Business
Trump declares national emergency at northern border

A Border Patrol agent standing watch at the Montana-Canada border in the CBP Spokane Sector. The Spokane Sector covers the U.S.-Canada border along the northwestern section of Montana, part of Idaho, and the eastern part of Washington. Photo from
From The Center Square
By
Cites smuggling, national security threats
President Donald Trump on Saturday declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Canada border, citing an influx of human and drug smuggling coming from Canada presenting a national security threat to Americans.
He did so after a record number of illegal border crossers were reported entering the U.S. from Canada, the greatest number of known or suspected terrorists were apprehended coming from Canada, and northern border terrorist arrests soared under the Biden and Trudeau administrations, The Center Square first reported.
Unlike the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico border, there are no border walls and significantly less technological equipment and agents to patrol the U.S.-Canada border, the longest international border in the world, The Center Square reported.
With far fewer agents in the field, less technological surveillance and increased national security threats posed by Canadian policies, U.S. officials have warned about a lack of operational control at the U.S.-Canada border, The Center Square first reported.
Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025, executive order “Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs across our Northern Border” states that the “sustained influx of illicit opioids and other drugs has profound consequences on our nation, endangering lives and putting a severe strain on our healthcare system, public services, and communities.”
He declared a national emergency citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, National Emergencies Act, section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code.
The order expands the national emergency he declared on his first day in office declaring an invasion at the southern border. The national emergency now includes the northern border “to cover the threat to the safety and security of Americans, including the public health crisis of deaths due to the use of fentanyl and other illicit drugs, and the failure of Canada to do more to arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept [drug trafficking organizations], other drug and human traffickers, criminals at large, and drugs.”
“Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illicit drugs of all kinds have poured across our borders and into our communities. Canada has played a central role in these challenges, including by failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs,” the order states.
DTOs “are the world’s leading producers of fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, and other illicit drugs” that “often collaborate with transnational cartels to smuggle illicit drugs into the United States, utilizing clandestine airstrips, maritime routes, and overland corridors.”
While much focus has been on the southern border, “There is also a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada,” the order states. Illicit drugs are being shipped into the U.S. from Canada “due to the existing administrative exemption from duty and taxes, also known as de minimis,” under U.S. Code, which has created a public health crisis in the U.S. prompting Trump to designate the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
The order points to a Canadian Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre report on the laundering of proceeds of illicit synthetic opioids as domestic production of fentanyl increased primarily in British Columbia. This contributed to Canada’s growing footprint in international narcotics distribution.
Last year, the Canadian Parliament held hearings expressing alarm about increased terrorism threats due to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visa policies and U.S. lawmakers called for additional security at the northern border for similar reasons.
“Immediate action is required to address threats from Canada,” the order states, “which will not happen unless the compliance and cooperation of Canada is assured.”
Trump also imposed a 25% tariff on Canadian goods and a 10% tariff on energy resources effective Feb. 4.
If the Canadian government retaliates, the order states that Trump may increase or expand the scope of the tariffs. If the Canadian government fails “to take adequate steps to alleviate the illegal migration and illicit drug crises through cooperative enforcement actions,” additional action will be taken.
The order directs several cabinet leaders to coordinate and communicate with him and Congress “on the situation at our northern border.” Once the Canadian government “has taken adequate steps to alleviate this public health crisis through cooperative enforcement actions,” the tariffs may be removed.
Business
Report: $128 million in federal grants spent on gender ideology

From The Center Square
By
More than $128 million of federal taxpayer money was spent on at least 341 grants to fund gender ideology initiatives under the Biden administration, according to an analysis of federal data by the American Principles Project.
In, “Funding Insanity: Federal Spending on Gender Ideology under Biden-Harris,” APP says it “found how the federal government has been spending hundreds of millions of YOUR MONEY on the Gender Industrial Complex!”
APP says it identified the grants by searching the USA Spending database. The data, which is available for free, is categorized by federal agency; notable grants are highlighted.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department awarded the greatest amount of funding totaling nearly $84 million through 60 grants.
