JUST NOW: Canada WALKED AWAY — Now Americans Want Them BACK
CANADIAN TOURISM PULLBACK STILL HITS VERMONT AS U.S.–CANADA TRADE FIGHT FLARES AGAIN
Burlington businesses say the loss of Canadian visitors remains painful, even as 2026 data show a partial rebound from last year’s collapse
BURLINGTON, Vt. — Updated September 10, 2026
FACT-CHECK AT A GLANCE
• A September 3 CBC report from Burlington documented businesses saying the loss of Canadian visitors is still hurting restaurants, hotels, shops and Lake Champlain tourism operators.
• Vermont says roughly 750,000 Canadians visited in a typical pre-2025 year and spent nearly $150 million. Canadian visitor spending fell 47% in 2025, an estimated $75 million loss in direct spending.
• The latest Vermont data show some rebound: June 2026 Canadian credit-card spending was up 26% from June 2025 and year-to-date spending was up 5%. But 2025 was an unusually depressed comparison year.
• Nationally, Statistics Canada says Canadian residents made 25% fewer return trips from the United States in 2025 and spent C$3.3 billion less there. The viral “35% / $4.5 billion” formulation mixes a two-year car-travel comparison with a separate industry estimate.
• July 2026 travel from the U.S. rebounded 10.2% year over year, but Canadian car trips were still 28.9% below July 2024 and air trips 26.8% below July 2024.
• U.S. tariffs are collected from U.S. importers. Consumers and businesses can bear much of the cost through higher prices, but it is too absolute to say every tariff dollar is ultimately paid by consumers.
• The downturn cannot be attributed to one cause alone. Political tensions and tariffs are prominent factors, but exchange rates, travel costs, border concerns and safety perceptions also matter.
BURLINGTON, Vt. — The sharp retreat of Canadian travelers from the United States is still visible in northern Vermont, where businesses built around a long, easy relationship with Quebec say politics at the federal level has become a local economic problem. A September 3 CBC report from Burlington showed quieter restaurants, lighter traffic at tourist businesses and owners openly questioning whether marketing campaigns can overcome the renewed deterioration in U.S.–Canada relations.
The underlying story is real: Canadian travel to the United States fell steeply in 2025, Vermont was hit especially hard, and the decline has not been fully reversed. But the viral retelling attached to the report exaggerates some figures, treats estimates as hard losses and turns a complicated economic shift into a single-cause narrative. The strongest version of the story is not that a border town suddenly lost every Canadian visitor. It is that a historically dependable tourism market remains far below its earlier baseline while another round of trade conflict threatens a fragile recovery.
What the CBC Report Actually Showed
The CBC segment, reported by Alexander Silberman, focused on Burlington, less than an hour by car from the Canadian border and economically connected to nearby Montreal. It featured Homeport owner Mark Bouchette, Lake Champlain cruise operator Mike Shea and Jeff Lawson of the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce. Their comments described a tourism economy that still feels the disappearance of Canadian customers even as some visitors have started to return.
“For restaurants and hotels, it's devastating.”
Mark Bouchette, Homeport owner, in the September 3 CBC report
Shea said his Spirit of Ethan Allen cruise business saw almost no Canadians last year and only a modest improvement this summer. Lawson described the loss as especially painful because Burlington is geographically and culturally close to Montreal. Those observations are anecdotal, but they align with state-level data showing a major 2025 decline in Canadian spending.
Vermont’s Numbers: A Severe 2025 Drop, Followed by a Partial Rebound
Vermont’s own economic-development reporting provides the clearest baseline. Before 2025, about 750,000 Canadians visited the state in a typical year and spent nearly $150 million annually. In northern border counties, Canadians often accounted for 30% or more of tourism. In 2025, Canadian visitor spending fell 47%, which the state estimated as a loss of roughly $75 million in direct spending.
That makes the transcript’s claim that Canadian credit-card spending “plummeted by more than 40%” directionally correct for the 2025 collapse. But it needs a time label. Vermont’s latest Visa Destination Insights data show June 2026 spending from Canada was 26% above June 2025 and year-to-date spending through June was 5% higher than the same period in 2025. The state itself warns that this comparison is against an unusually weak year. A rebound from a collapsed base is not the same thing as a return to 2024 levels.
The National Picture: The Boycott Is Real, but the Viral Numbers Need Context
At the national level, Statistics Canada reports that Canadian residents made 25% fewer return trips from the United States in 2025 than in 2024. Travel spending in the United States declined by C$3.3 billion, from C$22.1 billion to C$18.8 billion. That is the most defensible official measure of the annual decline.
