Trump threatens Republican lawmakers after 6 defy him in House vote on Canada tariffs



Six congressional Republicans joined 213 Democrats on Wednesday in voting to effectively kill President Donald Trump's Canada tariffs.

Although House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) downplayed the president's ire over the act, Trump appeared sufficiently peeved on Truth Social, where he threatened the political futures of those GOP lawmakers who stood out of line.

The background

On his first day back in office, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border. The following month, he issued an executive order expanding the scope of the national emergency to address perceived drug-related threats at America's northern border, claiming that Canada's response to the alleged threats was unsatisfactory.

Citing the need for "decisive and immediate action," he slapped 25% tariffs on various goods from Canada except for oil and gas, which he slapped with a 10% tariff. In July, Trump increased the tariff rate from 25% to 35%.

'They are among the worst in the World to deal with.'

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have complained about the tariffs in the months since, and in October, four Republican senators joined their Democrat colleagues in passing a resolution disapproving of the president's tariffs on imports from Canada.

The vote

The House passed a resolution on Wednesday evening to terminate the national emergency declared on Feb. 1 in a 219-211 vote — several hours after House Speaker Mike Johnson warned against "trying to limit the president's power while he is in the midst of negotiating American First trade agreements,"

The six Republicans who helped pass the resolution were Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Don Bacon (Neb.), Kevin Kiley (Calif.), Jeff Hurd (Co.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Dan Newhouse (Wash.).

The resolution is headed now to the Senate, where it stands a good chance of passing given the upper chamber's track record. Trump can, however, ultimately veto it — and it appears unlikely that either chamber has the requisite two-thirds majority support to surmount a veto.

RELATED: Lone Republican defies Trump, votes to tank the SAVE Act

Photo by EVAN VUCCI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Newhouse explained his decision on Wednesday evening, stating, "Washington State’s economy is heavily intertwined with that of our neighbors to the North. Canada is our state’s second largest export market with billions of dollars in Washington commodities being sold there every year."

In addition to complaining about rising prices and the fallout of reciprocal tariffs, Newhouse noted that "Congress should not tie its own hands on our Constitutional authority to levy tariffs."

Hurd volunteered an even lengthier defense wherein he stressed that "Article I gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to levy tariffs" and that the normalization of "broad emergency trade powers today" would enable future presidents to "rely on the same authority in ways many of us would strongly oppose."

"I support the goal of strengthening American industry. Where I differ is on the method," noted Hurd.

Bacon said ahead of the vote that Congress should not "outsource our responsibilities" and that "tariffs are a tax on American consumers."

Kiley suggested to CBS News that his opposition came down to protecting "the powers that belong to our branch of government."

Massie, who has repeatedly defied Trump, stated that his goal "is to defend the Constitution and represent the people" and that "taxing authority is vested in the House of Representatives, not the Executive."

The reaction

In the immediate wake of the vote, Mike Johnson told CNN that the president was "not upset. I just left the White House. He understands what’s going on. It’s not going to affect or change his policy. He can veto these things if they come to it."

Trump did, however, evidence some vexation, writing on Truth Social, "Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!"

"TARIFFS have given us Great National Security because the mere mention of the word has Countries agreeing to our strongest wishes," continued Trump. "TARIFFS have given us Economic and National Security, and no Republican should be responsible for destroying this privilege."

Trump's anger spilled over into another post, where he noted, "Canada has taken advantage of the United States on Trade for many years. They are among the worst in the World to deal with, especially as it relates to our Northern Border."

"TARIFFS make a WIN for us, EASY. Republicans must keep it that way!" added the president.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Preparedness isn’t paranoia. It’s pattern recognition.



A certain smug comfort belongs to people who have never stood between a riot line and a camera, never smelled accelerant on the wind, never watched their phones lose signal while fire chewed through an entire neighborhood. They talk about “heated rhetoric” and “charged atmospheres” as if danger were theoretical. For women reporters on the ground, it isn’t.

The front line is not a metaphor. It is a place. And it is getting more dangerous by the year.

This is not a gadget story. It is a survival story.

I have covered Antifa riots where the mob knew my name before I reached the sidewalk. I have been screamed at, followed, and threatened by people who publicly denounce violence while privately practicing it. I have watched law enforcement stand down under progressive policies that place the comfort of agitators above the safety of citizens. And I have learned, the hard way, that when cities become unlivable, women pay first.

The left loves to talk about “lived experience.” Here is mine: Democrat governance has made America’s major cities objectively less safe, and being a female independent journalist in them now requires the mindset of a survivalist.

