August 21, 2026 – Short News

"You Can't Make a Good Deal With a Bad Person" - Canadian Premier Tears Into Trump in the Middle of Tariff Negotiations

While Canada is negotiating a trade deal with Washington aimed at preventing threatened U.S. tariffs of 50 percent, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew is going straight after Donald Trump. Trump is "unpredictable," "irresponsible," and "untrustworthy," Kinew said Thursday. You cannot make a good deal with a bad person, he said, because no one can guarantee that Trump will not simply tear it up again shortly afterward. At precisely this moment, however, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is pushing the provinces to make a concession Washington has been demanding for months: American alcohol should be allowed back into government-run liquor stores. Eight of Canada's ten provinces had restricted or completely removed U.S. alcohol from their shelves in response to Trump's tariffs and his repeated suggestion that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state.

Federal Minister Dominic LeBlanc said after new talks with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in Washington that the two sides were "very close" to a deal. Trump is already calling the still-unreleased outcome "very fair." Tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods have initially been suspended until 12:01 a.m. Saturday. Despite his attacks on Trump, Kinew does not want to break Canada's united front and could agree to allow American alcohol back onto store shelves. His recommendation to Canadians is still unmistakable: If American whiskey and wine return to the shelves, Canadians should leave them there and buy domestic products instead. That is particularly sensitive for Ontario.

Before the sales ban, Ontario's government-owned liquor retailer LCBO bought nearly one billion Canadian dollars worth of U.S. products every year. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has not yet commented on the possible deal. Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, meanwhile, have publicly backed Carney's negotiating approach. Newfoundland Premier Tony Wakeham even claims that all provincial premiers have agreed in principle to allow American alcohol back in. Kinew describes Carney's pressure differently. The prime minister was not exactly begging the provinces, he said, but: "What's right before begging?" At the same time, Kinew believes further concessions right now would be a mistake. Trump is politically weak, the United States is weaker internationally than it was a year ago, and the president will be hit hard in the midterm elections, he argues. The rising cost of living is the most important issue for Americans, while Trump has lost touch with it. "We have the better position," Kinew says. "They've got their backs against the wall. They're coming to us now and they want a deal." He also points to what has become a familiar description of Trump's tariff policy: maximum threats first, then retreat once the economic pressure starts to build. Kinew would rather keep fighting than accommodate a president he expects will issue the next threat anyway. Quebec is also holding back. Premier Christine Fréchette said Carney had answered many questions, but there would be no approval until the economic consequences had been reviewed. Quebec could allow American alcohol back in, she said, but Quebec would make that decision itself.

Canada is therefore negotiating a deal with a president whom one of its own provincial premiers publicly says cannot be trusted at all. And that same premier is now supposed to help satisfy Trump with yet another concession.

Two Hours of Sleep for Russian Combat Drones - "Alabuga" Students Report Working Until Four in the Morning

Students at Russia's "Alabuga Polytech" are being used in the production of Iranian-designed Shahed combat drones and are now reporting workdays stretching deep into the night, low wages, and promises that have little to do with what they were actually paid. The day could begin at 7:50 a.m. Until 4 p.m., there was the so-called WorldSkills instruction, where the young people learned soldering and other skills for later production work. Then they went straight to work. One former student says they frequently worked until four in the morning. Supervisors allegedly dumped their own tasks on the students. According to him, that sometimes left him with just two hours of sleep a day. He eventually dropped out because it had become impossible to combine studying and work.

Read also our investigation: Russia’s War Children – How the Kremlin Is Systematically Recruiting Students for War

Research Shows: How Russia’s Universities Are Recruiting Students for the War

The gap between the advertising and reality becomes especially obvious when it comes to money. In a major advertising campaign in March, "Alabuga" had promised second-year students earnings of 150,000 rubles (100 rubles = around 1.015 euros), while third-year students were supposedly going to make as much as 350,000 rubles. For first-year students, reality looked completely different. According to one former student, their minimum pay was just 3,000 rubles. After dormitory fees were deducted, only around 1,500 rubles remained. At the same time, the college had built a system that pitted students against one another. Only around five percent received the highest bonus, another small group received somewhat less, while the majority had to make do with low pay. Former employees say this competition was deliberately encouraged. There were also reports of severe bullying among students. Sources say one young man hanged himself after he could no longer endure the harassment.

