Total Hearing Meltdown! Rand Paul Orders Security to Eject Fauci’s Disruptive Attorney!
Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who serves as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, ordered security to escort one of Dr. Anthony Fauci's attorneys out of a committee hearing on Wednesday after repeated interruptions during the proceedings.
The hearing was held to examine issues surrounding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the federal government's response while Fauci was serving as the nation's chief medical adviser. Throughout the session, attorney David Schertler repeatedly attempted to speak despite multiple warnings from Sen. Paul that he had not been recognized by the committee.
Paul reminded Schertler that he had not been invited to testify and therefore was not permitted to address the committee. At one point, the Kentucky senator firmly stated that the attorney had already been instructed not to sit at the witness table and that any comments from him would not be acknowledged.
As the interruptions continued, Paul accused Schertler of disrupting the hearing. He remarked that similar conduct inside a courtroom could have resulted in far more serious consequences, emphasizing that the committee's proceedings deserved respect. Despite those warnings, Schertler continued trying to interject.
Democratic Senator Gary Peters, the committee's ranking member, argued that he wanted to hear the attorney's remarks. Paul rejected that suggestion, explaining that the hearing was intended to receive testimony from Dr. Fauci alone, not from members of his legal team. He noted that Schertler was free to privately advise his client but was not authorized to participate in the questioning.
When Schertler continued speaking despite repeated instructions to stop, Paul directed Capitol security to remove him from the hearing room. The order was met with applause from some attendees. Paul also commented that Fauci remained accompanied by several other attorneys who could continue providing him legal advice throughout the hearing.
Following the incident, attorneys representing Dr. Fauci released a statement criticizing Sen. Paul's actions. They argued that Fauci's response during a 2021 Senate HELP Committee hearing—when Paul accused him of contributing to millions of COVID-19 deaths—had sparked what they described as an ongoing campaign of retaliation, revenge, and personal fixation against the former health official.
Although Fauci had been expected to answer questions before the committee, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to provide testimony. In his prepared opening remarks, Fauci asserted that the hearing reflected what he called Sen. Paul's long-running effort to pursue criminal charges against him.
Fauci said he believed the committee appearance had only one purpose: to pressure him into making a statement that could support Paul's repeated public claims that he should ultimately end up "behind bars."
Separately, according to reporting by The Hill, Sen. Paul previously released more than 1,000 pages from Fauci's personal diary. The documents reportedly included Fauci's observations during the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak, his experiences with intense media attention, and his criticism of then-President Donald Trump.
JUST IN - MISSOURI REDISTRICTING BATTLE
KAVANAUGH REJECTS MISSOURI GOP STAY REQUEST - BUT FEDERAL JUDGE TEMPORARILY REVIVES TRUMP-BACKED MAP
The U.S. Supreme Court action was real, and Missouri's high court said a citizen referendum suspended the new districts. But a federal judge issued a conflicting 14-day order minutes later, so the claim that Missouri will definitely use its old map in November is no longer settled.
STATUS UPDATE - September 8, 2026: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' emergency stay application. Later the same evening, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark temporarily ordered the state to use the newer map. Further appeals were expected.
WASHINGTON / JEFFERSON CITY, MO. - A fast-moving legal fight over Missouri's congressional districts produced two sharply different court orders on September 8, leaving the map for the November 2026 midterm election uncertain even after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant Republican state officials emergency relief.
The first part of the viral claim is accurate: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency application filed by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins seeking to pause a Missouri Supreme Court decision that had blocked the state's Trump-backed 2025 congressional map. The U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 26A304, records the application as denied by Kavanaugh on September 8. The order did not include an explanation and was not a merits ruling on the underlying redistricting dispute.
However, the statement that Missouri therefore "will now use its previous congressional districts in November" became outdated almost immediately. Minutes after Kavanaugh acted, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri officials to use the newer map for the time being. His order is set to last 14 days while the federal case proceeds, creating a direct practical conflict with the Missouri Supreme Court's earlier command.
What Kavanaugh Actually Denied
Missouri Republicans did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling on the legality of the map. They asked for emergency relief - a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court's judgment - so the state could continue using the districts enacted in 2025 while litigation continued. Under the Supreme Court's circuit-assignment system, the application was submitted to Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters from the Eighth Circuit.
The official docket says simply that the application was denied. That is enough to say the Supreme Court did not give Missouri officials the emergency relief they requested. But it is more precise to write that Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application than to imply that the full Court issued a detailed final judgment against the map.
Supreme Court docket 26A304: "Sep 08 2026 - Application (26A304) denied by Justice Kavanaugh."
Missouri Supreme Court: The Referendum Suspended the New Map
The state-court ruling that triggered the emergency application was sweeping. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the referendum petition challenging House Bill 1 was legal, sufficient and timely. Because the petition was filed before the law's effective date, the court held that HB 1 never took effect and could not take effect unless Missouri voters approved it in the November 2026 general election.
