Trump cuts off all trade talks with Canada citing ‘blatant attack’

President Donald Trump on Friday said he was suspending all trade talks with Canada — and making plans to force Americans to pay high import taxes on its goods — after the northern ally’s finance department confirmed plans to collect a digital services tax.

The late afternoon move quickly caused markets to spiral amid fears of a return to the president’s self-inflicted trade war.

In a post on Truth Social, the president complained that he had “just been informed” about the Canadian government’s decision, which will see it require payment of a 3-percent tax on revenue collected from Canadian users of digital platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and X, above $14.6 million in a calendar year retroactive to 2022.

The tax could saddle American technology companies with bills as large as $2 billion for the first retroactive payments.

Although it is meant to apply to any company that provides digital services and takes in profits from selling advertising or user data, Trump groused that it amounted to Ottawa “putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies” and called the move “a direct and blatant attack on our Country.”

“They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also,” wrote Trump, who added that the result of the “egregious tax” would be the U.S. “hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.”

The president concluded his post with an unsubstantiated claim that any tariffs on Canadian goods would be paid by the government of Canada (rather than by American importers and consumers), writing: “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

A short time later in the Oval Office during a ceremony to mark a peace deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Trump claimed the U.S. has “a great relationship with the people of Canada” but groused that the Canadian government has made things “very difficult” even though the U.S. has “all the cards” in the bilateral relationship.

“We don’t want to do anything bad, but … economically … we have such power over Canada. I’d rather not use it, but they did something with our tech companies today, trying to copy Europe,” he said.

He also suggested things “would not work out well for Europe” if the EU continued with plans to implement a similar tax which U.S. tech companies have objected to and described U.S.-E.U. trade negotiations under European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as “a very tough situation” while repeating an often-used — and false — assertion that the 27-member bloc was formed to “take advantage of the United States.”

“They have been unbelievably bad to us. If you look at past presidents, they’ve treated them very badly. They’re being very nice to me, because I get it. I know the system, and we have the cards. We have the cards far more than they do, and they have not treated us well, and they’re coming to us right now,” he said. He later complained further about E.U. courts with E.U judges imposing fines on American technology companies for violations of E.U. law.

“They’re nasty people, and I don’t want them affecting U.S. companies. I don’t want that — if anybody’s going to affect a U.S. company, I want it to be us, and if they’re going to have to pay a penalty or fine, let it be to us,” he said.

Trump’s threat to punish Canada by taxing Americans comes just weeks after a group of House members wrote to him urging “a swift government response” to any attempt by Canada to collect what they called an “unprecedented, retroactive tax” that would “set a terrible precedent that will have long-lasting impacts on global tax and trade practices.”

“Allowing Canada to proceed with this unprecedented, retroactive tax on U.S. firms would send a signal to the rest of the world that they have the green light to proceed with similar discriminatory cash grabs targeting our firms, workers, and tax base,” they said.

According to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, U.S. goods trade with Canada totaled roughly $762 billion last year, making Canada one of the country’s two largest trading partners.

Earlier this month, Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced an agreement to set a July 21 deadline for a new trade agreement at the Group of Seven summit hosted by Carney in Alberta.

Ottawa has been pushing for Washington to stand down from the 50 percent tax currently charged on steel, aluminum and automobile imports as well as other taxes Trump has unilaterally imposed on Americans with the aim of purportedly punishing Canada for not doing enough to stop fentanyl trafficking.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court for International Trade had previously ruled that Trump’s use of tariffs for such purposes was illegal but that ruling is on hold pending an appeal.

New MI6 chief’s grandfather was Nazi spy

The new MI6 chief is reportedly the granddaughter of a Nazi spy known as the “butcher”, according to unearthed documents.

Blaise Metreweli made history as she was appointed as the first ever female head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6 earlier this month.

But according to German archives, seen by the Daily Mail, her grandfather was Constantine Dobrowolski, a Nazi spy known as the “butcher”.