That became brutally clear during the Los Angeles wildfires of 2025.

I was there when the sky turned orange and evacuation orders contradicted one another. Cell towers failed. Emergency lines were overwhelmed. Friends and family lost homes — not hypothetically, not statistically, but completely. In that chaos, the only reason I was able to coordinate help, locate people, and call for assistance was a satellite phone. While 911 systems collapsed, that device worked. No signal dependency. No excuses.

That is not a gadget story. It is a survival story.

The same lesson repeats itself elsewhere. In Washington, D.C., shootings now occur in places that once felt immune — near offices, events, and corridors of power. I was at Butler. I have been steps away from moments that could have gone very differently. Anyone insisting that “these things don’t happen here” is either lying or sheltered by privilege.

When whistleblowers reach out to me, they do not do it over casual cell calls. They use secure satellite communications, because they understand something our leaders prefer not to acknowledge: privacy is safety. Satellite phones are resistant to interception, independent of fragile infrastructure, and immune to spam and shutdowns. When people have something dangerous to say, they choose tools that help keep them alive.

This is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition.

People have died hiking because there was no signal. Boaters have vanished because help could not be reached. Hurricanes do not care about ideology. Fires do not check voter registration. Yet one party consistently opposes disaster preparedness, energy independence, and resilient infrastructure — while demanding blind trust in systems that fail precisely when they are needed most.

Preparedness is not extremism. It is common sense.

Redundancy in communication is not political. Neither are solar-powered backups or hardened devices. Nor is concern about electromagnetic vulnerabilities when our lives run through centralized, fragile networks. Thinking ahead does not make you radical. It makes you female in a country that keeps telling women to be brave while stripping away the tools that make bravery survivable.

And yes, it matters who builds those tools.

If I am calling for help, I want American customer service — American voices, American-owned companies. Safety should not come with a foreign accent and a hold button. Trust is part of security.

This is why satellite phones, solar chargers, emergency kits, and hardened cases are no longer niche products. They are rational responses to an increasingly unstable political and physical environment. They are also meaningful gifts — because nothing says you care like giving someone a way to come home alive.

RELATED: A nation without trust is a nation on borrowed time

Photo by Jay L Clendenin/Getty Images

Which brings us to 2026.

Around President Trump, TPUSA events, or Republican members of Congress, the threat environment is asymmetric. The left has normalized political violence while denying it exists. Media figures excuse it. Politicians minimize it. Prosecutors decline to prosecute it. And women journalists who refuse to conform are expected to absorb the consequences quietly.

I won’t.

The question voters should ask heading into the midterms is not which party sounds kinder on cable news. It is which party acknowledges reality — and equips Americans, especially women, to survive it.

One side treats chaos as a political tool. The other treats safety as the foundation of freedom.

I know which one kept me connected when the fires closed in. I know which one refuses to pretend riots are “mostly peaceful.” And I know which one understands that strong borders, strong policing, resilient infrastructure, and personal preparedness are not luxuries in dangerous times.

The front line is expanding. It runs through our cities, our forests, our streets, and our inboxes. Women are already on it — whether policymakers realize it or not.

The only question left is whether America will choose leaders who take our safety seriously or continue sacrificing us to ideology.

Because the danger is real. And pretending otherwise is the most reckless policy of all.

AM radio still saves lives — but will automakers listen?



Your new car has all the usual shiny new entertainment tech, but you're in the mood for an old favorite. You skip past the buttons for satellite radio and Bluetooth connectivity to tune in to your ever-reliable source of news, sports, and even lifesaving alerts in a crisis.

That's when it hits you: There's no AM radio.

Think back to the 1960s, when seatbelts weren’t standard. Automakers fought mandates then, too, calling them costly and unnecessary — until lives saved proved them wrong.

As I've reported here before, carmakers like Tesla, Ford, and BMW have been quietly dropping in-vehicle AM radios for years, claiming it's no longer practical or financially viable to include it.

But don't turn that dial just yet.

Poor reception

The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act is heading toward a Senate vote after clearing the Commerce Committee back on February 5. With bipartisan support and an endorsement from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, this bill could ensure that AM radio stays in every new car.

But why is this even a fight?

It starts with cost. Adding an AM receiver might only run a few dollars per vehicle, but multiply that by millions of cars and it’s a hit to the bottom line.

Then there’s the tech angle — electric vehicles dominate the future (for now), and AM signals can get scrambled by the electromagnetic hum of EV batteries and motors, creating annoying static.

Plus, with dashboards turning into touchscreens and younger buyers streaming music or podcasts via Bluetooth, they argue that AM is outdated and unnecessary.