The state high court ordered Secretary Hoskins to certify the referendum petition and put it on the November ballot. It also said the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remained in force for the general election. That decision reversed a lower state court and rejected the secretary's earlier conclusion that the referendum could not be used to challenge congressional redistricting legislation.
More Than 300,000 Signatures - With an Important Qualification
Opponents of the 2025 map, led by People Not Politicians Missouri, submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to force a statewide referendum on House Bill 1. The number refers to signatures submitted by the campaign, not a claim that every signature was individually valid. The legal question was whether the petition contained enough valid signatures and complied with state law.
By September 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court had resolved that issue in the petitioners' favor, declaring the referendum petition sufficient and timely. The state's official petition system identifies 2026-R004 as the referendum challenging House Bill 1, and the court directed that the measure be placed before voters in November.
Why the New Map Matters Politically
Missouri currently sends six Republicans and two Democrats to the U.S. House. The 2025 map was drawn during a special legislative session after President Donald Trump urged Republican-led states to pursue mid-decade redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The most consequential changes target the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II.
By splitting portions of Kansas City among neighboring Republican-held districts and extending the remainder of the 5th District farther into more Republican territory, the new configuration was designed to improve Republican chances of winning an additional House seat. That is why the map is often described as potentially producing a 7-1 Republican delegation. The phrase "could give Republicans seven of eight seats" is reasonable as a description of the map's partisan objective, but it should not be presented as a guaranteed election result.
The Twist: A Federal Judge Reinstated the New Map - For Now
The most important correction to the original account came later on September 8. U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map despite the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Clark emphasized that Missouri had already conducted its August congressional primaries under the newer districts and warned that switching maps between the primary and general election could create candidate, voter and administrative confusion.
Clark wrote that using a different map for the general election would "wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri's congressional elections."
The federal order is temporary. It lasts 14 days pending further proceedings and does not erase the state Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri's referendum law. The competing orders instead created a new layer of litigation over federal election administration, state constitutional authority and the consequences of changing district boundaries after a primary has already taken place.
As a result, the most accurate status is not that the old map has definitively won or that the new map has definitively survived. The map for November remains contested, with additional litigation and appellate review capable of changing the answer again before ballots are finalized.
A Setback for Trump's Redistricting Push - But Not Yet a Final Defeat
Kavanaugh's denial was a setback for Missouri officials and Republican organizations that had asked the Supreme Court to preserve the Trump-backed map. It also reinforced, at least temporarily, the Missouri Supreme Court's conclusion that citizens could use the referendum process to suspend the redistricting law pending a statewide vote.
But the later federal restraining order means it is premature to describe the episode as a final defeat for Trump's broader mid-decade redistricting strategy. The Missouri dispute is one part of a national fight in which both parties have pursued new congressional maps in multiple states, often with control of a narrowly divided U.S. House in mind.
Conclusion
The core breaking-news claim was substantially correct at the moment Kavanaugh acted: Missouri Republicans failed to obtain the emergency Supreme Court stay they requested, and the state Supreme Court had ruled that a valid citizen referendum prevented the 2025 map from taking effect without voter approval. Organizers had submitted more than 300,000 signatures, and the new map was designed to give Republicans a better chance of expanding their six-seat share of Missouri's eight-member House delegation.
The final sentence of the original version, however, is no longer reliable. Missouri cannot yet be described as certain to use the previous congressional districts in November. A federal judge temporarily ordered use of the new map minutes after Kavanaugh's denial, and the legal battle is continuing. For publication, the safest headline is therefore one that reports the Supreme Court denial while making clear that the November map remains unsettled.
BREAKING NEWS - CANADA-U.S. RELATIONS
CANADIAN PETITIONS TARGET TRUMP ENTRY AND U.S. AMBASSADOR AS BILATERAL TENSIONS DEEPEN
Claims of a permanent ban on all MAGA supporters go beyond the verified record, but public anger over tariffs, 51st-state rhetoric and the “Lake America” order is real and increasingly visible.
OTTAWA, CANADA - Canada-U.S. relations are under unusually heavy strain as trade retaliation, sovereignty disputes and diplomatic controversies fuel petitions and public backlash against President Donald Trump and members of his administration.
The strongest version of the claim circulating online - that Canadians are demanding President Trump and all MAGA supporters be banned from Canada forever - is not supported by the available official record. What can be verified is narrower but still politically significant: a large parliamentary petition seeks the removal of U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, an earlier petition sought to deny Trump entry to Canada until he stopped threats or actions against Canadian interests, and polling shows exceptionally negative Canadian views of Trump himself.