Mr Dobrowolski was a Ukrainian who reportedly defected from the Red Army to become the Nazi’s chief informant in the region of Chernihiv.

Ms Metreweli never met her grandfather as he stayed in Nazi-occupied Ukraine while his family fled the Red Army liberation of the region in 1943.

The documents held in Freiburg, Germany describe how Mr Dobrowolski was dubbed ‘Agent 30’ by his Nazi commanders.

Born to a German-Polish father and a Ukrainian mother in 1906, the Daily Mail reports he hated the Soviet Union when his family’s estate was seized after the 1917 revolution.

He joined the Nazis in 1941, and was paid a monthly wage of just 81 Reichsmark, around £250 today, for spying.

In letters to his Nazi officers, he signed off “Heil Hitler” and said he took part in a massacre of Jewish people near Kyiv.

The Daily Mail reported that there are also accounts of him looting the bodies of Holocaust victims and laughing at the sexual assault of female prisoners.

The Soviets put a 50,000-rouble – the equivalent of £200,000 today – bounty on Mr Dobrowolski and labelled him “the worst enemy of the Ukrainian people”.

He remained in Nazi-occupied Ukraine after his family fled the Soviet advance in 1943. The last record of him is from August 1943, a month before the Red Army took Chernihiv.

After the war, his wife, Barbara, and son, Constantine, arrived in Britain. Barbara remarried and Constantine – Ms Metreweli’s father – took his stepfather’s name. Neither he nor Ms Metreweli knew his father.

Ms Metreweli is a career intelligence officer, having joined the secret intelligence service in 1999, shortly after graduating from Pembroke College, Cambridge. Most of her career has been spent in operational roles in the Middle East and Europe.

A Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office spokesman said: “Blaise Metreweli neither knew nor met her paternal grandfather. Blaise’s ancestry is characterised by conflict and division and, as is the case for many with eastern European heritage, only partially understood.

“It is precisely this complex heritage which has contributed to her commitment to prevent conflict and protect the British public from modern threats from today’s hostile states, as the next chief of MI6.”

Starmer used to defend the kinds of protesters he now calls terrorists

Two days before the missiles started raining down on Baghdad in March 2003, Josh Richards packed a mixture of petrol and washing-up liquid into his rucksack and headed off to RAF Fairford base in Gloucestershire. His plan was to set fire to the wheels of a B-52 USAF bomber to prevent it from joining in the imminent shock and awe.

He was caught before he could act, but he was not the only person with the idea of mounting a last-ditch attempt to hinder a war which many considered illegal. A few days earlier, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling had cut their way into the same airbase and damaged a number of fuel tankers and bomb trailers. Another two men in their thirties, Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch, armed themselves with paint, nuts and bolts, with the intention of damaging the bombers’ engines.

Today, this group of five would be labelled terrorists. See the government’s reaction last week when pro-Palestinian activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and – just like their earlier counterparts at Fairford – damaged two military planes with red paint. “A disgraceful act of vandalism,” said the prime minister, Keir Starmer.

Within days, home secretary Yvette Cooper was on her feet in the House of Commons announcing that the group involved, Palestine Action, would be added to the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. If you dare donate so much as a fiver to it in future, you will be committing a crime.

Twenty-odd years ago, we lived in a kinder, gentler age. Society was not so harsh in its judgements about the group which became known as the Fairford Five. The protesters lawyered up and their briefs decided on an original defence, arguing that their actions were justified, morally and legally, because they were aimed at preventing a greater evil – ie the war in Iraq and its probable consequences. They were, in short, willing to commit crimes in order to prevent greater crimes.

Among the barristers who came up with this intriguing defence was a rising star of the human rights bar, Keir Starmer QC. He argued the case on behalf of Josh Richards, first at the Court of Appeal in June 2004 and then again before the House of Lords in March 2006. The presiding judge, Lord Bingham, went out of his way to praise the “erudition” involved.

The appeal did not totally succeed, but in his judgment Lord Hoffmann articulated a humane view of how, in the UK, he believed we have traditionally regarded such acts of protest.

“Civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country,” he wrote (at paragraph 89). “People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”

Hoffman outlined the “conventions” he thought should govern such acts of civil disobedience in his “civilised community”. The law-breakers had to behave with a sense of proportion and avoid excessive damage. The law-enforcers, on the other hand, should “behave with restraint [and] … take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account”.

I imagine Mr Starmer QC read those words with some pleasure at the time: they have been quoted many times in courts over the years by his learned friends in defending clients acting on conscientious grounds.

But now, at the behest of his government, such people are to be defined as terrorists. Forget trying to understand their conscientious motives. Lock them up and ban them. What happened?

Let’s try some hypotheses.

The first possible explanation is that Starmer in 2004 was just operating on the “cab rank” principle. He didn’t actually believe all that stuff he argued in the posh courts: he was just making the best case he could. But one former Doughty Street Chambers colleague told me Starmer “totally” believed in the right to protest.

Some argue he is simply a massive hypocrite. He couldn’t care less that there’s a yawning gulf between what he then argued and what he now advocates. Or maybe he has just changed his mind? Perhaps he had some sympathy with the Fairford cause (Iraq) and less for the Brize Norton protests (Palestine)?

Perhaps he still holds the same views he expressed 20 years ago, but has been advised it would be politically unwise to voice them. Reform is storming ahead in the polls and is demanding tough action. Now is not the time to out yourself as a bleeding-heart liberal. So you can show your toughness by outlawing the very sort of people you once defended. And, while you’re about it, tell Glastonbury to drop another “terrorist” – in this case, the Irish language rap group Kneecap.

Or maybe he believes in nothing? That, after all, is what a significant slew of even his own backbenchers are coming to assume.

Twenty years ago, the public took a more forgiving view of protesters. Juries initially failed to agree on a verdict on charges against four of the Fairford defendants. Olditch and Pritchard were subsequently cleared of all charges after two trials. Josh Richards was also tried twice after admitting he wanted to set fire to a B-52 bomber. Twice, he walked free. Only Margaret Jones and Paul Milling were found guilty – at the second attempt – and were treated relatively leniently. Milling was given a conditional discharge and a £250 fine. Dr Jones was given a five-month curfew order.

So perhaps this explains what’s going on in Starmer’s mind. He, of all people, knows that juries are quite likely to side with conscientious protesters on an issue like Gaza. So it is cleaner simply to outlaw protest groups from the start. For someone who believes in the rule of law, it’s a clever way of getting around the rule of law.

“Yes, they should stand trial. Yes, they’ve committed criminal damage,” Baroness Helena Kennedy, a fellow civil rights lawyer told me. “But to label them terrorists seems extraordinary to me. It’s going down the old Trump road, and I don’t like it at all. There’s a sense in which you have a US government which has no respect for the rule of law and there’s now a kind of poison seeping into our own legal aquifer.”

As I write, another four protesters have been arrested by counter-terror police at Brize Norton. You can’t help wondering whether the concept of terrorism itself is being somewhat watered down by the Starmer government.

And you can’t help wonder at the philosophical somersaults taking place in Starmer’s mind as he stands everything he argued for 20 years ago on its head.

David Beckham in hospital as wife Victoria shares well wishes

David Beckham is in hospital with an unknown injury, with his wife Victoria by his bedside.

On Friday (27 June), the former Manchester United player, 50, was photographed by his wife, former Spice Girl singer Victoria, recovering in a hospital bed with one arm in a blue sling, smiling at the camera.

Posting the picture on Instagram, Victoria wrote: “Get well soon daddy.”

A second post picture showed David lying in bed wearing a beaded bracelet that spelt out the words: “Get well soon.”

While Victoria did not share any further details about David’s condition, several news outlets have speculated that Beckham has undergone surgery to treat a long-term wrist injury he sustained during his professional football career. The Independent has contacted his representatives for comment.

It comes after the former England captain received a knighthood for his services to sport and charity, after being named in the King’s Birthday Honours earlier this month.

