Trump blitzed by Wall Street Journal for 'destroying US jobs and raising prices'

Tom Boggioni
July 10, 2026 

RAW STORY


Donald Trump speaks with members of the media. REUTERS/Anna Rose Layden

President Donald Trump's boast on Truth Social that his tariff war spurred Toyota to move its Tacoma truck manufacturing operations to the U.S. was drowned in derision by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal this week.

The conservative WSJ board on Thursday rained on Trump's parade by pointing out that the manufacturing move should be celebrated, but, in the larger picture, his tariffs have been a disaster and Americans are still furious.

"The President is right that his tariffs are at work—in destroying U.S. jobs and raising prices," the editors wrote.

"Mr. Trump’s Section 232 national security tariffs on autos and parts have cost $35.2 billion through April of this year, and his steel and aluminum tariffs another $17.5 billion, according to U.S. government data."

Since taking office in January, the U.S. has hemorrhaged roughly 75,000 manufacturing positions. More than one-third evaporated directly from the automotive and related parts sectors—the industries Trump claims to be protecting.

The board argued the administration's tariff experiment has obliterated American manufacturing.

"Mr. Trump and his advisers claim that foreigners pay his border taxes, but the evidence shows that U.S. companies, workers and consumers are picking up most of the tab," the board wrote.

Add to that, they asserted Trump is forcing consumers to balk at buying new cars over economic uncertainty.

"Many are driving clunkers for longer—and paying more for repairs if they break down—or buying used cars," the editorial stated. "New vehicle sales have averaged 15.9 million in the first half of this year, down from the 17 to 18 million in the five years before the pandemic.

"When people buy fewer cars, auto makers don’t need as many workers. His trade oscillations and border taxes are a major reason the economy hasn’t performed as well as during his first term, and why Americans are so unhappy."

JD Vance walloped on Fox Business as analyst groans he 'does not understand' economics

Matthew Chapman
July 10, 2026 

RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks with the media as he arrives at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., May 28, 2026. Matt Rourke/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Vice President JD Vance took a severe tongue-lashing on Fox Business Friday, as hosts continued to react to his strange recent statements attacking legendary conservative economist Milton Friedman.

"I think JD Vance, on economics, just generally does not understand the role of capitalism and investment and so forth," said analyst Liz Peek, to the approval of her peers Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow.

Friedman, a Nobel laureate and founding member of the influential "Chicago school" of economics, often faces criticism on the left — but it's rare to see it from a Republican.

Vance gave the remarks during an interview with The Daily Wire.

“Milton Friedman’s ideas made more sense in the 1980s because they were being advocated in a country that still had a very rich and powerful institutional Christianity,” said Vance. “If you look at modern Britain and the result of Margaret Thatcher’s policies, you would say that her policies actually got Britain further away from that ideal and not closer to that ideal. I think that meritocracy can steal from us a sense of what really, really matters.”

Vance added that “American economic policy on the right is now much more Alexander Hamilton than it is Milton Friedman. I think that’s obviously a good thing.”

Moore, himself a former Trump strategist, penned a scathing response to these comments in the Marshall Independent, writing that Vance "sounded much more like a Mitt Romney, big-government RINO than a Trump or Ronald Reagan."

Trump's struggling fair evacuated again in another setback on its final day

Bennito L. Kelty
July 10, 2026 
RAW STORY

Alessandra Buttice, 14, leans against her father as they watch a large screen and listen to U.S. President Donald Trump speak at a Fourth of July rally, at The Great American State Fair, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 4, 2026. REUTERS/Cheney Orr

Trump's Great American State Fair suffered another evacuation on its closing day, according to an announcement.

In a post on X, Freedom 250, the Trump-backed organization that put together the fair, announced, "The Great American State Fair has been postponed," and requested that participants "please make your way safely and carefully to the nearest exit."

The Great American State Fair, which was hosted on the National Mall, has been panned by critics because of poor attendance. Last week, organizers were forced to suspend the event amid a heat wave. On Thursday, the fair was evacuated due to "severe weather."

The latest disruption came as the National Weather Service in Baltimore/Washington warned that a few storms could bring locally damaging wind gusts and isolated flooding across the D.C. area on Friday afternoon and evening.

Although the event is supposed to wrap up on Friday, July 10, Freedom 250 wrote, "We plan to reopen for the evening concert" despite asking everyone to leave. Organizers did not share why the event was evacuated and postponed.

