DAVOS– At the World Economic Forum, U.S. President Donald Trump took direct aim at Canada and Prime Minister Mark Carney. He called Canada ungrateful and said the country depends on the United States far more than it admits.

The comments landed a day after Carney drew praise in Davos for a speech that warned of a major break in global relations, where powerful countries put their own interests first and ignore old rules.

Together, the back-to-back speeches added fresh strain to a long alliance. They also showed two very different views of how the world should work as global tensions keep rising.

On January 20, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke in Davos in English and French. Many attendees and analysts called it one of the forum’s most important speeches.

Carney said the post-World War II, rules-based system is fading, and it won’t return the way it was. He argued that major powers are walking away from shared solutions and choosing one-sided moves, using economic power as a weapon, and weakening basic diplomatic habits.

“The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it,” Carney said. “Nostalgia is not a strategy.”

He didn’t name the United States or Trump. Still, the message felt clear, with U.S. pressure over Greenland and fresh tariff threats in the background. Carney urged “middle powers” such as Canada to work more closely, build new partnerships, and protect shared interests during a more unstable period.

The room responded strongly. Carney received a long-standing ovation from political leaders, CEOs, and policy experts. Many praised his plain talk and his push for cooperation across countries. Some commentators also framed the speech as Canada stepping forward on the global stage, with a calmer tone than the sharper approach coming from Washington.

Trump Fires Back, Says Canada “Lives Because of the United States”

Trump spoke the next day, January 21, and he didn’t wait long to answer Carney’s remarks. In a wide-ranging speech that jumped from NATO funding to the idea of buying Greenland, he singled out Canada and its prime minister.

“I watched your prime minister yesterday,” Trump said, calling Carney by his first name. “He wasn’t so grateful.”

Trump claimed Canada gets “a lot of freebies” from the United States and doesn’t show enough appreciation. “They should be grateful to us, Canada,” he said. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

His comments cast the U.S.-Canada relationship as one-sided, with America as the provider and Canada as the one receiving help. He suggested Canada’s safety and success rely on U.S. protection and trade, and he argued that criticism from Ottawa is misplaced.

People in the audience reacted right away. Davos crowds usually expect careful wording, and the blunt tone drew audible murmurs. Trump’s speech ran more than an hour. It mixed praise for the U.S. economy with warnings to allies, he says don’t pull their weight. He repeated his interest in acquiring Greenland, calling it a security need, while saying he wouldn’t use force. Still, some of his harshest lines were saved for Canada.

Two Speeches, Two Very Different Approaches

The contrast between the two leaders was hard to miss. Carney delivered a polished, forward-looking argument focused on teamwork among mid-sized countries. Trump spoke in a more personal and forceful way, with a clear focus on U.S. advantage and payback from partners.

Commentators pointed out the tension at the center of it all. Carney argued for a new kind of cooperation as the old system breaks down. Trump treated that same mindset as entitlement and pushed back with a demand for gratitude and reciprocity.

The moment has renewed talk about where U.S.-Canada relations go next. Trade disputes, border concerns, and defense spending have all been pressure points before, and this exchange put them back in the spotlight.

Canada’s government hasn’t issued an official response yet. Leaders in Ottawa now face a hard choice on tone. They can’t ignore a public jab at the prime minister, but an angry reply could raise the temperature even more. Carney’s office has stressed his focus on constructive talks, even as headlines focus on the personal nature of Trump’s remarks.

What It Could Mean for Global Alliances

The Davos clash comes at a shaky time for global alliances. Trump has repeatedly challenged multi-country groups and agreements, from NATO burden-sharing to trade frameworks. Carney has tried to position Canada as a defender of rules and shared norms. Their public clash may point to deeper problems ahead in the U.S.-Canada partnership, one of the most connected trade and security relationships in the world.

Some experts warn that open fights like this can weaken joint action on shared problems, including climate policy, supply chain stress, and growing global competition. Trump’s supporters see it differently. For them, his words fit his “America First” view, and they like his demand that allies recognize what the United States provides.

As Davos continues, the Trump-Carney exchange remains one of the main talking points. It captures a bigger shift in world politics, where power, principle, and pride are colliding in public.

