023 calling for action to secure their release outside the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv on Saturday.
(Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images)
Israel’s Cabinet voted this week to approve a plan to take over Gaza City in the north of the strip and, eventually, the rest of the territory, a deeply unpopular strategy in the Israeli military and among the Israeli public. Netanyahu on Friday rejected the notion that Israel planned to permanently occupy Gaza.
Despite applying private pressure on Netanyahu, Trump’s strategy has largely fallen in line with that of his predecessor, Joe Biden, whose team supported Israel’s right to defend itself while working toward a peace deal that, at its core, would exchange the remaining hostages for a cessation of hostilities.
The talks have stalled, one U.S. official said, primarily blaming Hamas over its demands.
“In Gaza, there is a fundamental structural imbalance of dealing with a terrorist organization that may be immune to traditional forms of pressure — military, economic or otherwise — and that may even have a warped, perverse set of priorities in which the suffering of its own people is viewed as a political asset because it tarnishes the reputation of the other party, Israel,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “So Trump really only has leverage over one party — his ally, Israel — which he has been reluctant to wield, reasonably so.”
In Ukraine, too, Trump holds leverage he has been unwilling, thus far, to bring to bear.
“There, Trump has leverage over both parties but appears reluctant to wield it on one of them — Russia,” Satloff said.
But Trump suggested Friday that threatened sanctions on India over its purchase of Russian oil, and his agreement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to secure greater security spending from European members, “had an impact” on Moscow’s negotiating position.
“I think my instinct really tells me that we have a shot at it,” Trump said. “I think we’re getting very close.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday placed a 25% tax on goods imported from Japan and South Korea, citing persistent trade imbalances with the two crucial U.S. allies in Asia.
Trump provided notice of the tariffs to begin Aug. 1 by posting letters on Truth Social that were addressed to the leaders of both countries. The letters warned both countries to not retaliate by increasing their own import taxes, or else the Trump administration would further increase tariffs.
“If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 25% that we charge,” Trump wrote in the letters to Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung.
The letters were not the final word from Trump on tariffs, so much as another episode in a global economic drama in which the U.S. president has placed himself at the center. His moves have raised fears that economic growth will slow to a muddle, if not make the U.S. and other nations more vulnerable to a recession. But Trump is confident that tariffs are necessary to bring back domestic manufacturing and fund the tax cuts he signed into law Friday.
The S&P 500 stock index was down nearly 1% in Monday afternoon trading, while the interest charged on the 10-year U.S. Treasury noted had increased to nearly 4.39%, a figure that could translate into elevated rates for mortgages and auto loans.
Trump has declared an economic emergency to unilaterally impose the taxes, suggesting they are remedies for past trade deficits even though many U.S. consumers have come to value autos, electronics and other goods from Japan and South Korea. But it’s unclear what he gains strategically against China — another stated reason for the tariffs — by challenging two crucial partners in Asia who could counter China’s economic heft.
“These tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your Country,” Trump wrote in both letters.
Because the new tariff rates go into effect in roughly three weeks, Trump is setting up a period of possibly tempestuous talks among the U.S. and its trade partners to reach new frameworks.
Trump initially sparked hysteria in the financial markets by announcing tariff rates on dozens of countries, including 24% on Japan and 25% on South Korea. In order to calm the markets, Trump unveiled a 90-day negotiating period during which goods from most countries were taxed at a baseline 10%.
The 90-day negotiating period technically ends before Wednesday, even as multiple administration officials and Trump himself suggested the three-week period before implementation is akin to overtime for additional talks.
Administration officials have said Trump is relying on tariff revenues to help offset the tax cuts he signed into law on Friday, a move that could shift a greater share of the federal tax burden onto the middle class and poor as importers would likely pass along much of the cost of the tariffs. Trump has warned major retailers such as Walmart to simply “eat” the higher costs, instead of increasing prices in ways that could intensify inflation.
Trump’s team promised 90 deals in 90 days, but his negotiations so far have produced only two trade frameworks.
His trade framework with Vietnam was clearly designed to box out China from routing its America-bound goods through that country, by doubling the 20% tariff charged on Vietnamese imports on anything traded transnationally.
The quotas in the United Kingdom framework would spare that nation from the higher tariff rates being charged on steel, aluminum and autos, still British goods would generally face a 10% tariff.
