Uncensored Free Speech Platform

Trump threatens 'consequences' after 6 House Republicans voted to reverse his Canada tariffs
Every delay has consequences.

President Donald Trump is threatening to back election challengers against the six House Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to reverse his tariffs on Canada.
The president sent out an ominous warning to GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate just before his agenda suffered a blow on Capitol Hill Wednesday evening.
"Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!" Trump posted on Truth Social.
He argued that the trade deficit was reduced significantly while U.S. financial markets hit significant high points because of his tariff policies.
TRUMP'S TARIFFS COULD BE UNDONE BY ONE CONSERVATIVE DOCTRINE: 'LIFE OR DEATH'
"In addition, TARIFFS have given us Great National Security because the mere mention of the word has Countries agreeing to our strongest wishes," Trump continued. 
"TARIFFS have given us Economic and National Security, and no Republican should be responsible for destroying this privilege."
Democrats successfully got a vote on a measure to reverse Trump's national emergency at the northern border using a mechanism for forcing votes over the objections of House majority leadership called a privileged resolution.
TRUMP'S SIGNATURE TARIFFS HANG ON KEY QUESTION ABOUT CONGRESS' POWER BEFORE SUPREME COURT
The six Republicans who voted in favor of the measure are Reps. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., Don Bacon, R-Neb., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. 
One Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, voted with the majority of Republicans on the matter. It passed 219-211.
It's not clear how much impact Trump's threat will have, however.
Both Newhouse and Bacon are not running for re-election in the 2026 midterms, and Trump is already endorsing a primary challenger against Massie.
Kiley, whose district was severely impacted by California Democrats' new congressional map, has not yet said whether he will run for re-election or where he will do it.
Fitzpatrick and Hurd are both well-liked incumbents in their districts, which are top targets for Democrats come November.
Trump signed an executive order in February 2025, enacting an additional 25% tariff on most goods from Canada and Mexico. Energy from Canada was subject to an additional 15% tariff.
At the time, the White House said it was punishment for those countries' unwillingness to do more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and illicit drugs into the U.S.
Opponents of Trump's tariff strategy have criticized his moves against Canada in particular, arguing it …

Who are the six Republicans who voted against Trump’s Canada tariffs?
Are they actually going to vote on something real?

In a House vote to repeal President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, six Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in voting to end the national emergency the president declared on America’s northern neighbor last year. 

The 219-211 vote to terminate the national emergency, established last February, that allowed Trump to impose 25% tariffs on imports from Canada, marked a significant GOP defection on trade. Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Jeff Hurd (R-CO), Kevin Kiley (R-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Dan Newhouse (R-WA) all voted to repeal the tariffs.

The resolution was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY).

The tariffs, upped to 35% in July, on many Canadian imports, were necessary to address cross-border drug trafficking and trade disputes, the White House said.

As the vote concluded, Trump took to Truth Social to warn Republicans of the consequences of voting against the tariffs.

“Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!” Trump said. 

One Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), was the sole member of his party to oppose the repeal. 

Bacon has frequently positioned himself as a center-right lawmaker willing to challenge Trump, particularly on foreign policy and executive reach. He previously criticized Trump’s rhetoric and even said he would consider impeaching the president if he were to invade Greenland. 

Fitzpatrick has often carved out a bipartisan lane and distances himself from Trump on certain policy matters. The congressman from Pennsylvania is seeking reelection in the 2026 midterm elections, and his district tends to be highly competitive, with four Democrats having entered the race against him. 

Hurd, a freshman lawmaker, has signaled a more traditional conservative approach to governance, including concerns about constitutional limits on executive power. His vote reflects a willingness to diverge from Trump’s trade strategy early in his tenure. 

Kiley has occasionally bucked GOP leadership on procedural matters and previously voted against a House rule that would have blocked consideration of tariff repeal measures.

Massie is one of Trump’s most consistent Republican critics in the House. The Kentucky congressman has repeatedly clashed with Trump over federal spending, emergency powers, and the scope of executive authority, including during Trump’s first term. 

HOUSE VOTES TO REPEAL TRUMP’S …

What to know about transgender suspect in British Columbia school shooting
Every delay has consequences.