Related News:

Chatham House in Panic Over Trump and Western Alliance

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), has started an inquiry into Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and her husband, Tim Mynett.

The review centers on a steep rise in the couple’s reported household wealth and whether their financial disclosures meet congressional ethics rules. Federal authorities are also said to be involved, though the exact scope is still unclear.

Republicans point to Omar’s 2024 congressional financial disclosure as the trigger. In that filing, assets connected to Mynett’s business interests appear to rise sharply in a short period. Lawmakers say they want to understand where the money came from and whether the reporting was accurate.

Committee staff are reviewing Omar’s disclosures and related records. The main focus is on spousal assets tied to Mynett’s ventures that moved from low or near-zero values to multi-million-dollar ranges.

Chairman Comer called the increase unusual and said the committee may subpoena Mynett as part of the review. The committee is looking at disclosure accuracy, any outside income, business ties, and whether the filings meet federal ethics and transparency standards.

Reported assets that rose quickly

Public filings show large changes tied to two entities:

• Rose Lake Capital LLC, a venture capital firm Mynett co-founded, was listed at $1 to $1,000 in 2023, then reported at $5 million to $25 million in 2024.
• eStCru LLC, described as a California-based winery, moved from $15,001 to $50,000 to $1 million to $5 million during the same period.

Minnesota fraud

Those shifts led to estimates placing the couple’s combined net worth at roughly $6 million to $30 million. Earlier disclosures painted a very different picture, including periods around 2019 where Omar reported limited resources and debt, such as student loans.

Investigators also note that Omar’s House salary, about $174,000 per year, doesn’t explain the jump on its own.

The Oversight inquiry is unfolding while Minnesota faces a major fraud investigation tied to alleged misuse of federal funds in child nutrition and social services programs. Reports have linked the alleged wrongdoing to parts of the state’s Somali-American community, including areas in and around Omar’s district. Some coverage has suggested potential losses as high as $9 billion, including schemes connected to the Feeding Our Future program.

No public evidence has linked Omar or Mynett directly to that fraud case. Still, Republicans have pointed to the timing and location as part of a wider argument about weak oversight in programs Omar has supported.

President Donald Trump also commented publicly, calling Omar “crooked” and tying the wealth jump to the broader Minnesota fraud headlines. Conservative commentators and online influencers have echoed calls for answers.

Omar’s background and earlier scrutiny

Omar, a progressive member of the group often called the “Squad,” has represented Minnesota’s 5th District since 2019. She came to the United States as a Somali-born refugee and later became a U.S. citizen.

She has faced earlier criticism over campaign spending tied to Mynett’s former consulting firm, E Street Group, which received millions during her 2020 re-election effort. Their relationship began during a period when both were married to other people, which also drew public attention and ethical questions.

Omar has repeatedly said she is not a millionaire, calling those claims “categorically false” and framing them as part of misinformation efforts. In prior statements, she pointed to her husband’s independent business activity as the source of any asset changes. Her office has not given a detailed response to the latest Oversight review, and allies have described the probe as partisan pressure on progressive lawmakers.

Mynett’s ventures, including Rose Lake Capital, are now getting more attention. Reports say the firm removed advisor biographies from its website as scrutiny increased, including profiles tied to former Obama administration figures.

Other past business issues have also resurfaced in coverage, including a winery investment that has been accused in lawsuits of financial mismanagement.

What happens next and why it matters

House Republicans say the investigation is about ethics and transparency, and they argue that Congress has to hold members to clear standards. Critics see it as a political move in a GOP-led House.

So far, there are no charges, and the work appears to be in early stages, centered on document reviews and possible subpoenas. Some reports say the FBI was briefed on related suspicions in a prior administration, but public details remain limited.

With the 2026 midterm cycle nearing, the story is likely to keep growing. It sits at the intersection of debates over government oversight, fraud in federal programs, and financial reporting by elected officials. Oversight Committee members, including Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), have said they plan to push for answers on both the wealth questions and any Minnesota fraud concerns.

Omar remains active in Congress and continues to focus on foreign policy, social justice, and constituent services in the Minneapolis-area district she represents.

Related News:

Daily Mail Questions Ilhan Omar’s Citizenship, Is She Really an American?