The frequently repeated claim that Canadian travel is “down 35%” and has cost the United States “$4.5 billion” combines different measurements. The 35% figure has been used for Canadian car travel in particular months compared with 2024, not for all Canadian travel nationwide. The $4.5 billion figure is an industry-style estimate derived by applying an estimated 22% visitation decline to roughly $20.5 billion in 2024 Canadian visitor spending. It is useful as a rough economic illustration, but it should not be presented as Statistics Canada’s measured loss.
More recent data also complicate a simple collapse narrative. In July 2026, Canadian-resident return trips from the United States rose 10.2% compared with July 2025, the fourth consecutive month of year-over-year growth. Yet Statistics Canada cautioned that this was largely a base-year effect: automobile trips were still 28.9% below July 2024, while air trips were 26.8% below that earlier benchmark. At the same time, U.S.-resident trips to Canada were up 6.5% from July 2025 — not a vague 6% to 12% range.
Why Canadians Are Staying Away
Political anger is clearly part of the story. Canadian surveys and interviews repeatedly cite U.S. tariffs, annexation rhetoric, border concerns and a broader feeling that the United States has become a less welcoming destination. The renewed trade fight gives travelers who were reconsidering the boycott another reason to stay home or choose other countries.
But a publishable account should resist claiming that every missing trip is a political protest. Statistics Canada and other travel research also point to a weaker Canadian dollar, higher airfare and hotel costs, and changing travel preferences. Some Canadians continue to visit family, attend events or travel for business even when they disagree with Washington. Others have made an explicit moral or political decision not to spend in the United States.
“We really don’t know that we can market our way through somebody’s moral decisions.”
Jeff Lawson, Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce, in the CBC report
That quote captures the central problem for local tourism officials: a hotel discount can address price, but it cannot easily overcome a traveler’s objection to national policy.
Tariffs Are Taxes — but Who Bears the Cost Is More Complicated
The viral commentary says tariffs are taxes “ultimately paid by U.S. consumers.” The first half is straightforward: U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects import duties from the importer of record. The broader economic burden is less mechanical. Importers can absorb some costs, foreign producers can cut prices, businesses can change suppliers, and retailers can pass part or much of the cost to consumers. Congressional Research Service reviews have found that U.S. firms and consumers often bear a large share of tariff costs, but the exact incidence varies by product and market conditions.
That distinction matters because the tourism losses in Vermont are not a tariff collected at a border booth. They are an indirect response: Canadian households deciding not to book a hotel room, eat in a restaurant, shop on Church Street or buy a cruise ticket. Those decisions can impose costs on American businesses even though the businesses themselves did not set federal trade policy.
Vermont Is Caught in a Fight It Does Not Control
It is rhetorically tempting to say “Vermont did not vote for this trade war,” but that is not literally how policy works. States do not cast a separate vote on federal tariffs, and Vermonters do not all share one political view. The defensible point is narrower: many Vermont business owners and state tourism officials have publicly opposed the deterioration in relations with Canada because their local economy depends heavily on cross-border travel and trade.
That is why Burlington businesses have displayed Canadian flags, offered Canadian discounts and briefly embraced “Canada Street” messaging on Church Street. The outreach is an attempt to separate the local welcome from the national dispute. Whether Canadian travelers accept that distinction is ultimately their choice.
The Trade Fight Has Escalated Again Since the Report Aired
The September 3 CBC segment aired before another major escalation. Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs of 15%, 25% and 50% on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports effective September 8, matching U.S. measures that Ottawa said had hit the same value of Canadian goods. Washington has since announced additional import restrictions on selected Canadian products scheduled to take effect later in September. Those moves make it harder for tourism officials to sell a narrative that the political temperature is cooling.
That does not mean the travel rebound will automatically reverse. July showed that some Canadians were already returning, helped in part by comparisons with a very weak 2025 and by World Cup travel. But the two-year comparison remains stark, and the latest trade measures create a fresh test for the fall and winter tourism seasons.
Conclusion: The Empty Tables Are Real — the Simplified Story Is Not
The strongest evidence supports the central image in the original commentary: Vermont businesses are feeling the consequences when Canadian travelers choose not to come. The state really did lose roughly half of Canadian visitor spending in 2025, and national U.S.-bound travel from Canada remains far below 2024 levels even after a partial 2026 rebound.
What the evidence does not support is collapsing every number into a single slogan. Vermont did not literally lose 750,000 visitors in one stroke; the $150 million figure is a typical annual contribution, not a measured loss; the $4.5 billion national figure is an estimate rather than the official Statistics Canada spending decline; and tariffs are paid first by importers, with the final economic burden distributed through markets.
The more durable conclusion is also the more consequential one: a trade and political dispute between Washington and Ottawa is producing measurable spillovers in American communities that rely on Canadian customers. Burlington can advertise discounts and wave Canadian flags, but it cannot independently repair the bilateral relationship. For businesses near the border, the most expensive thing may still be the trip a Canadian family decides not to take.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