The United States ran a $69.4-billion trade imbalance in goods with Japan in 2024 and a $66-billion imbalance with South Korea, according to the Census Bureau.
According to Trump’s letters, autos would be tariffed separately at the standard 25% worldwide, while steel and aluminum imports would be taxed 50%. The broader 25% rates on Japan and South Korea would apply to goods not already covered by the specific sectoral tariffs.
This is not the first time that Trump has tangled with Japan and South Korea on trade — and the new tariffs suggest his past deals made during his first term failed to deliver on his administration’s own hype.
In 2018 during Trump’s first term, his administration celebrated a revamped trade agreement with South Korea as a major win. And in 2019, Trump signed a limited agreement with Japan on agricultural products and digital trade that at the time he called a “huge victory for America’s farmers, ranchers and growers.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump isn’t the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad.
Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.
His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict.
Even after Trump announced late Monday that a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump’s action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran.
Here’s a closer look at what the act does and doesn’t do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond:
Dividing war powers between Congress and the president
Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn’t already issued a declaration of war.
It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its “collective judgement” to send troops into “hostilities.” The War Powers Resolution calls for the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”
But when Congress enacted the law, “it didn’t install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,” said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,” Anderson said. And “the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it’s hard to say it’s in clear contradiction” to the War Powers Resolution.
Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”
In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term.
If Congress doesn’t authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president “terminate any use” of the armed forces. “That’s the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” Anderson said.
How past presidents have used it
Congress hasn’t declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Nixon’s veto.
Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn’t require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn’t an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.
Throughout his presidency, President Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn’t rise to the level of “hostilities” set forth in the War Powers Resolution.
What Congress is doing now
Trump’s actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn’t broken cleanly along party lines.
Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total” ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours.
Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come “as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.” He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday.
“There will be Republicans who will support it,” Kaine said. “Exactly how many, I don’t know.”
He added that, “this is as fluid a vote as I’ve been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.”
Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump’s actions on Monday and said he’s operating within his authority.
“There’s always a tension between Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s power as commander in chief,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.”
A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached.
Khanna was undeterred.
“In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization,” Khanna said. “We still need a vote.”
Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.
KANANASKIS, Canada — The Group of 7 summit began in Canada on Monday with world leaders scrambling to contain the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program, with President Trump reiterating his call for the two nations to start negotiating.
“They should talk, and they should talk immediately,” he told reporters.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said all G-7 leaders agree they “have to find a way to de-escalate the situation” in the Middle East because the Israel-Iran conflict risks inflaming the “tinderbox” of Gaza and hurting the global economy.
Starmer said he’d spoken to Trump about the issue, adding “the risk of the conflict escalating is obvious, I think, and the implications, not just for the region but globally, are really immense, so the focus has to be on de-escalation.”
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters Monday ahead of the summit beginning in the Canadian Rocky Mountains that Germany is planning to draw up a final communique proposal on the Israel-Iran conflict that will stress that “Iran must under no circumstances be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons-capable material.”
But as Trump met with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, he also stressed it was a mistake to remove Russia from the organization in 2014 and doing so had destabilized the world. He also suggested it would be a good idea to add China to the G-7.
The U.S. president also seemed to put a greater priority on his planned emphasis on addressing his grievances with other nations’ trade policies.
“Our primary focus will be trade,” Trump said of his talks with Carney.
This year’s G-7 summit is full of combustible tensions, and it’s unclear how the gathered world leaders can work together to resolve them. Trump already has hit several dozen nations with severe tariffs that risk a global economic slowdown. There is little progress on settling the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and now a new conflict between Israel and Iran has arisen.
Add to all of that the problems of climate change, immigration, drug trafficking, new technologies such as artificial intelligence and China’s continued manufacturing superiority and chokehold on key supply chains.
“We’re gathering at one of those turning points in history,” Carney said. “The world’s more divided and dangerous.”
But as the news media were escorted from the opening session, Carney could be heard as he turned to Trump and referenced how his remarks about the Middle East, Russia and China had already drawn attention to the summit.
“Mr. President, I think you’ve answered a lot of questions already,” Carney said.
Trump wants to focus on trade, though he may have to balance those issues with the broader need by the G-7 countries — which also include France, Italy and Japan — to project a united front to calm down a world increasingly engulfed in chaos.