Automakers would rather upsell you on satellite radio subscriptions or internet-connected infotainment systems — options that pad their profits but leave you without an AM signal when you want or need it.

The trouble is that rural roads and disaster zones don’t care about your Wi-Fi plan, and that’s where AM comes in.

Last resort

I’ve been tracking this on Congress.gov. Senate Bill 315 moved out of committee for a floor vote this month. It’s described as a push “to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue a rule ensuring access to AM broadcast stations in passenger motor vehicles.”

If passed, it would mandate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require automakers to include AM radio in all vehicles sold in the U.S. — at no extra cost. Until that rule kicks in, any cars without it must be clearly labeled.

The National Association of Broadcasters cheered the progress, pointing to disasters like the Los Angeles wildfires and Hurricane Helene, where AM’s reach delivered evacuation orders and recovery info when cell networks crumbled. Over 125 groups, from the American Farm Bureau to the AARP, back it, citing safety and community access.

Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) of the Commerce Committee teamed up across the aisle, saying, “Today’s vote broadcasts a clear message to car manufacturers that AM radio is an essential tool for millions. From emergency response to entertainment and news, it’s a lifeline we must protect.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr added, “I saw it firsthand after Hurricane Helene — people relied on AM for lifesaving updates when everything else was down. Unlike streaming apps that need a signal or a subscription, AM is free, far-reaching, and works when nothing else does.”

Audio seatbelt

This bill is bigger than just radios — it’s about innovation, safety, and government’s role in the auto industry. Think back to the 1960s when seatbelts weren’t standard. Automakers fought mandates then, too, calling them costly and unnecessary — until lives saved proved them wrong. Today, AM radio is the seatbelt of communication: low-tech, sure, but a proven lifesaver.

If it passes the Senate, it could set a precedent for regulators to prioritize public good over corporate trends, maybe even nudging carmakers to rethink other cuts — like physical buttons that were swapped for slow screens.

It’s a signal that tech’s march forward doesn’t have to leave reliability behind, especially as disasters make resilient tools more crucial than ever.

Static from lobbyists

Unfortunately, this bill has some hurdles to get over. Automakers aren’t accepting this quietly; they’ve got deep pockets and powerful lobbyists, and groups like the Alliance for Automotive Innovation could lean on senators to water it down or kill it. They might argue it’s unfair to force a feature not every buyer wants or that EVs need exemptions for technical reasons.

Then there’s the Senate itself — gridlock is normal, and with budget battles and post-election-year posturing, a floor vote could easily be delayed. Even supporters admit it’s faced delays before; earlier versions never passed in Congress despite broad support. The difference now? High-profile disasters and bipartisan unity might just tip the scales.

AM remains the backbone of the Emergency Alert System, a resilient lifeline delivering local news, diverse voices, and critical info when it counts. Now that this bill’s racing through, it’s a sign that it could soon be law — unless the opposition shifts gears.

Mass deportations are critical to America’s future



In a late-night order, the Supreme Court on Saturday blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal aliens. The administration had relied on the law to expedite removals of some of the most dangerous individuals in the country, including alleged MS-13 gang members.

This wasn’t a final ruling on the statute, but it froze current deportation efforts and signaled a likely loss for the White House. Once again, Donald Trump faces betrayal from the very justices he appointed — only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The president now finds himself at odds with a politically driven judiciary that seems to believe unelected lawyers, not the commander in chief, should run the executive branch.

The implication is clear. If Biden can import millions without due process, but Trump can’t deport them without it, then the system has no future.

Mass deportations remain essential if the United States hopes to remain a functioning nation. But the legal system isn’t the only obstacle. Mass democracy — often hailed as a bulwark against tyranny — turns out to be remarkably easy to rig.

When the ruling classes can’t depend on the current electorate to keep them in power, they simply replace it. Democrats understand that new immigrants overwhelmingly support the party that promises wealth redistribution — from the established population to the newly arrived.

Illegal immigrants may not vote immediately, but many will gain amnesty or eventually naturalize. Their children will all receive birthright citizenship. That’s the plan: long-term voter replacement to eliminate serious opposition in national elections.

The crisis at the southern border never threatened Democrats. They designed it. It wasn’t a policy failure. It was an electoral strategy.

And the Supreme Court saw no urgency in stopping a border policy designed to rig American elections for generations.