Reacting to the news of his knighthood, David said in a statement that he “never could have imagined I would receive such a truly humbling honour” while “growing up in East London with parents and grandparents who were so patriotic and proud to be British”.

His son Romeo, 22, reacted to the news online, telling his dad: “So so proud of you.”

Cruz, 20, also shared a tribute, posting a picture of David in the countryside and writing: “I’m so proud dad I love you. Sir David Beckham. Has a nice ring to it.”

Victoria recently poured cold water on rumours of a rift between the Beckham family and their eldest son, Brooklyn, after she shared pictures of the entire clan alongside their dad to mark Father’s Day earlier this month.

Recent reports have suggested a divide in the family after Brooklyn, 26, and his wife Nicola Peltz, 30, missed a recent run of family events, including David’s birthday party. The rest of their children – Romeo, Cruz, and Harper, 13 – were all in attendance.

Victoria presented a united front to mark Father’s Day on 15 June, sharing a video of David and Harper, Brooklyn and Cruz sitting arm-in-arm on a sofa, singing “Sherry” by Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons.

David posted his own Father’s Day post, featuring a range of throwback pictures of the family, with the main photo showing Brooklyn holding Harper as a baby.

Sons Cruz and Romeo both shared warm messages under the post – but Brooklyn did not leave a comment.

Cruz wrote: “You mean the world to us and inspire us every single day dad I love you,” as Romeo said: “Love you always.”

Starmer reveals fears for his sister-in-law after ‘arson attack’

Sir Keir Starmer has revealed fears for his sister-in-law after an alleged arson attack on his home, saying he and his wife were “really shaken up.”

The prime minister said his wife’s sister and her partner had been in bed at the house, which they had been renting from the prime minister, when the fire occurred late at night.

“She happened to still be awake,” Sir Keir said. “So she heard the noise and got the fire brigade. But it could have been a different story.”

The incident took place the night before the prime minister gave a press conference on migration, which saw him use the phrase “island of strangers” – a remark which drew immediate backlash and comparisons to the divisive rhetoric of Enoch Powell.

He has now said he “deeply regrets” the phrasing, claiming that the alleged arson attack had left him “not in the best state” to deliver the press conference.

Sir Keir explained that he had considered cancelling the event, which took place just hours later.

In the speech, he warned Britain risked becoming “an island of strangers” without tougher immigration controls – rhetoric that sparked an immediate backlash and was denounced by critics, including within Labour ranks, as divisive.

At the time, Downing Street doubled down on the remarks and said Sir Keir “completely rejects” suggestions he had echoed Powell’s infamous 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, which whipped up a frenzy of anti-immigration hatred across the UK.

But in an emotive interview with The Observer, Sir Keir walked back from the remarks, saying the language “wasn’t right”.

“I wouldn’t have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of Powell,” he said.

“I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn’t know either. But that particular phrase – no – it wasn’t right. I’ll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.”

He added: “It’s fair to say I wasn’t in the best state to make a big speech… I was really, really worried. I almost said: ‘I won’t do the bloody press conference.’

“[His wife] Vic was really shaken up as, in truth, was I. It was just a case of reading the words out and getting through it somehow … so I could get back to them.”

But the PM stressed he was not seeking to use the alleged arson attack as an excuse and does not blame his advisers, saying he should have read through the speech properly and “held it up to the light a bit more”.

He also backed down on language in his foreword to the policy document linked to the speech, which said record high numbers of migrants entering the UK under the last government had done “incalculable damage”.

Sir Keir insisted the issue needed addressing because the party “became too distant from working-class people on things like immigration”, but said “this wasn’t the way to do it in this current environment”.

At the time of the speech, Sir Keir’s own MPs drew parallels between the phrase and a passage from Powell’s speech in which he claimed white Britons were at risk of becoming “strangers in their own country”.

Norwich South MP Clive Lewis said: “It’s simply not sustainable for the prime minister to echo the language of Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech – invoking the idea of ‘living in a land of strangers’.

