TRUMP'S CANADA TRADE WAR TURNS ON AMERICA — U.S. SENATOR SAYS GOP 'HATE TARIFFS' BUT WON'T DEFY HIM!
Peter Welch says Trump's 50% Canada tariffs are hammering American businesses while Republicans privately oppose the policy but refuse to confront the president.
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump's latest tariff assault on Canada was sold as pressure on Ottawa. But the backlash is now coming from inside the United States, where a border-state senator says American companies are being hit so hard that some could lose sales, jobs — or their entire business.
Vermont Democrat Peter Welch has become one of the sharpest U.S. critics of the new 50% tariffs. His most damaging charge is not simply that the policy hurts Canada. It is that Republicans in Washington know tariffs are destructive, dislike them privately, and still refuse to challenge Trump publicly. In Welch's telling, fear has replaced Congress's constitutional duty to act.
The Tariff Bill Is Landing on Americans
The numbers Welch is citing are brutally simple. At a Vermont border event, he highlighted manufacturers and agricultural businesses whose costs and sales are being distorted by the new trade barriers. One equipment maker, he said, was watching a major sale become economically unworkable once a 50% tariff was added. Another business faced hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra cost on imported machinery.
That is the weakness in the White House's argument. Tariffs may be imposed at the border, but the economic pain does not stay there. Cross-border supply chains tie Canadian and American companies together, particularly in states such as Vermont, where Canada is the dominant foreign trading partner. A tariff aimed at Ottawa can quickly become a tax shock for an American employer.
Welch's Direct Challenge: Congress Is Giving Up Its Power
Welch has now joined Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Brad Schneider in pushing the BAD DEAL Act — the Banning Antiquated Duties and Delivering Equitable American Levies Act. The legislation would repeal Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the rarely touched authority Trump used for the 50% Canada tariffs, and refund duties collected under it.
The political accusation is even more explosive than the bill. Welch argues that congressional Republicans are allowing Trump to exercise tariff power that properly belongs to Congress. In the interview, he said Republicans he speaks with 'hate tariffs' but will not say so publicly, and described the broader surrender of congressional authority as driven by fear.
Canada Is Not the Enemy — And Washington Knows It
Welch also demolished the idea that this is a clean Canada-versus-America contest. The United States and Canada build cars, machinery, food products and industrial supply chains together. Breaking those links does not create instant American independence; it raises costs and gives global competitors room to move in. Welch's blunt conclusion was that the real strategic threat is not Canada — and that Washington should be strengthening North American production, not attacking it.
Even more awkwardly for Trump, Welch praised the USMCA trade agreement that Trump himself renegotiated during his first presidency. His point was devastatingly simple: if the administration believes its own agreement is strong, use it. Do not reach back to a 1930 statute and detonate a new trade war against the closest market for dozens of U.S. states.
The Backfire Is Becoming the Story
Canada does not have equal leverage with the United States, and Ottawa knows it. But the White House strategy is not painless: Canada's retaliatory tariffs now hit U.S. goods too, ensuring that businesses and consumers on both sides pay for an escalating political fight.
The bigger danger for Trump is now American political resistance. A sitting U.S. senator is telling Canada to stand up for itself while accusing Republicans of refusing to say publicly what they admit privately. If more lawmakers begin hearing the same anger from employers and voters at home, the 50% tariff wall may look less like strength and more like a self-inflicted economic wound.
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.