Former students also describe the director's behavior toward students as "abnormal." He allegedly invited some students to his home, sometimes to stay overnight. The "Alabuga" special economic zone and its college are under Western sanctions. There had already been reports of extremely harsh conditions and suicides among young people. Even so, the search for new workers continued to expand. In August 2025, it became known that Russia had stepped up recruitment of young South African women to work in the special economic zone in Tatarstan, also producing Shahed drones. This spring, "Alabuga" followed with a large-scale advertising campaign aimed at older school students and college students across Russia. They were sold an education with the promise of high earnings. Former students now describe a very different daily life: classes during the day, drone production late into the night, and sometimes two hours of sleep.

To be continued ...

The Bond Market Is Getting Nervous, and Suddenly the Trump Administration Is Reacting

The bond market is putting pressure on Donald Trump again. After yields on U.S. Treasury bonds climbed throughout the summer, the Treasury Department has now announced that it will more than double the amount of its own government debt it buys back. The move initially pushed long-term yields down somewhat, but it has not solved the problem. The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries was recently above 4.70 percent, its highest level in more than a year.

Before the Iran war began at the end of February, it was still 3.97 percent. The move is even more striking for 30-year Treasuries, where the yield is now back above five percent - a level last seen in 2007 before the financial crisis. Similar moves are taking place in Japan and Germany. The reason is not just the war with Iran and the resulting rise in oil prices. Investors are looking at growing government debt, high spending, and inflation risks and demanding more money in return. Eventually that hits everyone, because when the government has to pay higher interest rates, mortgages and business loans also become more expensive. That is especially tricky right now because a significant part of U.S. growth depends on multibillion-dollar investments in artificial intelligence data centers. Those companies also have to borrow ever-larger sums and are competing directly with the government in the capital markets for investors.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is therefore trying to ease the pressure through the buybacks. Analysts at Evercore ISI, however, warn that this changes virtually nothing about the underlying problems: The government continues to run large deficits while the major technology companies are simultaneously taking on enormous amounts of debt to finance their data centers. If the buybacks have little effect, the move could even backfire. High yields also hit the stock market because safe government bonds become more attractive to investors, while stocks, gold, and Bitcoin can come under pressure.

It gets even more uncomfortable for the administration because every additional percentage point in interest also makes financing the already enormous national debt more expensive. Trump knows how dangerous this market can become. Last year, he acknowledged that turmoil in the bond market may have been one reason planned tariffs were delayed because investors there had become "a little nervous." The Federal Reserve cannot simply cut this problem away either. Investors themselves determine 10-year and 30-year yields, and lately they have been demanding more and more compensation for the risks of U.S. fiscal policy. Three Fed members even wanted to raise interest rates in July. The administration can buy back bonds and buy itself some time. It cannot buy trust that way.

Montana Wants to Kill 250 Wolves - Even Though Its Own Data Shows How Little That Does to Prevent Livestock Losses

Montana wants to massively expand wolf hunting and trapping again. The proposal calls for killing 250 animals statewide. On top of that, up to 15 additional wolves could be killed on each individual private property if threats to livestock, people, or pets are claimed there. The proposal apparently contains no limit on the number of such properties. Agencies such as Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the U.S. Wildlife Services agency would also be allowed to kill wolves to protect property or people. That means the actual number of wolves killed could end up far above the officially stated 250.

What is striking is that Montana's own research raises doubts about whether broad hunting even solves the problem being used to justify it. A study by the state's wildlife agency covering the years 2005 through 2015 found that targeted action after confirmed livestock attacks could reduce further losses. General hunting and trapping, however, did not reliably do that. Even where higher wolf killing was associated with fewer livestock attacks, researchers calculated just 5.7 fewer incidents per year across the entire state, about eight percent of the annual average at the time. The problem becomes even clearer when you look at where the wolves are killed. Eighty-three percent of documented attacks on livestock occurred on private land, but only 41 percent of the wolves killed by hunters were taken there. So in many places, wolves are being killed that had nothing to do with a specific attack at all. The study's authors accordingly concluded that killing small numbers of wolves through hunting or partially removing a pack often does little to prevent repeated attacks in known conflict areas.

Even so, hunting groups, outfitters, and the livestock industry wield considerable political influence over Montana's wolf policy. Their economic importance, however, is far smaller than that influence would suggest. Hunting, shooting sports, and trapping generated around $118.4 million in value added in 2024, according to data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, just around 0.15 percent of Montana's economy. Guides and outfitters accounted for around $162.5 million, or 0.21 percent. A University of Montana study from this year also shows that fishing generates more revenue for that industry than wildlife watching, with hunting coming only after that. The livestock industry itself also makes up only a small share of the state's overall economy. Crop and animal production combined generated around $1.43 billion in 2024, about 1.8 percent of the state's economy. When it comes to livestock grazing on public land, the numbers become even smaller. At the same time, taxpayers help pay for part of this system.