The Biden administration ran a cell phone app that fast-tracked illegal entry. It didn’t just leave the southern border wide open — it flew planeloads of Haitian migrants directly into the United States and dumped them in small Midwestern towns, where they overwhelmed local infrastructure. At no point did Chief Justice John Roberts step in, despite the administration’s blatant disregard for federal law and its constitutional duty to protect citizens.

When government officials at every level violated core constitutional rights during the pandemic — freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and more — the Supreme Court barely stirred. When federal intelligence agencies colluded with social media platforms to censor Americans and manipulate the outcome of a presidential election, the justices stayed silent. No emergency orders. No late-night rulings.

Even when January 6 defendants were charged under a statute that clearly didn’t apply to them, the court dragged its feet for years before taking up the case.

But when MS-13 gang members faced deportation under a long-standing federal statute, the Supreme Court sprang into action — issuing a midnight order to protect their due process rights.

Different rules for different people. And we’re all supposed to pretend not to notice.

The situation has become so absurd — so transparently political — that Justice Alito called it out in a blistering dissent, highlighting the irony of denying due process in an emergency order supposedly aimed at protecting due process:

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

The absurdity doesn’t end with the timing. Millions of illegal immigrants already lived in the U.S. before Biden took office. Since then, more than six million (at least) have entered illegally — an estimate even generous analysts won’t dispute.

Now consider the implications: If each of those six million requires a full court hearing before deportation, Trump could devote every waking moment of his presidency to the task and still fall short of removing even that cohort.

The implication is clear. If Biden can import millions without due process, but Trump can’t deport them without it, then the system has no future. Democrats get to flood the electorate with a new dependent voting class during their terms, while Republican presidents get bogged down in endless legal entanglements trying to undo the damage.

Every Republican president becomes a man with a bucket, bailing water from a cruise ship with a hole the size of Mexico.

The left keeps warning that Trump’s battles with the courts risk plunging us into a constitutional crisis. But that crisis began tens of millions of illegal immigrants ago.

Federal judges have already blocked Trump administration efforts to reform the military, reduce spending, and rein in foreign aid. They act as though they — not the president — command the executive branch. Now, the Supreme Court has taken the absurd position that the due process rights of illegal alien gang members matter more than the rights of American citizens.

A government that fails to secure its borders or remove those who violate them abandons its most basic responsibility. No country that tolerates mass illegal presence can long remain a country at all — certainly not for long.

The judiciary isn’t defending the rule of law. It’s eroding it — obstructing legitimate executive action, undermining democratic accountability, and weakening national sovereignty.

The Trump administration has ambitious and vital goals: restoring American industry through tariffs, ending the globalist drift in foreign policy, removing progressive rot from universities, and dismantling the administrative state.

But none of it will matter without mass deportations.

Tens of millions of people live in the United States in defiance of our laws. They must be expelled. The only question is how far the courts will go to damage their own credibility trying to stop it.

Latest Covid Shots Released Without Safety Data Under 4.5-Year-Old ‘Emergency’

HHS and the FDA should be leading the world in health care policy, not being over one year behind the curve.

Biden White House considering declaration of a 'national climate emergency' in order to grant itself special powers



The Biden White House is once again entertaining the possibility of conferring itself unprecedented powers to hobble American energy producers and win over leftists, all in the name of changing weather patterns.

Forbes Media chairman Steve Forbes characterized the proposed declaration as a "cowardly way to try to win this election."

Emergency powers then and now

The National Emergencies Act enables the president to activate special powers during a crisis. Since the law went into effect in 1976, it has been invoked scores of times.

When former President Donald Trump was in office, the Brennan Center for Justice, a leftist public policy institute, raised the alarm about the "vast array of obscure presidential powers" the NEA affords presidents in the face of a supposed emergency.

The Brennan Center noted that the emergency powers "cover almost every imaginable subject area, including the military, land use, public health, trade, federal pay schedules, agriculture, transportation, communications, and criminal law."

One statute unlocked following an NEA declaration would enable the president to "suspend a law that prohibits the testing of chemical and biological weapons on unwitting human subjects." Another would allow the president to commandeer radio stations.

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director and expert on presidential emergency powers at the Brennan Center, noted in the Atlantic that "the president is free to use any of them; the National Emergencies Act doesn't require that the powers invoked relate to the nature of the emergency. Even if the crisis at hand is, say, a nationwide crop blight, the president may activate the law that allows the secretary of transportation to requisition any privately owned vessel at sea."

The New York Times noted in 2019 that when it comes to an NEA declaration, it likely doesn't matter if "there is no true emergency" and that as a "matter of legal procedure, facts may be irrelevant."