Op-Ed: The shallow approach to automation vs jobs is proving labour and tech experts right, but it’s messy

Paul Wallis

DIGITAL JOURNAL

July 7, 2026

Investors are awaiting the release of key US jobs data this week 

– Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP SCOTT OLSON

Even the theory of automation vs jobs isn’t stacking up. Layoffs and subsequent rehires are making news daily. Frontline managers are finding out that automation creates more unpaid non-core business work in just finding fixes. The simplest description of the hype for the transition to automation is that it’s absurd. Experts in technologies have been saying endlessly that automation simply can’t and shouldn’t do many things on its own.

Labour experts agree. Many critics have said that even the idea that automation instantly replaces jobs simply proves that management knows less than nothing about those jobs. They often only see reports, not the realities of the work.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has spelled out very clearly and patiently the mix of perceptions about automation and the future of work. That future is looking very indecisive right now.

Perceptions vs facts

Carnegie nailed some issues regarding the perceptions of automation very effectively. The fear of replacement could now be called a global psychosis, particularly at the white-collar level. Nor is the role of AI well understood in any practical context regarding actual work roles.

There’s an emerging view of AI as “drop-in remote workers”, according to Carnegie, for example. Given the ongoing somewhat hysterical and hyper-expensive prejudice against human remote workers, it’s interesting to watch this logic suffocate itself in contradictory arguments against itself.

This is a big unsolved cultural problem and the problem, not the solution, is making the decisions on the fly. This myopic worldview clearly lacks practical comprehension, and “ideological executive blindness” based on unrealised and often poorly defined perceived savings is making it worse.

Are people cheaper and better?

The baseline theory that automation saves money by reducing the cost of wages is so wrong and so far off target that it’s excruciatingly absurd. It could also be the exact opposite, and brutally expensive.

To start with:

How is it cheaper to adopt a whole class of major technologies at a much higher initial cost than the fixed costs of existing jobs?

Human jobs can be designed to deliver values on a clear cost-to-outlay basis. Automation starts as a cost, and you have to derive value out of it. 

The most basic operational rules, practices and laws related to automation and labour are barely at the foetal stage. Even China recently enacted laws prohibiting and restricting AI layoffs.

Humans don’t need the sort of 24/7 unquantifiable expenses that automation imposes. Technologies in the workplace inevitably need costly assessments, maintenance, upgrades, at-call SaaS, and eventually replacement in relatively short cycles.

Tech is an ongoing acquisition process with never-ending mixed results in direct and indirect costs.

Technologies become redundant faster than people, particularly in AI.

Then there’s fitting automation into that tactless thing called business reality. Most business tech is a patchwork of various vintages of technology, safe or unsafe to use in the modern business environment. Fraud alone is becoming a tech sector in its own right, let alone spreadsheet blunders.

AI makes and often can’t fix its own mistakes, especially when those mistakes show up on balance sheets and require more outlay. Those mistakes could well be based on situations and issues any experienced person would automatically avoid. Expertise is a real value, not a perceived value.

The net takeaway from this elegant if verbose presentation of the glaringly obvious is that “automation uber alles” is definitely no way to run a hot dog stand. The lack of depth in due diligence evaluation of automation is downright dangerous.

Finding the right fits for real-world applications

Every business, every market, every customer base, every job, and every workplace is different. There simply can’t be a One Size Fits All in automation at any level.

Productivity is a case in point in matching jobs to people. Let’s start with HR. Trying to fit a human being into a job isn’t usual practice. It’s more likely the person will be stuffed into a job with varying degrees of good fit or otherwise. High staff turnover means a lot of bad fits. You couldn’t call it productive in any sense.

There’s now even an AI tool for predicting staff resignations. This somewhat ironic development reflects a need to manage experience, expertise, handling tasks at all levels, and the most basic production fluencies in the workplace. In-house learned capabilities are crucial to smooth workflows.

These almost invisible skill sets dictate real productivity throughout the entire food chain of doing business. Turnover loses those skills and their productive values.

So, losing people is likely to be a net own goal, particularly when you lose all your in-house productive fluencies. Again, automation doesn’t solve these problems. It makes them harder to manage. Good fits for people are the only way any business has ever worked.

It’s not automation or jobs. It’s both.

The emerging picture is very different from the “jobs vs automation” scenario. According to MIT, positive impacts are emerging even in the much-misunderstood world of coding time usage and productivity. Reduced burnout was one of the findings. It also strongly refutes the idea of cost-cutting, particularly for junior-level staff. Training was actually enhanced using generative AI, adding skill values.

The clearest indicators are that automation is reconfiguring work, not merely automating it. The short-term cost-based thinking just doesn’t work. An isolating effect of AI was also seen as a problem, reducing essential collaboration.

There’s another horizon here, and it’s the real story that hasn’t been written yet. Jobs aren’t static things. Tasks change, objectives change, and priorities change. Unknown roles and whole new environments are likely to be the new frontier of work.

__________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

OP-ED

New normal of Trump’s America: bigotry, cowardice and blind obedience

Jordan Liz,

 Common Dreams
July 9, 2026


A sign and candles during a vigil after the fatal shooting of Mexican motorist Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by an ICE agent in Houston, Texas, U.S., July 8, 2026. REUTERS/Antranik Tavitian see less

On July 7, an Immigration Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican national. According to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Araujo “weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer resulting in our officer firing his weapon in self-defense.” As of the time of this writing, the agency has yet to provide any evidence.

This shooting comes days after a massive surge in ICE arrests. Between June 26 and June 30, 10,000 people were reportedly detained by immigration agents.

This is a tragic story—one that we have seen many times before.

Silverio Villegas González: On September 12, Villegas González, a Mexican national, was shot and killed by an ICE agent. This occurred during the agency’s “Operation Midway Blitz” in the Chicago area.

Araujo was not the first of ICE’s victims. So long as the agency exists, he will not be the last.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleged that the ICE agent “was hit by the car and dragged a significant distance. Fearing for his own life, the officer fired his weapon.” DHS further claimed that the agent “sustained multiple injuries.”

These were lies. Bodycam footage collected by Franklin Park police officers show the ICE agent saying he “got dragged a little bit” and describing his own injuries as “nothing major.” Surveillance video shows that Villegas González did not drive toward or hit either agent. Several eyewitnesses further refute DHS’ narrative.

Marimar Martinez: On October 4, Martinez, a US citizen, was shot five times by Border Patrol agent Charles Exum. In a statement, DHS described this as “defensive fire.” They alleged, without evidence, that Martinez and her fellow “domestic terrorists” “ambushed” and “rammed federal agents with their vehicles.” On social media, FBI Director Kash Patel posted a video—from an unrelated incident—of a black SUV aggressively ramming an agent’s truck as “proof” of Martinez’s crime.

These, too, were lies. Bodycam footage shows the agents already had their weapons drawn as one of them turned the steering wheel toward Martinez’s car. One agent can be heard saying, “It’s time to get aggressive.”

Text messages reveal the “big time” support Exum received from then-Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks, and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in the aftermath of this incident. Hours after the shooting, Bovino even offered to extend Exum’s retirement with CBP “in light of [his] excellent service in Chicago.” He added, “you have much yet left to do!”

In a group chat, Exum bragged about how he “fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes.”

Renee Nicole Good: On January 7, Noem alleged that Good, a US citizen, “weaponize[d] her vehicle” and “attempted to run” over ICE agent Jonathan Ross. This act of so-called “domestic terrorism” justified Ross’s lethal action.

Once again, more lies. Footage captured on that day definitively showed—from multiple camera angles—that Good was turning away from Ross as he opened fire. He was never in danger.

Six months later, her murder has yet to be properly investigated. This was always the government’s plan. The day after her death, Vice President JD Vance insisted that the officer had “absolute immunity.” A few weeks afterwards, six federal prosecutors resigned over the Justice Department’s reluctance to investigate Ross. An FBI agent who had opened a civil rights investigation into Good’s death also resigned after she was ordered to reclassify it as an investigation into an assault on the ICE agent.

To these names, there are many we can add: Ruben Ray Martinez (shot and killed), Alex Pretti (shot and killed), Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis (shot), Jesus Javier Gomez Islas (shot, left permanently blind in his right eye), Keith Porter Jr. (shot and killed), Carlitos Ricardo Parias (shot).


Trump’s bigotry, Congress’ cowardice, and the Supreme Court’s blind obedience; a government devoid of checks and balances at war with its own people—this is America after 250 years.

This is the new normal of Donald Trump’s America—federal agents flood our neighborhoods. A poorly trained, gun-happy immigration agent kills someone. The administration alleges, without evidence, that the victim was responsible. No proper investigation is conducted. No one is held accountable. A family is torn apart. A community traumatized. Rinse and repeat.

We do not yet know all the details surrounding Araujo’s death. Perhaps we will never.


For now, there are two things we can take as certainties: First, any official narrative put forth by ICE, DHS, or the Trump administration cannot be trusted. They have repeatedly lied to the public, defended their killers, and blamed the victims. In their view, if you are killed by ICE, protest ICE, criticize ICE on social media, or even write a strongly worded email to ICE, then you are the criminal. You are the “domestic terrorist.”

Second, Araujo was not the first of ICE’s victims. So long as the agency exists, he will not be the last. The next victim could be anyone. Regardless of race or legal status, we are all vulnerable to Trump’s taxpayer-funded secret police.

This is the reality that we all find ourselves in—one that is nurtured and sustained by every aspect of the federal government: the Trump administration’s militarized immigration enforcement and crackdown on political dissent; a Congress that continues, despite the deaths, to provide billions to ICE and DHS; and a Supreme Court that gives ICE agents legal immunity to racially profile minorities and that paves the way for DHS to strip noncitizens of their protection status.


Trump’s bigotry, Congress’ cowardice, and the Supreme Court’s blind obedience; a government devoid of checks and balances at war with its own people—this is America after 250 years.

On Facebook, Araujo’s son, Ronaldo Salgado, wrote: “My father has been in this country for nearly 35 years, working in construction to provide for myself, my two brothers, and my mother. He was in the process of obtaining his work permit through the legal process. He was on his way to work, picking up his workers. My father did not deserve this.”

None of ICE’s victims deserved this.

We cannot allow ICE to continue tearing families apart. We cannot continue to suffer politicians and institutions that prioritize war and violence over helping the people they are meant to serve.

Despite the dangers, we must continue to protest ICE. We must advocate for progressive candidates and policies. The situation is bleak, but things will only get worse if we do nothing. The White House will not save us. The Supreme Court will not save us. Congress, as it stands, will not save us. We must save ourselves.

Trump backs off his standoff in dispute over Canadian bridge

Matthew Chapman
July 10, 2026 

RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump reaches for his phone as he makes an announcement about a trade deal with the U.K., in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 8, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo

President Donald Trump is quietly backing off an aggressive trade posture against Canada, which some were suspicious was an under-the-table handout to major GOP donors.

According to Politico, "Canada’s Housing and Infrastructure Department and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced Friday" that the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a new suspension bridge connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, "will open July 27. A statement from the Canadian government said the agreement was made 'with the support of the United States Government.'"

The bridge has sat closed for months after its completion, because President Donald Trump refused to open it, ostensibly in protest of Canadian trade practices unfair to the United States.

"Trump demanded at the time that the U.S. be given at least half ownership of the bridge, which has been under construction since 2018 and funded by a corporation owned by the Canadian government," said Politico — a contrast to the original agreement, under which "the U.S. and Canada would split toll revenue from the bridge 50/50 after Canada had recouped the amount it spent financing the project."

However, some political observers pointed out that the Gordie Howe Bridge stands to compete with the Ambassador Bridge, a privately owned bridge across the Detroit River under the control of a powerful family of trucking magnates that contributed to Trump's super PAC.

Whitmer cheered the development, saying in a statement, “This bridge is a testament to the enduring partnership between Michigan and Canada and what we can get done when we think big and bet on our shared future together. Thank you to our allies in Canada and to the Michiganders who advocated for years to get this done. Let’s keep working together to build a bright future for Michigan and Canada.”

Vonage brings carrier-backed fraud checks to Canada

Digital Journal Staff
July 6, 2026

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels

Fraud teams have spent years asking customers to prove they are not criminals. Vonage is betting Canadian mobile networks can take on more of that work in the background.

The Ericsson-owned company has launched its network-powered fraud prevention tools in Canada, giving enterprises and developers access to SIM Swap Detection and Silent Authentication through Vonage network APIs.

These APIs connect to carrier data through Aduna, a telecom API aggregator, and EnStream, a joint venture between Bell, Rogers, and Telus that provides access to mobile identity and network data.

This is key, because Vonage can use carrier data, including recent SIM changes, instead of forcing every customer through another one-time code. Vonage cites Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre figures showing 33,854 fraud cases and $544 million in losses in Canada in 2025.

CIOs and CISOs now have another control to weigh. Carrier-based checks may help at moments such as account recovery or payment changes, but someone still has to decide where the extra verification belongs.

SIM Swap Detection is designed to flag recent SIM card changes in real time, a common warning sign in account takeover attempts. Vonage says that the tool can improve fraud detection rates by 30% to 40%, based on estimates from prior implementations and fraud benchmarks.

Silent Authentication takes a different route. Instead of sending a one-time passcode, it uses mobile network intelligence to verify the user’s phone number and SIM association through the device’s active mobile data session. Vonage says the tool can fall back to RCS, WhatsApp, SMS, voice, or email when needed.

“As generative AI evolves and fraud tooling is becoming increasingly available, fraudsters are becoming increasingly more sophisticated, outpacing traditional security measures. This makes network-based verification a critical component for modern enterprises,” says Christophe Van de Weyer, president and head of business unit API at Vonage.

Ontario-based Storage Guardian is already using Vonage’s SIM Swap Detection in its incident response offering.

“By integrating Vonage’s network powered solutions into our Incident Response offering we are providing our clients with the tools to ensure seamless, secure communication during critical events,” says Omry Farajun, owner/operator of Storage Guardian.

The governance question now moves to implementation. If network signals become part of identity verification, Canadian technology leaders will need to decide who owns the risk model, who sees the data, and where customer friction is allowed to show up.

Final shots

CIOs now have another authentication option to assess, one that uses carrier data rather than relying only on app-level checks.

CISOs will need to decide where SIM swap detection and silent authentication belong in the fraud control stack.

The practical test is whether these checks reduce account takeover risk without turning every login or recovery flow into a customer support problem.

Inside CSE’s annual read on Canada’s cyber threats

Digital Journal Staff
July 7, 2026

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels

Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) informs government decisions, defends critical systems, and counters threats to the country’s security and economy.

Specifically, CSE (now in its 80th year of service) provides intelligence on foreign signals, cyber security and information assurance, foreign cyber operations, and technical and operational assistance to federal partners.

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security is part of CSE, and as the public-facing agency, is positioned as the country’s technical authority on cyber security.

The agency’s 2025-2026 Annual Report, released June 29, is a public tally of what it spent the year defending against. It’s also valuable for technology leaders responsible for critical systems in Canadian organizations.

CSE produced 3,976 foreign intelligence reports for the federal government, documenting foreign-based threats and global events. They also acted against 10 of the most significant ransomware groups that sought to harm Canada and its allies, and ran 1,772 supply chain risk assessments to strengthen cyber resilience within the government.

The Cyber Centre responded to more than 3,200 cyber security incidents affecting federal institutions and critical infrastructure over the year. It issued 25 alerts, 995 advisories, and more than 97,000 notifications through the 1,363 organizations subscribed to the National Cyber Threat Notification System (NCTNS).

CSE also pointed to new work on modern secure digital infrastructure, stronger cyber defence capabilities, artificial intelligence, and post-quantum cryptography, funded by Budget 2025’s investment in defence.

“As CSE marks 80 years of service to Canada, we continue to adapt to a security environment, with cyber threats growing in scale and complexity,” said Caroline Xavier, Chief of CSE.

Two key numbers from the report for Canadian organizations are 1,363 (the number of NCTNS subscribers) and 97,000 (how many alerts the system sent).

The system is a free service available to Canadian organizations from any sector, and of any size, and can work in tandem with existing security measures. Subscribers receive notifications on potential system threats, including technical vulnerabilities, system compromises, and malware infections.

For something free and built to catch potentially debilitating attacks, that’s a short subscriber list.
Final ShotsCSE released its 2025-2026 Annual Report, tallying a year of foreign intelligence work, cyber defence, and action against major ransomware groups.
The Cyber Centre responded to more than 3,200 incidents and sent over 97,000 threat notifications through its National Cyber Threat Notification System.
The NCTNS is free and open to any Canadian organization, but only 1,363 have subscribed.

After the AI gold rush, Canadians are deciding what should stay human

Dr. Tim Sandle

DIGITAL  JOURNAL
July 6, 2026

Working in an office. — Image by © Tim Sandle

For the past two years, the dominant narrative around artificial intelligence has been one of rapid adoption. New tools have promised greater productivity, automation, creativity, and convenience. Businesses have invested heavily, governments have launched national AI strategies, and consumers have experimented with everything from chatbots to AI-generated content.

However, rather than asking what AI can do, many people are beginning to ask where AI should stop. A recent survey conducted by Hint App across 12,487 adults in North America (including Canada), Europe, Latin America, Australia, and the UK suggests that a growing number of people are deliberately setting boundaries around their use of artificial intelligence.

According to the survey, 44 percent of respondents have intentionally reduced their use of AI, while 42 percent no longer rely on AI for important personal decisions. Nearly half believe that emotional judgment and meaningful conversations should remain primarily human.

The findings do not suggest an anti-technology backlash; instead, the findings suggest a further step towards digital maturity.

Canada’s AI success story

Canada has been one of the world’s early AI leaders, producing pioneering researchers such as Geoffrey Hinton and helping establish globally recognized AI clusters in Toronto, Montréal, Edmonton, and Waterloo. The country’s new national strategy,

“AI for All,” places artificial intelligence at the centre of economic growth, productivity improvements, and public-sector modernization. The federal government argues that AI can improve healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and public services while helping Canadian businesses remain globally competitive.

At the same time, Canadian policymakers have emphasised trust, responsible deployment, transparency, and public confidence as essential elements of future AI adoption. Concerns around privacy, job security, democracy, and human wellbeing feature prominently within the strategy. As AI becomes commonplace, the challenge is no longer convincing people to use it. Instead, the challenge may be determining where its use genuinely adds value.

Research from Toronto Metropolitan University’s Social Media Lab found that approximately two-thirds of Canadians have experimented with generative AI tools. However, only a minority use such tools regularly, and significant concerns remain regarding privacy, ethical risks, misinformation, and critical thinking. The study also found widespread uncertainty about how AI companies collect and manage personal information.

Similarly, KPMG’s Canadian Generative AI Adoption Index found that AI use in Canadian workplaces continues to rise, with many employees reporting productivity gains. Yet the same research identified concerns about technological change, workforce readiness, and the need for greater AI literacy and training.

These findings suggest Canadians are both enthusiastic and cautious

The rise of “AI-free” spaces

One of the most interesting elements of the Hint survey is the emergence of intentionally AI-free periods. Nearly one-third of respondents reported building regular breaks from AI into their lives.

This mirrors broader digital wellbeing movements that previously focused on social media use, smartphone addiction, and screen-time reduction. People increasingly recognise that technologies designed to maximize efficiency do not always improve wellbeing. The question that arises is whether every aspect of life benefits from algorithmic assistance.

For example, many people appear comfortable using AI to summarize documents, generate drafts, organize information, or assist with routine tasks. However, far fewer are comfortable turning to AI for relationship advice, emotional support, family decisions, or matters involving personal identity.

This distinction reflects a growing recognition that some forms of decision-making involve empathy, moral reasoning, lived experience, and interpersonal understanding, areas where humans continue to hold important advantages.

Perhaps the most interesting survey result is that 36 percent of respondents felt that reliance on AI had reduced trust in their own judgment. For decades, technologies have helped humans extend their capabilities. Calculators assist with mathematics. GPS systems guide navigation. Search engines provide access to information. AI represents a further step in that progression. However, AI differs because it increasingly performs cognitive tasks that many people previously considered uniquely human.

When individuals begin outsourcing writing, decision-making, problem-solving, and interpersonal reflection, questions naturally emerge about skill retention and confidence. Canadian researchers and policymakers have increasingly emphasised AI literacy not simply as a technical competency but as a means of enabling citizens to engage critically with AI-generated outputs. The objective is not blind acceptance or rejection, but informed use.

The early years of AI focused on experimentation. Many organisations and individuals rushed to discover what AI could accomplish. Future discussions may focus more on governance, boundaries, and human oversight.

Canada’s AI opportunity may lie beneath the surface: Critical minerals become the next battleground

Dr. Tim Sandle
July 9, 2026

DIGITAL JOURNAL

Rare earth minerals are crucial to the manufacture of magnets used in industries of the future, like wind turbines and electric cars – Copyright AFP Juan Carlos CISNEROS

The artificial intelligence boom is usually discussed in terms of advanced chips, hyperscale data centres, cloud computing and soaring electricity demand. Yet another race is unfolding behind the scenes—one that could prove just as important to the future of AI. It is a race for critical minerals, processing capacity and industrial expertise.

For Canada, a country rich in mineral resources and increasingly active in AI research, this convergence presents a significant economic opportunity. Every AI server, robotics platform, electric vehicle, advanced sensor and defence system depends on minerals such as rare earth elements, gallium, germanium, graphite and other strategically important materials. As AI adoption accelerates, demand for these materials is expected to increase alongside demand for computing infrastructure. At the same time, governments across North America, Europe and Asia are seeking alternatives to supply chains that remain heavily dependent on China.

The result is a new phase in the AI economy where mineral security and technological innovation are becoming increasingly intertwined.

AI is transforming the mineral industry itself

An emerging trend is that AI is not only consuming critical minerals, it is helping to produce them. One example comes from Aclara Resources, which is collaborating with Stanford University’s Mineral-X initiative, Argonne National Laboratory and Virginia Tech to develop AI-driven technologies for rare earth exploration and processing. These efforts include predictive models that identify promising mineral deposits and AI-enabled digital twins that simulate and optimize complex rare earth separation processes.

Argonne National Laboratory notes that advanced computing, process modelling and artificial intelligence can help accelerate the transition from pilot-scale operations to commercial-scale rare earth production. Such digital tools can reduce costs, improve recovery rates and reduce industrial scale-up risks.

This matters because processing rare earth elements is often more challenging than mining them. Developing expertise in refining and separation technology can create long-term competitive advantages beyond simple resource extraction.

Why rare earths matter for AI

Rare earth elements are essential inputs for permanent magnets used in robotics, electric motors, drones, wind turbines and advanced electronics. Elements such as dysprosium and terbium play a particularly important role in high-performance applications.

As AI expands into physical systems including autonomous vehicles, industrial robotics and intelligent manufacturing, the demand for these materials will continue to rise. Governments have become increasingly concerned about supply chain resilience because China continues to dominate significant portions of rare earth mining and, particularly, processing activities. Recent export controls on several critical minerals have heightened concerns among allied nations about long-term supply security.

As a consequence, countries are increasingly seeking to develop domestic mining and processing capacity, or to partner with trusted allies that can provide secure supply chains.

Canada enters this new environment with several advantages. The federal government’s Critical Minerals Strategy identifies critical minerals as foundational to both the green and digital economy. The strategy aims to support exploration, processing, manufacturing and recycling while strengthening Canada’s role in global supply chains.

According to Natural Resources Canada, the country now has 56 active critical mineral mines, 31 processing facilities and more than 170 advanced critical mineral projects. The sector contributed approximately $40 billion to Canada’s GDP and supports around 110,000 jobs directly and indirectly.

Canada has earned an international reputation in artificial intelligence through work conducted at institutions such as the Vector Institute, Mila and the University of Alberta. While much discussion focuses on AI software innovation, Canada could potentially gain a larger advantage by combining AI capabilities with natural resource expertise and advanced manufacturing. Hence, Canada may be uniquely positioned to link two of the world’s most strategic sectors: artificial intelligence and critical minerals.

Historically, Canada has often exported raw materials while capturing less value from downstream processing and manufacturing. The latest developments suggest a different path.

For example, Aclara is developing a vertically integrated rare earth supply chain outside China, including a planned heavy rare earth separation facility in Louisiana. The facility is designed to process materials into high-purity rare earth oxides used in advanced technologies and is expected to strengthen North American supply chain resilience.

The broader lesson for Canada is that future competitiveness may depend less on discovering mineral deposits and more on mastering processing technologies, industrial digitization and supply chain integration. This aligns closely with Canadian policy priorities. The country’s Critical Minerals Strategy explicitly supports innovation, value-added processing, research partnerships and infrastructure development designed to strengthen domestic value chains.

A growing geopolitical opportunity

Recent developments underscore the strategic importance of the sector. Canada and Japan are reportedly exploring deeper cooperation around critical mineral supply chains as both countries seek to reduce vulnerabilities associated with concentrated global supply. Similar partnerships are emerging across the United States, Europe and other allied economies.

Within Canada, investment is also expanding. Teck Resources, Canada Growth Fund and Natural Resources Canada’s Critical Minerals Accelerator recently announced plans supporting expanded production capacity for strategic metals including germanium, gallium and antimony—materials essential for semiconductors, telecommunications and advanced electronics. These developments illustrate how critical minerals have evolved from a mining issue into a national competitiveness issue.