TUCSON, Arizona – Claims circulating online and on social media and talk on conservative podcasts are vindicating Candace Owens and are now pushing a growing claim that Erica Kirk, the widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the current CEO of Turning Point USA, has connections to Fort Huachuca in Arizona, a U.S. Army base known for its CIA intelligence training.

In many versions, the story claims she was at or near the base in the days just before Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September 2025. Some posts also repeat a label used online that calls Fort Huachuca a “CIA Training Camp.” Other threads add a side claim that her presence was tied to people connected to an unmade film project about defense and advanced technology.

Where the Allegations Came From

Much of the attention traces back to an exclusive interview on Candace Owens’ podcast in mid-December 2025. Owens interviewed a guest introduced as Mitch Snow, described as a retired U.S. Army staff sergeant and former combat medic. Snow said he had once pursued Special Forces training, but an injury ended that path.

Snow claimed he went to Fort Huachuca around September 8 to 9, 2025, because a long-standing gag order had expired and he wanted access to older personal records. He said he accidentally walked into a restricted area, was detained for hours, and then released.

In the interview, Snow said he noticed people he believed were linked to Turning Point USA. He claimed, with “95 to 99% certainty,” that he recognized Erica Kirk in the lobby of a hotel or nearby facility. He described her based on an older photo and said she wore her hair in a ponytail. Snow added that she was with a man he connected to the organization, possibly someone in security or a similar role.

He also claimed he saw Brian Harpole, described as Charlie Kirk’s head of security, leaving what looked like a high-level meeting. Owens and supporters later framed these sightings as happening the evening before, or the day before, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot in Utah.

How Candace Owens Has Framed the Base

Candace Owens has described Fort Huachuca as more than a normal military post. She has pointed out that it hosts military intelligence courses, often shortened in military use to MIT (Military Intelligence Training). In her telling, that kind of setting can include programs where civilians might be trained and used as intelligence assets.

Across several discussions, Candace Owens has stressed a difference between standard bases and installations focused on intelligence work. She has suggested the base could support quiet meetings and activities tied to defense-related topics.

Online discussion has also tried to connect the Fort Huachuca story to a dropped film or media project. In those threads, people mention defense contractors, fears about technology weaknesses (like EMP threats or power grid security), and claims about psychological operations training.

Some of those talk points refer to older material, including unrelated footage where Erica appeared in a 2013 documentary clip alongside former intelligence figures. Still, no public proof has confirmed that Erica Kirk had a direct role in any film project tied to Fort Huachuca.

Much of what circulates comes from forum posts, X threads, and clipped podcast segments that build on each other.

The allegations have sparked loud arguments online. Supporters, including Candace Owens, say the eyewitness story should be taken seriously, especially with ongoing questions about timelines, alibis, and the larger set of events around Charlie Kirk’s death.

Owens has said she prefers verified facts over emotional reactions. She has also said she checked parts of Snow’s account before running the interview, mentioning metadata, receipts, and other review steps.

Candace Owens has addressed why she did not challenge Erica Kirk about Fort Huachuca during a private multi-hour meeting in late 2025, saying she was still checking details and planned to follow up later.

Pushback and Questions

Critics, including some conservatives and mainstream outlets, have pushed back hard. Much of the response has focused on Snow himself, not on independently confirming or disproving the travel and location claims he made.

Detractors have pointed to his personal history, his medical discharge, and the limits of a “95% sure” identification. Some reports have grouped his story with wider conspiracy narratives around the assassination, calling it unverified and sensational.

Other coverage has also noted that rumors about Erica Kirk have spread since Charlie Kirk’s death, including claims tied to unrelated scandals or made-up stories, often without evidence.

Erica Kirk has publicly responded to conspiracy claims in social media posts and interviews. She has rejected what she described as disrespect from figures like Candace Owens and has said her focus is on protecting her family and running Turning Point USA.

She has also shared details, including flight records for associates, to push back on certain timeline accusations.

As of early 2026, no official findings have confirmed the Fort Huachuca sightings or any link to a film project. The story remains a major flashpoint in online conservative debate, showing how a single eyewitness account can spread fast after a tragedy, especially in a tense political moment.

Related News:

Candace Owens Alleges FBI Was Involved in Kirk Assassination Coverup