Canadian police identified a transgender woman on Wednesday as the person responsible for the shooting that left nine people dead, including the suspected shooter, and 25 injured in British Columbia’s Tumbler Ridge Community. 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald named 18-year-old Tumbler Ridge resident Jesse Van Rootselaar, who police said was biologically male and transitioned to female, as the shooter who opened fire at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School on Tuesday. 

McDonald said one of the bodies inside the school was discovered to be Rootselaar, who was killed by what police described as a “self-inflicted” gunshot wound, and said there are “no outstanding suspects.” 

Rootselaar transitioned from male to female about six years ago and subsequently dropped out of school two years later, but McDonald said there is no evidence that Rootselaar dropped out due to bullying because of the transition. 

McDonald added there is no reason to believe the suspect’s transition correlates with the shooting.

There was a history of police responses to Rootselaar’s home, including calls related to mental health concerns, McDonald said.

The suspect had previously been detained under the Mental Health Act for assessment and follow-up.

Two more bodies were found in a house near the school, reported to be Rootselaar’s mother and 11-year-old step-brother, who were allegedly killed by Rootselaar before moving to the school.

Rootselaar is suspected of killing a 39-year-old teacher and five students aged 13 and under at the school.

More than 25 additional people were injured during the attack in the small mountain town. 

Officers had seized firearms from the suspect’s home two years ago, and the suspect had an expired firearms license in 2024 but had no guns registered, according to Newsweek. 

McDonald said a clear motive was not identified, nor was a specific target. He said police recovered a long gun and a modified handgun. 

Tumbler Ridge, located near the Alberta border in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, has a population of less than 3,000. 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Wednesday extended his condolences to the Tumbler Ridge community. 

NINE PEOPLE DEAD AND 25 INJURED IN SCHOOL SHOOTING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

“Parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers in Tumbler Ridge will wake up without someone they love,” Carney said. “The nation mourns with you. Canada stands by you.” 

Carney ordered government buildings to fly flags at …

Democrats are cashing in after DOJ failure to indict them
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.

The six Democrats who urged military servicemembers in a video not to comply with illegal orders notched a significant legal win when federal prosecutors failed to criminally indict them. Now they’re looking to gain political momentum and build their campaign war chests.

“We are not done,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan at a press conference alongside fellow House members.

“We will continue to push back. The tide is turning and accountability is coming,” Colorado Rep. Jason Crow said in a video posted to social media.

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin said in a fundraising email: “They tried to indict me.”

The group of Democrats, including two senators and four House members with backgrounds in national security, came out swinging against President Donald Trump and the Justice Department Wednesday for what they said was an abuse of power and a threat against all Americans’ right to freedom of speech. In addition to a flurry of social media posts and two afternoon press conferences, several have been making the cable news rounds and scheduled appearances on high-profile late night TV shows — signs that they see political opportunity in Trump’s attacks and are hoping to bottle that clout.

"Democrats have limited power at the federal level right now and need to leverage every opportunity to capitalize on Trump's overreach and lawlessness to raise the necessary funds to ensure we have a balance of power at the end of the midterms,” said Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod. “It takes resources to get our message out, hold Trump to account, and win back seats, and I'm glad these members are seizing on this moment and fighting back.”

As Democrats sharpen their attacks against Trump heading into the midterms, his Justice Department’s unprecedented attempt to prosecute the Democratic lawmakers — most of whom represent crucial battleground states like Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania — has inadvertently elevated their profiles. And the Trump administration, by failing to secure an indictment after months of public sparring with the Democrats and threats from the president, has bolstered their credibility as bare-knuckle fighters who can take on Trump and win.

In this attention-driven political economy, Trump has given a valuable boost to a group of Democrats that includes some with an eye toward future leadership positions in the party – including for Slotkin and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, who are often discussed as potential future presidential candidates.

“Trump has elevated them by his baseless attacks and his attempt to weaponize the judicial system against them that has flopped so hard,” said Democratic strategist Ian Russell. “That certainly has given them a platform – an even larger platform – as leaders who are focused on keeping our …

Jayapal outraged after Bondi seen with ‘burn book’ of her Epstein files search history
Same show, different day.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) expressed her anger Wednesday after Attorney General Pam Bondi was photographed holding a printed compilation of the congresswoman’s search history of the Epstein files during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Jayapal said in an X post that retrieving a congressmember’s file search history goes against the separation of powers and that she will pursue an investigation into the surveillance of Congress’s Epstein file inquiries. 

