Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Thursday, speaking from the heart of the European Union, that his country and the EU are “stronger together” and that deeper cooperation between two regions with shared values will allow them to become a “beacon for other democracies” at a time when the international order is wobbling.

“We are not fair-weather allies. We do not pursue zero-sum deals. Our commitment to the rule of law, and our unyielding defense of human dignity, individual freedom, and democracy share the same deep roots, the same unwavering dedication,“ he said in an address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. ”Canada and Europe are each strong. Europe and Canada are stronger together.”

Although he was never named explicitly, U.S. President Donald Trump—and the tariff threats he voiced this Wednesday over a closer Ottawa-Brussels relationship—hung over the entire hemicycle. “Today, our societies are being shaken by new storms: the upheaval caused by climate change, the erosion of democratic norms, the weaponisation of trade,” said Carney, alluding to the tariff war started by Trump.

A day after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used the same rostrum to propose making Canada the EU’s “first associate member,” Carney framed the alliance as not about self-sufficiency, but about collective resilience. “We do not seek power to dominate others. On the contrary, we are pursuing resilience so that no one can control our open markets, impair our sovereignty, threaten our territorial integrity, or undermine our freedoms, our democracies, our rule of law.”

Carney’s presence this week at the European Parliament plenary is another sign of the push for closer ties between the bloc and Canada, reinforced since the abrupt return of Trump to the White House upended the world order. There have been multiple gestures and nods toward a country that is also a NATO member and, like many European allies, under Washington’s scrutiny for its allegedly low defense spending.

Transatlantic sympathies intensified especially after Carney’s now-famous Davos Forum speech earlier this year, when, amid tensions over Trump’s expansionist appetite for Greenland, the Canadian prime minister spoke of the need for “middle powers” — a term that does not convince everyone in a European bloc of some 450 million inhabitants — to band together to present a united front against abusive powers.

It was in that context that Von der Leyen, in the address marking the start — and the pivot — of the political year, announced this Wednesday her intention to “open the door to Canada” so it could become the EU’s first “associate member.”

Although it is far from clear what that would mean, even to Brussels and to other European capitals —simply put, that status does not exist in the treaties— the proposal risks becoming a new fracture that would serve neither the EU nor Canada, and could complicate relations with a volatile United States under Trump.

Although Von der Leyen made sure, just before proposing the idea to Carney, to say that closer ties between the EU and Canada “are not an alliance against anyone,” in Washington the interpretation was precisely the opposite: hours after the European Commission president’s speech, the U.S. president again launched his favorite threat, vowing to impose “very serious tariffs” on the EU if that rapprochement with its northern neighbor went ahead, a neighbor with whom he is reengaging in a tariff showdown.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

For the past 96 days, a huge tarp has hung over the facade of the Kennedy Center, a fitting symbol of Donald Trump’s assault on Washington’s cultural institutions.

Those attacks intensified on Wednesday with the announcement that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is preparing to place a series of signs at the entrance to the National Museum of American History (NMAH) warning visitors about the “personal viewpoints” of those who curate its exhibitions. The White House accuses the museum, which is part of the Smithsonian network, of having “explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage” U.S. citizens.

Once installed, the signs, priced at $7,000 apiece, will join the tarp at the Kennedy Center as symbols of Trump’s determination to turn culture into a vehicle for advancing his MAGA agenda, burnishing his legacy and feeding his ego.

The tarp is a relic of the battle over Trump’s move to add his name to the Kennedy Center. A board of Trump loyalists had approved the name change, but in June, a judge ordered that the giant letters be removed. Dozens gathered to watch in person while tens of thousands followed online, expecting to see the white facade revealed once more. But the tarp never came down.

On Tuesday, the board voted, during a meeting that witnesses said ended with Trump shouting, to proceed with the closure of the institution that the president first announced in February. At the time, he argued that the center required a complete reconstruction because it was “tired, broken, and dilapidated.” Now, after the White House released a video apparently showing part of the grand foyer ceiling collapsing, Trump is threatening to withhold approval for the $257 million renovation unless the institution once again displays his name alongside that of John F. Kennedy, the president in whose honor the center opened in 1971.