“This kind of language doesn’t just alienate communities, it drives people away from our country altogether. And if those at the top think this is a clever tactic to win another five years by rolling out the red carpet for Nigel Farage, they’re mistaken. We are losing far more progressive voters than we are gaining from Reform UK.”

Meanwhile, Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, argued the “step-up in anti-migrant rhetoric from the government is shameful and dangerous.”

Asked about Sir Keir’s remarks on Friday, his official spokesperson said he has “always been clear that migrants make a massive contribution to our society”.

“We never denigrate that. Britain is an inclusive, tolerant country, but migration needs to be managed within rules”, he added.

The 7 best outdoor adventures in Sydney and New South Wales

Whether you’re lacing up your hiking boots, throwing on a wetsuit to catch some waves, or hitting the wide-open roads of New South Wales (NSW) by campervan, this Australian state is home to some of the country’s most exciting outdoor adventures – all easily accessible thanks to Qantas’ extensive domestic network.

Flying into Sydney with Qantas is the ideal way to experience a slice of Australia before you’ve even landed. And with onboard wellbeing perks, plus the option to book more discounted domestic legs using Qantas Explorer, it really is the savvy traveller’s best way to explore Australia.

Here are seven next-level outdoor adventures in NSW, and the best way to get there.

Sydney might be a modern metropolis, but it’s also home to an extraordinary natural playground, the star attraction of which is Sydney Harbour National Park. This protected area weaves through the city’s coastline, offering walking trails, secluded beaches, and panoramic views that blend wild bushland with iconic urban landmarks. Away from the National Park, you can paddle a kayak at dawn beneath the Sydney Harbour Bridge, go on a cycle tour and sunset cruise around Manly and North Heads coastal cliffs, or follow the Bondi to Coogee coastal walk for sweeping ocean views and refreshing swim spots.

Just a 90-minute trip from Sydney by road, the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains is an endless landscape of towering eucalyptus forests and striking sandstone cliffs as far as the eye can see. There are few places quite as grand as this so close to a city. Don your hiking boots and traverse spectacular scenery to Wentworth Falls or take on the Grand Canyon Track – a 6km loop of dramatic cliffs, fern-fringed valleys and thundering waterfalls with lookouts to match. If you’re an early riser, watch the sunrise at Echo Point, where the Three Sisters rock formation is lit up by the glow of first light.

Wildlife lovers need to head north to Port Macquarie for some of the best marine encounters on the east coast. Humpback whales are almost guaranteed from May to November, and dolphins can be spotted all year round. For front-row views, jump on a whale-watching cruise, or pitch up with a picnic on a headland and watch the breaching giants from afar.

Swap the sandy beaches for subtropical rainforest in Coffs Harbour’s hinterland in Dorrigo National Park, where winding roads serpentine through flourishing banana plantations, dense palm-filled forest and endless rolling hills. The region’s cycling trails range from casual loops to more challenging rides with jaw-to-the-floor sea views.

Aussies love their surfing, and Byron Bay is the epitome of surf culture Down Under, with beaches to suit all skill levels; from the gentle swell at The Pass to barrel-laden breaks at Tallows. If you’ve got any stamina left, soak up the view from Cape Byron Lighthouse post-surf – the easternmost point of mainland Australia.

With over 8,000 islands to its name, Australia offers the ultimate in island adventures. Lord Howe is one of them, a UNESCO World Heritage-listed pristine island, where only 400 visitors are allowed at any one time. You’ll find rare birds, kaleidoscopic coral reefs, and Mount Gower, offering one of the best day hikes in the country, with epic coastline views and dizzying drops.

For those who need more than a beach stroll to get the heart pumping, grab a kayak and explore the Sapphire Coast from the water in Merimbula. Glide over crystal-clear waters, past secluded coves, pristine beaches, and the untouched beauty of surrounding national parks. Keep an eye out for dolphins and other marine life as you paddle. Once back on shore, refuel with the region’s famous fresh oysters and enjoy a refreshing dip at Bar Beach.