“It is totally inappropriate and against the separations of powers for the DOJ to surveil us as we search the Epstein files,” Jayapal said. “Bondi showed up today with a burn book that held a printed search history of exactly what emails I searched. That is outrageous, and I intend to pursue this and stop this spying on members.”

The image, which circulated on social media following Bondi’s hearing before the House judiciary committee, showed Bondi holding a sheet of paper with Jayapal’s name and a list of Epstein file document numbers she had viewed. 

The use of these materials—described by some critics as a "burn book" — came into focus as Rep. Jayapal pressed for technical answers on redaction failures, notes were passed forward to Bondi, who referenced them before responding. Pictured below are some notes related to Jayapal
— Kent Nishimura (@kentnish) February 11, 2026

Bondi’s appearance marked her first oversight hearing before the panel since her confirmation as the nation’s top law enforcement official, but what was advertised to be a Department of Justice operations review turned into a shouting match. 

Congress was first allowed to view the unredacted versions of the Epstein files starting on Monday. The files were released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, though they were heavily redacted.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the panel’s top Democrat, told reporters Wednesday evening that he had “reason to believe that it was happening to everyone,” not just Jayapal. 

During the hearing, the attorney general faced repeated criticism from Democrats over the department’s handling of the Epstein files and its failure to fully redact victims’ personal information. 

At one point, Jayapal asked Bondi to turn around to the victims at the back of the room and apologize for not redacting their personal information.

SEVEN TAKEAWAYS FROM BONDI’S FIERY HOUSE TESTIMONY

Bondi refused and called Jayapal’s request “theatrics,” saying the blame falls on the previous …

IRS erroneously shared confidential immigrant taxpayer data with DHS: court filing
This affects the entire country.

The Internal Revenue Service improperly disclosed the confidential taxpayer information of thousands of people with the Department of Homeland Security as part of the agencies' controversial agreement to share immigrant data to help identify those living in the country illegally, according to a new court filing.
The Treasury Department, the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security finalized a deal last spring to allow taxpayer data to be shared with immigration authorities to help them find illegal immigrants.
The agreement, which led to the resignations of top IRS officials, authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement to submit names and addresses of illegal immigrants to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records.
In a declaration filed Wednesday, IRS Chief Risk and Control Officer Dottie Romo said the IRS was able to verify roughly 47,000 of the 1.28 million names ICE requested that were then disclosed to the immigration enforcement agency.
SECOND FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS IRS FROM SHARING ADDRESSES WITH ICE
The IRS gave ICE additional address information for under 5% of those names, potentially violating privacy rules created to protect taxpayer data.
The tax-collecting agency said it recently discovered the mistake and is working with other federal agencies to resolve the matter.
Romo said the Treasury notified DHS last month of the error and asked for its assistance in "promptly taking steps to remediate the matter consistent with federal law," which includes "appropriate disposal of any data provided to ICE by IRS based on incomplete or insufficient address information."
MINNESOTA SUES TRUMP ADMIN OVER SWEEPING IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN TWIN CITIES
The agreement last year between the IRS and DHS sparked litigation against the Trump administration and broke a longstanding IRS policy that encouraged immigrants to pay taxes even if they are not in the U.S. legally by assuring them that their data was safe.
A lawsuit was filed against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on behalf of several immigrant rights groups shortly after the agreement was signed.
Last week, a federal judge ordered the IRS to stop disclosing residential addresses to ICE, marking the second ruling blocking the IRS-DHS agreement.
In November, a different federal judge blocked the IRS from sharing information with DHS, saying the IRS illegally disseminated the tax data of some migrants over the summer, violating a taxpayer confidentiality law.
Advocate groups expressed concern that the potential unlawful release of taxpayer records …

Federal Judge releases four illegal immigrants convicted of murder, sex crimes from ICE Custody
Who's accountable for the results?