On Wednesday, with the Kennedy Center closed since the previous afternoon, a new symbol had been added to the growing list of evidence of Trump’s cultural crusade: barriers workers erected around the institution to block access to the complex on the banks of the Potomac.

The latest chapter in the saga comes less than 50 days before the midterm elections. Polls suggest voters would rather see Trump focused on issues such as inflation and gasoline prices than on the skirmishes of his culture war.

‘Ideological cleansing’

It also comes just a week after Lonnie Bunch III, president of the Smithsonian Institution, announced his resignation. He cited personal reasons, but his departure followed a year and a half of pressure from the Trump administration on the Smithsonian network of 21 national museums and a zoo. The White House set its sights on the institution in March last year with an executive order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, which called for what critics described as an “ideological cleansing” of the Smithsonian.

Days after Bunch’s departure, Trump, who had already successfully pushed the National Portrait Gallery to alter how it presented him, ordered the Smithsonian to replace Infinity (1967), José de Rivera’s abstract sculpture outside the National Museum of American History, with a 10-meter-tall statue of George Washington.

In an unprecedented blurring of the roles of president and museum curator, Trump also demanded in a social media post that the institution mount an exhibition devoted to the first U.S. president and keep it on display for “five years.”

Beyond its artistic value, Infinity is a symbol of Washington’s modernization. It was the first work of modern sculpture to break into the then overwhelmingly neoclassical landscape of the National Mall, an aesthetic Trump has repeatedly sought to revive.

Nor is it the only piece of public art in the capital to make political headlines in recent days. The order to dismantle and remove Joel Shapiro’s Blue (2019) from the plaza outside the Kennedy Center earlier this month provided yet another example of the president’s hostility toward modern and contemporary art.

The warnings that Burgum is preparing to place at the entrance to the NMAH stem from a 160-page report, complete with 500 footnotes, released on July 4, the nation’s 250th birthday. Its anonymous authors accused the museum of focusing too heavily on the Founding Fathers’ contradictions, slavery and the genocide of Native Americans. They also faulted it for presenting an unflattering account of Christianity’s role in the nation’s founding and for engaging in activism “against white people” and in favor of transgender people and “illegal” immigrants.

In a phone interview, M. J. Rymsza-Pawlowska, a public historian at American University in Washington, described the White House report as “ridiculous and absurd” and Trump’s attacks on cultural institutions as “classic authoritarian tactics.” “In the Smithsonian’s case, they also show ignorance about how it functions,” she added.

“NMAH exhibitions host an immense range of ideological viewpoints,” the expert said. “And during their development they undergo multiple peer reviews and consultations with communities and stakeholders. They are never at the whim of curators, who, moreover, are historians of the highest caliber who leave positions at prestigious universities to serve the public.”

Rymsza-Pawlowska also rejected the need for an exhibition about Washington. “There is already a museum entirely dedicated to him, Mount Vernon, a twenty-minute drive away,” she noted.

She also trusts that NMAH visitors will understand how much of Trump’s attacks are “political pantomime.” For regulars of the Kennedy Center — an institution with which many of the city’s music lovers have almost emotional ties — it is already too late.

Shortly after returning to the White House, Trump moved to put the center at the service of MAGA ideals. He dismissed its board, installed himself as chairman and replaced members with loyalists with no experience in cultural management or philanthropy. He then added his own name to the center’s. And when boos during visits by Trump and members of his administration, together with artist boycotts, subscriber cancellations and falling ticket sales, compounded the turmoil, he concluded that the institution should be shut down for a sweeping renovation, one he now says depends on the courts ruling in his favor.

Toni Codinas, one of such patron, says that over these 18 months he has felt, in order, “incredulity,” “anger” and “sadness.” Incredulity “at how easily he took control of the center” with “brazen disregard for norms and a politics of faits accomplis.” Anger when he turned it “into a MAGA party venue and an example of his administration’s rampant corruption, using the opera to screen Melania’s documentary or to throw a FIFA party [for the World Cup draw].”