While leftists, future Biden boosters, and Fox News hosts complained when Trump declared a national emergency to curb illegal immigration and secure the border, some appear less resistant now to an emergency declaration that affords fellow travelers more power.

Fake crisis, real power

In 2022, Biden faced significant pressure from Democratic lawmakers and other radicals to declare a national climate emergency as a means to unilaterally kill federal oil drilling and ramp up so-called clean energy projects.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in July 2022, "The climate emergency is not going to happen tomorrow, but we still have it on the table."

The option is evidently still on the table.

Citing people "familiar with the matter," Bloomberg reported last week that White House officials have renewed discussions about declaring a national climate emergency.

Biden's top advisers would be able to cut back exports of American crude oil just as Iran's oil exports hit a 6-year high and altogether throttle the supply of oil and gas; limit the movement of trains and ships; kill offshore drilling; limit Americans' greenhouse gas emissions; and more.

The Times previously indicated that the regime could also compel domestic industries to produce more renewable energy and transportation technologies and free up taxpayer funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to fritter away on supposedly green causes.

Advisers apparently figure the unilateral measure would resonate with "climate-minded voters."

Wrecking the economy

Steve Forbes told Fox Business' "The Evening Edit" Thursday that "you're going to pay for it with an even more troubled economy."

The declaration would "give him the power to stop drilling offshore, stop export of crude, ... delay pipelines and the like — just throttle the whole fossil fuel industry even more than they're doing," said Forbes. "What that only does is wreck the economy. It means higher energy prices."

"Just look at Europe. Germany has two to three times the electricity costs times the electricity costs of the U.S. because of the kind of stuff the Biden administration is doing now. They've learned a hard lesson," continued Forbes. "This administration's throwing it all away, all sensible policies away, as a cheap way, a cowardly way to try to win this election."

Forbes appeared somewhat optimistic, suggesting that most young people "will see through it" and understand the declaration would do them harm as well.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kentucky woman who lost all four limbs after kidney stone surgery refuses to despair, shares inspiring message



A Kentucky mother of two went to the hospital last month to receive what she figured would be a routine treatment for a kidney stone. Lucinda Mullins, 41, ultimately ended up losing both legs and both arms from the elbows down.

Despite the great misfortune that has befallen her, Mullins has not succumbed to despair. Rather, she has exhibited great perseverance and optimism, focusing on the blessings in her life.

Mullins, who has served her community as a nurse for nearly two decades, told WLEX-TV that after getting treatment for her kidney stone last month, the mineral deposit got infected, resulting in her, in turn, becoming septic — what she referred to as a "perfect storm." She was first rushed to Fort Logan Hospital in Stanford, Kentucky, then taken by ambulance to UK Hospital in Lexington.

Mullins spent days sedated in the hospital until being awoken to learn that she had to have all of her limbs amputated. The alternative was likely death.

"I've lost my legs from the knees down bilaterally, and I'm going to lose my arms probably below the elbow bilaterally," Mullins said. "The doctor I used to work with, he kind of was like, 'this is what they had to do to save your life[;] this is what's happened."

Mullins apparently took the bad news in stride, leaning into her faith and family.

"I just said these are the cards I've been dealt, and these are the hands I'm going to play," Mullins told WLEX. "I'm just so happy to be alive. I get to see my kids. I get to see my family. I get to have my time with my husband."

Mullins noted that if "one person from this can see God from all this, that made it all worth it."

On New Year's Day, Mullins was transferred to Cardinal Hill Rehabilitation Hospital in Lexington to begin her rehabilitation.

At the hospital, her youngest son helped feed her.

At the time of publication, the GoFundMe campaign created for Mullins' medical needs, prosthetics, and adaptive equipment had raised over $183,300 towards its goal of $250,000.

Extra to financial support from friends and strangers alike, Mullins told WLEX she has been overwhelmed by in-person visits and support.

"At one time, I think they told [me] 40 people were in the waiting room here. The calls and the texts, the prayers, and the things people have sent. The little words of encouragement," said Mullins. "I just can't fathom that people are doing things like that for me."

While the nurse from Kentucky has a marathon ahead of her in terms of rehab and therapy, she shared counsel for others sprinting through life: "Slow down. Appreciate the things around you, especially your family. It's OK to let people take care of you."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Honor Guard Collapses During Service For Supreme Court Justice

The female guard immediately begins to fall forward

FACT CHECK: Will iPhone Users Who Say ‘One Twelve’ To Siri Be Given A Crisis Loan?

Saying 'one twelve' to Siri gives iPhone users three seconds before dialing emergency services, according to KDAF/CW33