A federal judge in Louisiana has released four illegal immigrants with lengthy rap sheets that include convictions for murder and child sex crimes from law enforcement custody earlier this month.
On Feb. 6, Judge John deGravelles, an Obama appointee who sits on the bench for the Middle District Court of Louisiana, granted the four defendants release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, the Department of Homeland Security said. 
"The ramifications will only be the continued rape, murder, assault, and robbery of more American victims," said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. "Releasing these monsters is inexcusably reckless. President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing the law and arresting illegal aliens who have no right to be in our country."
EXCLUSIVE: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT RELEASED UNDER BIDEN 'CATCH-AND-RELEASE' ALLEGEDLY KILLS DRIVER IN POLICE CHASE
"We are applying the law as written," she added. "If an immigration judge finds an illegal alien has no right to be in this country, we are going to remove them. Period."
The four defendants include Ibrahim Ali Mohammed, an Ethiopian citizen convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor. An immigration judge issued him a final order of removal on Sept, 5, 2024. 
He was released into the United States by the Biden administration.
DHS HONORS ILLINOIS WOMAN WHOSE CORPSE WAS ALLEGEDLY ABUSED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FREED UNDER SANCTUARY LAWS
Luis Gaston-Sanchez, from Cuba, has convictions for homicide, assault, resisting an officer, concealing stolen property, and two counts of robbery. 
An immigration judge issued a deportation order for him on Sept. 24, 2001.
Ricardo Blanco Chomat, also a Cuban citizen, has convictions for homicide, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a firearm, burglary, robbery, larceny, and selling cocaine. 
A deportation order was issued for him on March 27, 2002.
Francisco Rodriguez-Romero was previously convicted of homicide and a weapons offense. He was ordered to be deported on May 30, 1995.
In Sept. 2025, DHS announced a partnership with Louisiana to expand ICE detention space at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola Prison. The facility, dubbed the "Louisiana Lockup," houses some of the criminal illegal immigrants arrested by ICE.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the Middle District Court of Louisiana for comment. 

Heather Williams: The four-day week at South Cambs is simply wrong
Who benefits from this decision?

Cllr Heather Williams is Leader of the South Cambridgeshire District Council.

If you want to make a difference, you have to get involved. I’ve always believed that, which is why I’m determined to play my part in local government – and to make it work better for residents.

I’ve been Leader of the Opposition at South Cambridgeshire District Council since 2020. Over that time, residents have faced plenty of challenges, both nationally and locally. While there’s only so much any of us can do about national issues, at a local level, my group and I work hard to stand up for the people we represent. That’s why we’ve campaigned successfully against the Cambridge congestion charge, and more recently, why we’ve been calling out the council’s four-day working week.

Let’s be clear about what this actually is. The four-day week at South Cambs is not compressed hours. It’s full-time pay for part-time work. Staff contracted for 37 hours a week are paid for 37 hours – but only work 32.

At a time when many residents are struggling, and council tax keeps rising year after year, I, like many residents, believe this is simply wrong. It’s unfair, and it’s a poor use of taxpayers’ money.

Since the Lib Dem administration introduced this trial, we’ve challenged it at every opportunity. With the numbers stacked against us in the council chamber, that hasn’t been easy – but we’ll keep pushing until this policy ends. Because really, can you imagine this happening in most other industries? Why should council officers be paid for fewer hours when so many taxpayers are working full-time, often under huge pressure, just to make ends meet?

To be clear, this isn’t about blaming council staff. They do work hard. The responsibility lies squarely with the Lib Dem councillors who introduced the policy. They point to lower staff turnover and a reported 123 per cent increase in job applications as proof that it’s working. But let’s be honest – who wouldn’t apply for a job that pays for 37 hours while only requiring 32?

This four-day week has recently attracted national attention again. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recently wrote to council leaders making it clear that councils should not be offering “full-time pay for part-time work”, and warning that such arrangements could be seen as a sign of failure under the Government’s Best Value framework. Last October, the Minister also wrote directly to the Lib Dem leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, raising concerns about service delivery and value for money

This isn’t new territory. A previous Conservative Government also placed the council on a Best Value notice over the same concerns.

The council leader has since met with government to discuss the issue – but residents and …

Albert Ward: Reform UK refute suggestions they’ve ‘hit a ceiling’ but they have and here’s why
Confidence requires clarity.

Albert Ward is a Senior Research Fellow at More in Common.

Reform’s recent polling has led many to ask whether the party has already gone as far as it can.