Book your flight to Sydney today at qantas.com and start your Australian adventure.

Britain’s stranded F-35 fighter jet is a test of its trust in India

As the HMS Prince of Wales and the rest of its carrier strike group docked in Singapore on Thursday, analysts noted that it arrived with an odd number of 11 F-35B fighter jets on its flight deck.

That’s because one was missing: F-35B Lightning number 034 that has been stranded for almost two weeks now at an airport in southern India. The state-of-the-art stealth fighter got caught out by bad weather during a sortie in the Indian ocean and requested an emergency landing at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, where it has been stuck ever since due to an engineering issue.

Built by the American aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, the F-35B Lightning is one of the most advanced fighters on the planet, and is brimming with technology that India does not – yet – have access to.

British officials told The Independent they have no concerns about espionage and are grateful to their Indian allies for keeping the jet safe while it awaits essential repairs by a specialist team due to be flown out from the UK.

But analysts say that with each passing day that the jet sits disabled on foreign soil questions over what has gone wrong, and whether any third party might try to access the aircraft, will only grow louder.

Photos shared on social media have shown the lone fighter jet stationed on the tarmac with personnel from India’s Central Industrial Security Force – a branch of the military tasked with guarding key infrastructure – guarding the jet round the clock, which is sitting parked in the open amid monsoon rains near the domestic terminal.

“Surprised that a team of flight mechanics with spare parts hasn’t been flown in to fix it. Must be a bigger problem than we thought,” said Nicholas Drummond, former British Army officer and defence industry analyst, reacting to a photo of the fighter jet parked at the Indian airport, reading “034 he so lonely”.

A Royal Navy spokesperson rejected Indian media reports that suggested the jet had not been moved to a closed hangar because Britain does not trust India to keep it safe and untampered-with. They suggested this would have been done already had the necessary equipment and expertise been on hand.

“To minimise disruptions to the regular airport operations, the aircraft will be moved to a space in the Maintenance Repair and Overhaul facility hangar once specialist equipment and UK engineering teams arrive,” a Royal Navy spokesperson told The Independent.

The Independent has reached out to the Indian Air Force’s Southern Air Command for a comment on the security measures being taken to guard the prestigious fighter plane.

Mark Martin, an aviation expert, has said a warplane parked in the open cannot be tampered with, easing the security concerns around the stranded F-35B.

“The F-35B is in the public eye, most likely disabled from the inside and out in the open as the UK has their own satellites which help them in monitoring the aircraft through their satellites. So if anyone even comes near this, the UK will be the first to know,” he told The Independent.

Mr Martin also noted the defence treaty that the UK has with India that means both countries are obligated to protect each other’s assets in such circumstances.

“It’s most likely that if the aircraft is disabled, the Royal Air Force may send over a C-17 Globemaster or a heavy lift transport aircraft, and the aircraft will be loaded and flown back,” he said. “Because they can’t repair it in this part of the world.”

Dr Sameer Patil, director of the Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology at the Observer Research Foundation in Mumbai, said the biggest danger stemming from the episode would be how it is perceived – both by allies Britain and India and their adversaries.

“As the UK waits for a detailed inspection of its aircraft, the optics of a stranded jet on a close ally’s soil are not looking good as it is giving way to rumours and speculations about Indians getting access to some of the classified technology – which is absolutely not true and not in the spirit of the UK-India strategic defence partnership,” he said.

“The thing I’m more worried about in the end will not be about the espionage or about dealing with the classified technology, but it will be about creating the risk and the distrust between the two partners which can be exploited by adversaries like China and Iran for their own advantage,” Dr Patil told The Independent.

In a show of solidarity, the Royal Navy spokesperson thanked the Indian side for their logistical and security support. “The safe landing, logistics and continuing security and organisational support provided by India in responding to this situation further demonstrates the close coordination and deepening relationship that exists between the Armed Forces of the UK and India,” they said.