Asked if he planned to announce any trade agreements at the G-7 as he left the White House on Sunday, Trump said: “We have our trade deals. All we have to do is send a letter, ‘This is what you’re going to have to pay.’ But I think we’ll have a few, few new trade deals.”
Also at stake might be the survival of the G-7 itself when the Trump administration has sent mixed signals about whether the president will attend the November Group of 20 summit in South Africa.
The German, U.K., Japanese and Italian governments have each signaled a belief that a friendly relationship with Trump this year can help to keep any public drama at a minimum, after the U.S. president in 2018 opposed a joint communique when the G-7 summit was last held in Canada.
Going into the summit, there was no plan for a joint statement this year, a sign that the Trump administration sees no need to build a shared consensus with fellow democracies if it views such a statement as contrary to its goals of new tariffs, more fossil fuel production and a Europe that is less dependent on the U.S. military.
“The Trump administration almost certainly believes that no deal is better than a bad deal,” said Caitlin Welsh, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank who was part of Trump’s team for the G-7 in Trump’s first term.
The White House has stayed decidedly mum about its goals for the G-7, which originated as a 1973 finance ministers’ meeting to address the oil crisis and evolved into a yearly summit meant to foster personal relationships among world leaders and address global problems.
The G-7 briefly expanded to the G-8 with Russia as a member, only for Russia to be expelled in 2014 after annexing Crimea and taking a foothold in Ukraine that preceded its aggressive 2022 invasion of that nation.
Trump will have a series of bilateral meetings during the summit with other world leaders while in Canada. Beyond Carney, he’s also expected to have bilateral meetings or pull-aside conversations with Starmer, Merz, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Ahead of his meeting with Trump, Zelensky said one of the topics for discussion will be a “defense package” that Ukraine is ready to purchase from the U.S. as part of the ongoing war with Russia.
The U.S. president has imposed 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos, all of which have disproportionately hit Japan. Trump is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period set by him would expire.
The United Kingdom reached a trade framework with the U.S. that included quotas to protect against some tariffs, but the 10% baseline would remain as the Trump administration is banking on tariff revenues to help cover the cost of its income tax cuts.
Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, through some products are still protected under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Trump’s first term.
Merz said of trade talks that “there will be no solution at this summit, but we could perhaps come closer to a solution in small steps.”
The Trump administration has insisted that its broad tariffs will produce trade agreements that box out China, though it’s unclear how antagonizing trade partners would make them want to strengthen their reliance on the U.S. Carney has been outspoken in saying Canada can no longer look to the U.S. as an enduring friend.
That might leave Trump with the awkward task of wanting to keep his tariffs in place while also trying to convince other countries that they’re better off siding with the U.S. than China.
Boak, Gillies and Lawless write for the Associated Press. Boak reported from Calgary, Canada. AP writer Kirsten Grieshaber contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia “fight for a while” before pulling them apart and pursuing peace.
In an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump likened the war in Ukraine — which Russia invaded in early 2022 — to a fight between two young children who hated each other.
“Sometimes you’re better off letting them a fight for a while and then pulling them apart,” Trump said. He added that he had relayed that analogy to Russian President Vladimir Putin in their phone conversation on Wednesday.
Asked about Trump’s comments as the two leaders sat next to each other, Merz stressed that both he and Trump agreed “on this war and how terrible this war is going on,” pointing to the U.S. president as the “key person in the world” who would be able to stop the bloodshed.
But Merz also emphasized that Germany “was on the side of Ukraine” and that Kyiv was only attacking military targets, not Russian civilians.
“We are trying to get them stronger,” Merz said of Ukraine.
Thursday’s meeting marked the first time that the two leaders sat down in person. After exchanging pleasantries — Merz gave Trump a gold-framed birth certificate of the U.S. president’s grandfather Friedrich Trump, who emigrated from Germany — the two leaders were to discuss issues such as Ukraine, trade and NATO spending.
Trump and Merz have spoken several times by phone, either bilaterally or with other European leaders, since Merz took office on May 6. German officials say the two leaders have started to build a “decent” relationship, with Merz wanting to avoid the antagonism that defined Trump’s relationship with one of his predecessors, Angela Merkel, in the Republican president’s first term.
The 69-year-old Merz — who came to office with an extensive business background — is a conservative former rival of Merkel’s who took over her party after she retired from politics.