The recent defections of Robert Jenrick and Andrew Rosindell have actually come at a moment when the party’s position is far weaker than its poll lead suggests. Indeed, it has even dipped in recent polls.

In More in Common’s latest poll, Reform is ahead on roughly 30 per cent, nearly 10 points clear of Labour. That is a serious level of support for a party that is still young. But mid-term polls tend to reward parties that serve as vehicles for dissatisfaction. Staying there, month after month, all the way to a general election, will be far harder than getting there, let alone making further gains.

Why is this? Firstly, there is a limited pool of voters left for Reform to win. Beyond those who already vote for the party, only around one in five say they would even consider doing so. That does not mean Reform cannot grow, but it does suggest that the party is already drawing from a fairly defined constituency.

Most importantly, the group Reform needs to win over next does not look like its core constituency. The voters who say they might be open to Reform tend to be more moderate in their instincts and, on some issues, closer to the centre (or centre-right) of public opinion. For instance, while 52 per cent of Reform’s 2024 voters oppose Britain’s net zero target, only 39 per cent of their new supporters are opposed to it.

And Reform’s voters are not as lost to the Conservatives as you might think. Only 29 per cent of Reform supporters rule out voting Conservative in future, compared with 75 per cent who rule out voting Labour. Among those who have switched from the Conservatives to Reform since the 2024 election, only eight per cent say they would rule out voting Conservative again. These voters could well drift back to the Conservatives.

Perhaps most worryingly for the party, Reform’s headline vote share masks much weaker scores on trust and governing credibility. In the group of voters who might consider voting Reform but do not currently do so, the most common reason for hesitation is the party’s lack of government experience, with over a third saying so. The second most common reason is Nigel Farage’s association with Donald Trump, a deeply unpopular figure in Britain, even among new Reform supporters, where he has a -13 per cent approval rating.

One Conservative supporter put it bluntly to us in a focus group: ‘They don’t have experience, and I think you can see that. All the silly infighting; they’ve just made themselves look fools.’ A Reform supporter suggested the party needed time to prove itself: ‘I’d be concerned if we had a general election tomorrow. I don’t think they’re …

John Oxley: Are we in a new phase for all Prime Ministers? The era of ‘two year Keir’
This deserves loud pushback.

John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.

While the Starmer project limps on from crisis to scandal, the Prime Minister’s days as Labour leader seem numbered.

His cabinet might still be behind him, but given the prospect of bruising local elections, he seems more useful to them as a human shield than as a PM.

Starmer’s route to political survival is narrow and requires a level of good judgment that has so far eluded him. Few would bet on the PM being in place by the end of the year; fewer still would bet on seeing out his term.  His eventual defenestration will emphasise a new trend in British politics: the short tenure of top officeholders.

If Starmer goes over the summer, there’s a chance he will have served less time in Number 10 than Rishi Sunak. Should he fall by mid-July, we will have had 7 Prime Ministers in a decade, counting from the last days of the Cameron ministry. This would be a record unseen since the 1820s and the tumultuous days of the Reform Act, Catholic emancipation, and the Corn Laws. Even if one ignores the precise dates and records, it represents a significant change in modern British politics.

Since the fall of Cameron, no Prime Minister has completed a full electoral term. Each of his successors has run out of political road before then. Most have been done in by their own party when their political capital was exhausted. Only Rishi Sunak was ousted by the public. Perhaps even more remarkably, Edward Heath was the last Prime Minister to enter and exit Downing Street via an election. It appears that two or three years of leadership is becoming the new norm.

Plenty has been written about why that is.

The more generous assessments point to the difficulties of running modern Britain, a country where growth has stalled, demography is placing greater demands on the state, and there are few politically easy answers. Others have pointed to lacklustre politicians. For each of the names in the last decade, it is easy to point to the personal and political misjudgements that undid them. The true reason is likely a combination of both – difficult circumstances often played badly.

Whatever the reason, the rapid cycling of Prime Ministers raises questions about the stability of government and policy. If short tenures, often less than an electoral cycle, become the norm, this would challenge how we conduct politics. These are real issues of legitimacy, of how government operates, and of how those who rely on it respond. Understanding them is important for how our politics functions in an era of increased instability.

Whenever there is a change of PM, oppositions like to crow about an “unelected” leader taking over, constitutionally, they are misguided. At the technical level, we elect MPs, …