The sadness, says Codinas, a board member of the Washington Bach Consort, stems from seeing how Trump “has pummeled the remnants” of the Kennedy Center, whose facade remains shrouded, 96 days later, by a giant tarp that stands as a reminder of Trump’s attacks on the capital’s cultural institution.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Kevin Warsh has been chair of the Federal Reserve for just four months, but this Wednesday will be remembered as the day he showed that he and his fellow governors, not outside forces, are the ones truly steering U.S. monetary policy. The Fed has done exactly what U.S. President Donald Trump did not want it to do under any circumstances: raise interest rates just six weeks before the midterm elections, in which Republicans risk losing control of Congress.

With this move, Warsh, a conservative billionaire appointed by Trump, has shown that he is serious about his commitment to fighting inflation, even if it means harming the electoral interests of the man who chose him in the belief that he would comply with his desire to make the United States the country with the lowest interest rates in the world. That has not been the case.

The increase is modest, at 25 basis points. The federal funds rate now stands in a range of 3.75% to 4%. But it is a powerful signal: it is the first rate hike in more than three years. The last came in July 2023. With this decision, Warsh’s Fed is underscoring its determination to bring inflation under control after more than five years in which prices have failed to move anywhere near the central bank’s 2% target.

The decision was also unanimous, ending a year marked by dissenting votes among members of the Board of Governors. That unanimity lends additional weight to the move and strengthens the Fed’s position against the criticism it is almost certain to face. One of the loudest critics is likely to be Trump. On Tuesday, he attacked the Supreme Court, particularly the three conservative justices he appointed during his first term, for ruling against his attempt to alter mail-in voting rules just weeks before the November 3 election. The three justices defied him, and now Jerome Powell’s successor, another Trump appointee, has done the same. Powell, too, eventually became a frequent target of Trump’s attacks.

Another significant takeaway is that Fed officials do not expect this to be the last increase. All but two members of the Board of Governors believe interest rates will need to rise again before the end of the year. Four policymakers anticipate two additional increases, according to the Fed’s latest projections. Warsh, who is reluctant to offer markets guidance about future decisions, does not participate in that forecasting exercise.

The Fed justified its move in a statement arguing that economic activity continues to expand at a solid pace despite heightened uncertainty, partly driven by geopolitical developments. “Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little. Inflation remains elevated. Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2% goal. The Committee will deliver price stability,” the statement said.

The rate hike came as no surprise to economists or to financial markets. Warsh had already signaled such a move at the Jackson Hole symposium in August. At the time, he said: “It’s the Fed’s job to make sure that inflation expectations do not get unanchored. […] We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do. That’s our job.”

A few days later, inflation data appeared to vindicate those arguing that the U.S. economy needed some cooling. Employment figures remain strong, but consumer prices in August held stubbornly at 3.4%, still a long way from the Fed’s 2% objective.

Trump’s threats

In recent days, Trump has escalated his attacks on the Fed, whose independence from the executive branch has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The president warned that unless interest rates were cut sharply, he would move to halt a significant portion of U.S. trade.

“LOWER THE RATE OR I’LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT, which the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ridiculous and very costly Tariff decision, strongly acknowledged ‘the President’ has an absolute right to do,” Trump said in a rambling post on his social media platform, Truth Social. Later that day, speaking from the Oval Office, he complained that other countries enjoyed lower borrowing costs than the United States and called on the Fed “to be patriots.”

Meanwhile, the war in Iran, which shows no signs of a near-term resolution, and the widening conflict involving Yemen’s Houthi rebels have kept oil prices above $100 a barrel, pushing up gasoline prices in the United States and threatening to fuel further inflationary pressures.

Before Friday’s decision, several analysts had warned that if Warsh wanted to preserve the Fed’s credibility as an institution capable of acting free from political interference, he had little choice but to raise rates. Doing otherwise might have pleased Trump and perhaps provided a modest boost to long-term growth prospects, but it would have pushed the goal of bringing inflation under control further out of reach and, above all, dealt a serious blow to the central bank’s independence.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition