At the G7 summit in Canada, EU leaders emphasized the urgent need for U.S. President Donald Trump to end his global trade war, which they believe is detrimental to the global economy. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa both expressed concerns over the impact of tariffs on international trade and called for a fair and predictable trading environment.

Von der Leyen highlighted the importance of avoiding protectionist measures, suggesting that a unified message from the G7 could help stabilize markets worldwide. She noted that discussions among G7 partners should focus on restoring stability and predictability in economic relations. Costa added that Europe would struggle to increase defense spending as Trump has requested if it simultaneously had to contend with a trade war.

The leaders' remarks underscored their belief that creating uncertainty in trade is counterproductive at this critical moment, as both Europe and the United States need to strengthen their economic foundations.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation, which will be thoroughly analyzed below.

One of the most striking aspects of the text is its clear left-leaning bias, particularly in its framing of the global trade war initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump. The use of words like "urgent need" and "detrimental" to describe Trump's actions creates a negative tone that sets the reader up to view his policies as inherently problematic. This framing is reinforced by the inclusion of quotes from European leaders, such as Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, who express concerns about the impact of tariffs on international trade and call for a fair and predictable trading environment. The text presents no counterarguments or alternative perspectives that might challenge this narrative, thereby creating a one-sided portrayal of Trump's policies.

Furthermore, the text exhibits cultural bias in its implicit assumption that Western economic systems are superior to those in other regions. The emphasis on restoring stability and predictability in economic relations suggests that these values are universal and essential for global prosperity, without acknowledging alternative economic models or perspectives from non-Western countries. This assumption is reinforced by the use of phrases like "strengthening their economic foundations," which implies that Europe and the United States have a unique understanding of what constitutes economic stability.

The text also reveals linguistic bias through its use of emotionally charged language, such as "global trade war" instead of more neutral terms like "trade tensions." This choice creates a sense of drama and urgency around Trump's policies, which serves to further reinforce their negative portrayal. Additionally, the text employs euphemisms like "protectionist measures," which downplays the potential benefits or motivations behind Trump's actions while emphasizing their supposed drawbacks.

In terms of selection and omission bias, it is notable that the text excludes any discussion or mention of potential benefits or justifications for Trump's trade policies. For example, some might argue that his tariffs are intended to protect American industries or workers from unfair competition; however, these perspectives are not represented in this article. Similarly, there is no mention or analysis of European Union (EU) trade practices or policies that might contribute to global trade tensions.

Structural bias becomes apparent when examining how authority figures are presented in this article. The quotes from European leaders von der Leyen and Costa carry significant weight due to their positions within EU institutions; however, there is no equivalent representation from American officials who might offer differing views on trade policy issues at hand – reinforcing an unbalanced perspective toward U.S.-initiated actions versus those taken elsewhere globally regarding international commerce regulations & agreements made between nations worldwide today!

Confirmation bias manifests itself throughout this piece because it takes at face value assumptions about what constitutes 'fair' trading practices without questioning them critically enough; specifically focusing solely upon perceived imbalances caused directly attributable towards USA under current administration leadership rather than exploring broader systemic issues impacting global markets overall including multilateral agreements signed prior years ago still holding sway over contemporary international relations dynamics today!

Framing narrative biases become evident when looking closely at how story structure influences interpretation here: By beginning with an event description ('At G7 summit') then immediately jumping into criticisms directed toward President Donald Trump regarding ongoing 'global trade war', we're primed early on into viewing situation through lens critical towards US action rather than taking holistic look encompassing multiple viewpoints across entire spectrum involved parties concerned within given context situation unfolding real time now before us all today!