The Department of State awarded the greatest number of grants, 209, totaling more than $14 million, according to the data.
Other agencies awarding taxpayer-funded gender ideology grants include:
- U.S. Agency for International Development, nearly $18 million through 8 grants;
- National Endowment for the Humanities, more than $2.6 million through 20 grants;
- Department of Justice, $1.9 million through three grants;
- Institute of Museum and Library Services, $1.87 million through 13 grants;
- Department of Education, $1.67 million through two grants;
- Department of Agriculture, $1.6 million through five grants;
- Department of the Interior, more than 1,000,000 awarded through two grants;
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than $548,000 through 4 grants;
- Inter-American Foundation, more than $490,000 through two grants;
- National Endowment for the Arts, $262,000 through 13 grants.
APP also identified 63 federal agency contracts totaling more than $46 million that promote gender ideology. They include total obligated amounts and the number of contracts per agency.
The majority, $31 million, was awarded through USAID. The next greatest amount of $4.4 million was awarded through the Department of Defense.
The Trump administration has taken several approaches to gut USAID, which has been met with litigation. The Department of Defense and other agencies are also under pressure to cut funding and reduce redundancies.
Notable grants include:
- $3.9 million to Key Populations Consortium Uganda for promoting “the safety, agency, well-being and the livelihoods of LGBTQI+ in Uganda;”
- $3.5 million to Outright International for “the Alliance for Global Equality and its mission to promote LGBTQI+ people in priority countries around the world;”
- $2.4 million to the International Rescue Committee for “inclusive consideration of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual characteristics in humanitarian assistance;”
- $1.9 million to the American Bar Association to “shield the LGBTQI+ population in the Western Balkans;”
- $1.4 million for “economic empowerment of and opportunity for LGBTQI+ people in Serbia;”
- $1.49 million to Equality for All Foundation, Jamaica to “Strengthen community support structures to upscale LGBT rights advocacy;”
- More than $1 million to Bandhu Social Welfare Society to support gender diverse people in Bangladesh.
One of the grants identified by APP, which has since been cancelled, was $600,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Southern University Agricultural & Mechanical College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to study menstruation and menopause, including in biological men.
According to a description of the grant summary, funding would support research, extension, and teaching to address “growing concerns and issues surrounding menstruation, including the potential health risks posed to users of synthetic feminine hygiene products (FHP);” advancing research in the development of FHP that use natural materials and providing menstrual hygiene management; producing sustainable feminine hygiene sanitary products using natural fibers; providing a local fiber processing center for fiber growers in Louisiana, among others.
It states that menstruation begins in girls at roughly age 12 and ends with menopause at roughly age 51. “A woman will have a monthly menstrual cycle for about 40 years of her life averaging to about 450 periods over the course of her lifetime,” but adds: “It is also important to recognize that transgender men and people with masculine gender identities, intersex and non-binary persons may also menstruate.”
All federal funding was allocated to state agencies through the approval of Congress when it voted to pass continuing resolutions to fund the federal government and approved agency budgets.
Business
We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?

By David Clinton
Shaping Government Spending Choices to Reflect Taxpayer Preferences
Technically, the word “democracy” means “rule of the people”. But we all know that the ability to throw the bums out every few years is a poor substitute for “rule”. And as I’ve already demonstrated, the last set of bums you sent to Ottawa are 19 times more likely than not to simply vote along party lines. So who they are as individuals barely even matters.
This story isn’t new, and it hasn’t even got a decent villain. But it is about a universal weakness inherent in all modern, nation-scale democracies. After all, complex societies governed by hundreds of thousands of public servants who are responsible for spending trillions of dollars can’t realistically account for millions of individual voices. How could you even meaningfully process so many opinions?
Hang on. It’s 2025. These days, meaningfully processing lots of data is what we do. And the challenge of reliably collecting and administrating those opinions is trivial. I’m not suggesting we descend into some hellish form of governance by opinion poll. But I do wonder why we haven’t tried something that’s far more focused, measured, and verifiable: directed revenue spending.