Against that stands a population that by no means overwhelmingly wants wolves gone. In a joint 2023 survey by the University of Montana and the state's wildlife agency, 74 percent of residents said they were tolerant or very tolerant of wolves on the landscape. Even support for wolf hunting stood at 58 percent, but that was sharply down from 71 percent in 2012. Support for trapping is even lower. The question, then, is no longer whether Montana is allowed to respond to actual attacks on livestock. Of course it is. The question is why wolves should be killed across the entire state when the attacks are geographically limited and Montana's own research shows that targeted intervention can be more effective there. Then there is the ecological importance of the animals. Wolves often prey on weakened animals, influence elk populations and movement, and under certain conditions may even slow or delay the spread of chronic wasting disease. Killing a wolf therefore does not simply remove a competitor to the livestock industry from the landscape. Montana already has the ability to intervene selectively after confirmed attacks. Even so, the state once again wants broad hunting and trapping. The scientific numbers provide remarkably little justification for it.

$40 Trillion in Debt: America Now Needs Just Five Months for the Next Trillion

The United States crossed a line on Wednesday that would have seemed almost unimaginable just a few years ago: The national debt now stands at more than $40 trillion. We have already reported on this several times over the past few months and published investigations and documents. It was $39 trillion in March and $38 trillion last October. Twice in a row, Washington needed just five months to add another trillion dollars in debt. The money has to cover a growing defense budget, social programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and now enormous interest payments on the existing debt. On top of that comes Trump's nearly six-month-old war with Iran, while his administration simultaneously promises to make gas, groceries, and other living costs cheaper for Americans.

The White House says it is fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending and wants stronger economic growth to improve the ratio between debt and economic output. But so far, the math is moving in the opposite direction. High government debt and rising yields on U.S. Treasuries are making mortgages and car loans more expensive, businesses have to pay more for new money and have less room for investment and wages. The government's interest costs are also continuing to rise and are eating up money that is then unavailable elsewhere.

The problem did not begin under a single president. During the COVID pandemic, both Trump in his first term and Joe Biden borrowed enormous sums to support the economy and the public. More spending followed afterward, including Trump's Republican tax and spending law last year. Even bipartisan budget experts are now warning that the trajectory is no longer sustainable. Margaret Spellings of the Bipartisan Policy Center says the debt is already raising the cost of living and crowding out other government spending and private investment. A recession, a major war, or economic damage caused by artificial intelligence could turn the problem into a severe crisis very quickly. Congress does not have much time left anyway.

The statutory debt limit stands at $41.1 trillion, and according to calculations by the Bipartisan Policy Center, it is likely to be reached sometime between late winter and summer 2027. Then Washington will once again begin fighting over whether to raise or suspend the limit. According to a recent OECD analysis, the fiscal position of the United States is now worse than that of other developed countries. So $40 trillion is not just a big number on a government website. America now needs five months to add another trillion dollars in debt, and every additional month makes the money used to pay the country's old bills more expensive.

U.S. Deports Latin Americans to Liberia - First Flight With 20 People Lands in Monrovia

The United States has begun deporting people from Latin America to Liberia even though they have no connection to the West African country as their place of origin. The first deportation flight landed in the capital, Monrovia, on August 20. There were 20 people on board, including citizens of Cuba, Venezuela, and Colombia, according to the Liberian government. Liberia has agreed with Washington to take in up to 1,200 people over the next twelve months who are deported from the United States and who neither are Liberian citizens nor necessarily have ever lived there. The agreement covers people from African countries and from the Western Hemisphere.

The U.S. State Department had previously not publicly disclosed the nationalities of the people who would be sent on flights to Liberia. It is now becoming clear that a large share apparently comes from Latin America. The Liberian government says the deportees will be allowed to leave the country whenever they want. They can also apply for asylum there. The International Organization for Migration and the United Nations refugee agency are expected to provide assistance. Liberia also rejects the claim that Washington is paying it to take in the deportees. The program, however, is not operating without U.S. money. The United States has provided Liberia with $5 million this year for migration management measures. According to the government in Monrovia, this is not a payment for each deportee accepted, but support for the program and for strengthening Liberia's migration system.

Liberia is only one part of what has now become a much broader U.S. deportation policy. Washington has reached similar agreements with the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana, and Sierra Leone. That means people removed from the United States can be sent to countries whose citizenship they do not hold at all. For the Trump administration, this opens up additional destinations for deportations when direct removal to a person's country of origin is difficult or politically impossible. For those affected, however, it means that deportation from the United States no longer necessarily ends where their previous life began. On the first flight to Liberia were people from Latin America. Their new destination was on the other side of the Atlantic.