What the Parliamentary Petitions Actually Say
The largest current petition is House of Commons e-petition e-7531, initiated by Leanne Walker of Calgary and sponsored by Green Party MP Elizabeth May. As of September 9, 2026, the official House of Commons page listed 268,456 validated signatures. The petition calls on the Canadian government to formally declare U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra persona non grata, request his removal, raise concerns with Washington about his conduct and direct a parliamentary committee to review alleged U.S. diplomatic interference in Canadian domestic affairs.
The petition asks Canada to “formally declare Pete Hoekstra persona non grata and request his removal as U.S. Ambassador to Canada.”
That means the statement that a Canadian parliamentary petition seeking the ambassador’s removal has attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures is now accurate - provided it refers to e-7531. It should not be confused with an earlier 2026 petition, e-7124, which ended with 23,627 signatures and asked for a review of Hoekstra’s conduct with the possibility of requesting his recall.
A Separate Petition Targeted Trump - But Not “Forever”
There is also a documented Canadian effort to keep Trump out of the country. In 2025, House of Commons e-petition e-5345 gathered 66,562 validated signatures. It asked the Government of Canada to refuse Trump entry while he continued making threats or taking actions that the petitioners said endangered Canadian sovereignty and economic security.
The wording matters. The petition did not call for a permanent lifetime ban. It tied the proposed refusal of entry to Trump’s conduct and explicitly described compliance as a possible step toward overcoming inadmissibility. Nor did the petition call for a blanket prohibition on Americans who identify as MAGA supporters.
Canada’s immigration system also does not list political support for a U.S. party, president or movement as a standalone ground of inadmissibility. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada states that entry decisions are made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, with potential inadmissibility grounds including security, criminality, human-rights violations, organized crime, misrepresentation and other statutory factors. Officials assess travelers according to the law and the facts of the individual case.
The “Lake America” Order Is Real - But Its Reach Is Limited
Another part of the original claim is substantially correct but needs jurisdictional context. On August 27, 2026, Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. federal government to use “Lake America” for the body of water traditionally known as Lake Ontario. The order instructed U.S. federal naming authorities to update federal geographic systems and official references.
The order does not give Washington authority to force Canada to adopt the same name. Canadian authorities continue to recognize Lake Ontario, and news organizations reporting on the order have emphasized that the change governs U.S. federal usage rather than Canadian or international naming practice. Major mapping services have reflected the U.S. designation for American users while continuing to display Lake Ontario in Canada.
Trade War Has Moved Beyond Political Rhetoric
The broader political anger is rooted in a real and escalating economic confrontation. Canada’s Department of Finance said the United States imposed a 50 percent tariff on $27.6 billion worth of Canadian goods effective August 22, 2026. Ottawa responded with dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs on the same value of U.S. imports, effective September 8, covering sectors including steel and aluminum, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, plastics and electronics.
Those measures followed the suspension of bilateral trade negotiations and came after months of Trump rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state. Canadian leaders have repeatedly rejected annexation talk and framed the trade dispute as a question not only of commerce but also of national sovereignty.
Public Anger Is Broad - But Not Identical to Anti-Americanism
Survey evidence shows why broad headlines should be handled carefully. An Angus Reid Institute survey released in August 2026 found that 79 percent of Canadians held an unfavorable view of Trump, including 69 percent who viewed him very unfavorably. But attitudes toward Americans as a whole were much more divided: 45 percent of Canadians said they viewed the American people favorably and 48 percent unfavorably.
That split suggests many Canadians distinguish between opposition to Trump’s administration and hostility toward individual Americans. The available polling does not establish a national consensus in favor of barring MAGA voters or supporters from Canada simply because of their political affiliation.
A Relationship Under Unusual Strain
The dispute has become unusually personal and symbolic for two countries with one of the world’s largest trading relationships and a long record of military, diplomatic and economic cooperation. Tariffs now sit alongside arguments over sovereignty, diplomatic conduct and even the name of a shared Great Lake. Canadian boycotts of U.S. goods and reduced travel to the United States have added a public dimension to what began as a government-to-government conflict.
The petition against Hoekstra is especially notable because it channels that frustration through an official parliamentary process rather than merely through social media. More than a quarter-million validated signatures do not represent every Canadian, but they do constitute a substantial and measurable expression of dissatisfaction.
Conclusion
The evidence supports a strong story about deteriorating Canada-U.S. relations, but not the most sweeping version of the viral claim. Canadians have signed major petitions targeting Trump and his ambassador, and the petition seeking Hoekstra’s removal has indeed climbed into the hundreds of thousands. Trump’s Lake Ontario renaming order is also real for U.S. federal usage, and the trade war has escalated into reciprocal tariffs affecting tens of billions of dollars in goods.
What has not been established is a broad Canadian movement demanding that every MAGA supporter be permanently barred from the country. A more accurate description is that substantial numbers of Canadians are pressing for targeted diplomatic and immigration measures against specific U.S. figures while public opinion toward Trump has deteriorated sharply. The political relationship is undeniably strained; the claim of a universal, permanent MAGA ban goes beyond the verified facts.