Self-directed income tax payments? Crazy, no? Except that we’ve been doing it in Ontario for at least 60 years. We (sometimes) get to choose which of five school boards – English public, French public, English separate (Catholic), French separate (Catholic), or Protestant separate (Penetanguishene only) – will receive the education portion of our property tax.
Here’s how it could work. A set amount – perhaps 20 percent of the total federal tax you owe – would be considered discretionary. The T1 tax form could include the names of, say, ten spending programs next to numeric boxes. You would enter the percentage of the total discretionary portion of your income tax that you’d like directed to each program with the total of all ten boxes adding up to 100.
The specific programs made available might change from one year to the next. Some might appear only once every few years. That way, the departments responsible for executing the programs wouldn’t have to deal with unpredictable funding. But what’s more important, governments would have ongoing insights into what their constituents actually wanted them to be doing. If they disagreed, a government could up their game and do a better job explaining their preferences. Or it could just give up and follow the will of their taxpayers.
Since there would only be a limited number of pre-set options available, you wouldn’t have to worry about crackpot suggestions (“Nuke Amurika!”) or even reasoned and well-meaning protest campaigns (“Nuke Ottawa!”) taking over. And since everyone who files a tax form has to participate, you won’t have to worry about a small number of squeaky wheels dominating the public discourse.
Why would any governing party go along with such a plan? Well, they almost certainly won’t if that’s any comfort. Nevertheless, in theory at least, they could gain significant political legitimacy were their program preferences to receive overwhelming public support. And if politicians and civil servants truly believed they toil in the service of the people of Canada, they should be curious about what the people of Canada actually want.
What could go wrong?
Well the complexity involved with adding a new layer of constraints to spending planning can’t be lightly dismissed. And there’s always the risk that activists could learn to game the system by shaping mass movements through manipulative online messaging. The fact that wealthy taxpayers will have a disproportionate impact on spending also shouldn’t be ignored. Although, having said that, I’m not convinced that the voices of high-end taxpayers are less valuable than those of the paid lobbyists and PMO influencers who currently get all the attention.
Those are serious considerations. I’m decidedly less concerned about some other possible objections:
- The risk that taxpayers might demonstrate a preference for short term fixes or glamour projects over important long term wonkish needs (like debt servicing) rings hollow. Couldn’t those words just as easily describe the way many government departments already behave?
- Couldn’t taxpayer choices be influenced by dangerous misinformation campaigns? Allowing for the fact the words “misinformation campaign” make me nervous, that’s certainly possible. But I’m aware of no research demonstrating that, as a class, politicians and civil servants are somehow less susceptible to such influences.
- Won’t such a program allow governments to deflect responsibility for their actions? Hah! I spit in your face in rueful disdain! When was the last time any government official actually took responsibility (or even lost a job) over stupid decisions?
- Won’t restricting access to a large segment of funds make it harder to respond to time-sensitive emergencies? There are already plenty of political and policy-based constraints on emergency spending choices. There’s no reason this program couldn’t be structured intelligently enough to prevent appropriate responses to a genuine emergency.
This idea has no more chance of being applied as some of the crazy zero-tax ideas from my previous post. But things certainly aren’t perfect right now, and throwing some fresh ideas into the mix can’t hurt.
-
Business17 hours ago
We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?
-
Business2 days ago
Apple suing British government to stop them from accessing use data
-
Business1 day ago
“The insanity is ending”: USDA cancels $600k grant to study transgender men’s menstruation
-
COVID-1917 hours ago
Covid Response at Five Years: Conclusion
-
Censorship Industrial Complex15 hours ago
How America is interfering in Brazil and why that matters everywhere. An information drop about USAID
-
Agriculture1 day ago
USDA reveals plan to combat surging egg prices
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden’s Dumb LNG Pause Has Rightfully Met Its End
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
The Phony War: Canada’s Elites Fighting For A Sunset Nation