Supreme Court hands Trump major victory in birthright citizenship case

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has stripped federal courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of Donald Trump’s agenda.

Friday’s 6-3 ruling, written by Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that federal judges went too far blocking his executive order that seeks to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen. Those nationwide injunctions “exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts,” according to the ruling.

The ruling opens the door for partial enforcement of Trump’s executive order, putting thousands of American-born children at risk of being denied their constitutional rights. Trump’s executive order will be blocked for another 30 days, however, allowing lower courts to revisit the scope of their injunctions and giving time for opponents to file new legal challenges.

Department of Justice attorneys will now “promptly file” legal challenges in cases where the president’s executive actions were temporarily blocked, Trump told reporters at the White House. Moments after the ruling, plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit that would protect citizenship rights for all newborn Americans, not just in the states that initially sued.

But the ruling does not definitively resolve challenges to birthright citizenship. A series of federal court rulings across the country earlier this year struck down the president’s attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. The government argued those decisions should only impact the individual states — and the unborn children of pregnant mothers in them — who sued him and won.

Opponents have warned that such a decision would open a backdoor to begin stripping away constitutional rights. In a blistering dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor called the court’s ruling “a travesty for the rule of law.”

Allowing the president to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a U.S. citizen in states subject to Trump’s rewriting of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits — including voting rights.

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump’s order, according to the plaintiffs.

“Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent.

The court’s decision gifted Trump the “prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law” that opens the door to “put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy,” Jackson warned.

“It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,” she wrote. “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.”

In January, more than 20 states, immigrants’ advocacy groups and pregnant plaintiffs sued the administration to block the president’s executive order.

Three federal judges and appellate court panels argued his order is unconstitutional and blocked the measure from taking effect nationwide while legal challenges continue. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s liberal justices appeared shocked at the president’s “unlawful” measure.

But the administration used the case not necessarily to argue over whether he can change the 14th Amendment but to target what has become a major obstacle to advancing Trump’s agenda: federal judges blocking aggressive executive actions.

The government asked the court to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have imperilled the bulk of the president’s agenda.

In cases across the country, plaintiffs have pushed for injunctions as a tool for critical checks and balances against an administration that critics warn is mounting an ongoing assault against the rule of law.

More than half of the injunctions issued over the last 70 years were against the Trump administration, according to the Harvard Law Review, as Trump pushed the limits of his authority.

In arguments to the Supreme Court, Trump’s personal attorney John Sauer, who was appointed by the president to serve as U.S. solicitor general, called the “cascade of universal injunctions” against the administration a “bipartisan problem” that exceeds judicial authority.

Trump’s allies, however, have relied on nationwide injunctions to do the very same thing they commanded the Supreme Court to strike down. Critics have accused right-wing legal groups of “judge shopping” for ideologically like-minded venues where they can sue to strike down — through nationwide injunctions — policies with which they disagree.

After the government’s arguments fell flat in front of a mostly skeptical Supreme Court last month, Trump accused his political opponents of “playing the ref” through the courts to overturn his threat to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the definition to apply to all children born within the United States.

But under the terms of Trump’s order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn’t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

The president’s attempt to redefine citizenship is central to his administration’s sweeping anti-immigration agenda.

His administration has also effectively ended entry for asylum seekers; declared the United States under “invasion” from foreign gangs to summarily remove alleged members; and stripped legal protections for more than 1 million people — radically expanding the pool of “undocumented” people now vulnerable for arrest and removal.

The administration “de-legalised” tens of thousands of immigrants, and thousands of people with pending immigration cases are being ordered to court each week only to have those cases dismissed, with federal agents waiting to arrest them on the other side of the courtroom doors.

The White House has also rolled back protections barring immigration arrests at sensitive locations like churches and bumped up the pace of immigration raids in the interior of the country.

To carry out the arrests, the administration has tapped resources from other state and local agencies while moving officers from federal agencies like the FBI and DEA to focus on immigration. There are more people in immigration detention centers today than in any other point in modern history.