A White House official said topics that Trump is likely to raise with Merz include Germany’s defense spending, trade, Ukraine and what the official called “democratic backsliding,” saying the administration’s view is that shared values such as freedom of speech have deteriorated in Germany and the country should reverse course. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to preview the discussions.
But Merz told reporters Thursday morning that if Trump wanted to talk German domestic politics, he was ready to do that but he also stressed Germany holds back when it comes to American domestic politics.
Merz has thrown himself into diplomacy on Ukraine, traveling to Kyiv with fellow European leaders days after taking office and receiving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Berlin last week. He has thanked Trump for his support for an unconditional ceasefire while rejecting the idea of “dictated peace” or the “subjugation” of Ukraine and advocating for more sanctions against Russia.
In their first phone call since Merz became chancellor, Trump said he would support the efforts of Germany and other European countries to achieve peace, according to a readout from the German government. Merz also said last month that “it is of paramount importance that the political West not let itself be divided, so I will continue to make every effort to produce the greatest possible unity between the European and American partners.”
Under Merz’s immediate predecessor, Olaf Scholz, Germany became the second-biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Merz has vowed to keep up the support and last week pledged to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any range limits.
In his remarks on Thursday, Trump still left the threat of sanctions on the table. He said sanctions could be imposed for both Ukraine and Russia.
“When I see the moment where it’s not going to stop … we’ll be very, very tough,” Trump said.
At home, Merz’s government is intensifying a drive that Scholz started to bolster the German military after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In Trump’s first term, Berlin was a target of his ire for failing to meet the current NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and Trump is now demanding at least 5% from allies.
The White House official said the upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands later this month is a “good opportunity” for Germany to commit to meeting that 5% mark.
Scholz set up a 100-billion euro ($115 billion) special fund to modernize Germany’s armed forces — called the Bundeswehr — which had suffered from years of neglect. Germany has met the 2% target thanks to the fund, but it will be used up in 2027.
Merz has said that “the government will in the future provide all the financing the Bundeswehr needs to become the strongest conventional army in Europe.” He has endorsed a plan for all allies to aim to spend 3.5% of GDP on their defense budgets by 2032, plus an extra 1.5% on potentially defense-related things like infrastructure.
Another top priority for Merz is to get Germany’s economy, Europe’s biggest, moving again after it shrank the past two years. He wants to make it a “locomotive of growth,” but Trump’s tariff threats are a potential obstacle for a country whose exports have been a key strength. At present, the economy is forecast to stagnate in 2025.
Germany exported $160 billion worth of goods to the U.S. last year, according to the Census Bureau. That was about $85 billion more than what the U.S. sent to Germany, a trade deficit that Trump wants to erase.
“Germany is one of the very big investors in America,” Merz told reporters Thursday morning. “Only a few countries invest more than Germany in the USA. We are in third place in terms of foreign direct investment.”
The U.S. president has specifically gone after the German auto sector, which includes major brands such as Audi, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Porsche and Volkswagen. Americans bought $36 billion worth of cars, trucks and auto parts from Germany last year, while the Germans purchased $10.2 billion worth of vehicles and parts from the U.S.
Trump’s 25% tariff on autos and parts is specifically designed to increase the cost of German-made automobiles in hopes of causing them to move their factories to the U.S., even though many of the companies already have plants in the U.S. with Volkswagen in Tennessee, BMW in South Carolina and Mercedes-Benz in Alabama and South Carolina.
There’s only so much Merz can achieve on his view that tariffs “benefit no one and damage everyone” while in Washington, as trade negotiations are a matter for the European Union’s executive commission. Trump recently delayed a planned 50% tariff on goods coming from the European Union, which would have otherwise gone into effect this month.
One source of strain in recent months is a speech Vice President JD Vance gave in Munich shortly before Germany’s election in February, in which he lectured European leaders about the state of democracy on the continent and said there is no place for “firewalls.”
That term is frequently used to describe mainstream German parties’ refusal to work with the far-right Alternative for Germany, which finished second in the election and is now the biggest opposition party.
Merz criticized the comments. He told ARD television last month that it isn’t the place of a U.S. vice president “to say something like that to us in Germany; I wouldn’t do it in America, either.”
Kim, Grieshaber and Moulson write for the Associated Press. Moulson reported from Berlin. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.
