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.
Artificial Intelligence
Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data
Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.
|
When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.
Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.
Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.
The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.
It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”
The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”
Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.
Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.
The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”
This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.
There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.
They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.
The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.
Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”
In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.
The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.
The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”
The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.
Google is yet to comment on the filing.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net is reader-supported. Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
|
|
|
|
Business
Nearly One-Quarter of Consumer-Goods Firms Preparing to Exit Canada, Industry CEO Warns Parliament
Standing Committee on Industry and Technology hears stark testimony that rising costs and stalled investment are pushing companies out of the Canadian market.
There’s a number that should stop this country cold: twenty-three percent. That is the share of companies in one of Canada’s essential manufacturing and consumer-goods sectors now preparing to withdraw products from the Canadian market or exit entirely within the next two years. And this wasn’t whispered at a business luncheon or buried in a consultancy memo. It was delivered straight to Parliament, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, during its study on Canada’s underlying productivity gaps and capital outflow.
Michael Graydon, the CEO of Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada, didn’t hedge or soften the message. He told MPs, “23% of our members expect to exit products from the Canadian marketplace within the next two years, because the cost of doing business here has just become unsustainable.”
Unsustainable. That’s the word he used. And when the people who actually make things in this country start using that word, you should pay attention. These aren’t fringe players or hypothetical startups. These are firms that supply the goods Canadians buy every single day, and they’re looking at their balance sheets, their regulatory burdens, the delays in getting anything approved or built, and concluding that Canada simply doesn’t work for them anymore.
What makes this more troubling is the timing. Canada’s investment levels have been falling for years, even as the United States and other competitors race ahead. Businesses aren’t reinvesting in machinery or technology at the rate they once did. They’re not modernizing their operations here. They’re putting expansion plans on hold or shifting them to jurisdictions that move faster, cost less and offer clearer rules. That’s not ideology; it’s arithmetic. If it costs more to operate here, if it takes longer to get a permit, and if supply chains back up because ports and rail lines are jammed, investors will choose the place that doesn’t make growth a bureaucratic mountain climb.
Graydon raised another point that ought to concern anyone who cares about domestic production. Canada’s agrifood sector recorded a sixty-billion-dollar trade surplus last year, one of the brightest spots in the national economy, but according to him that potential is being “diluted by fragmented interprovincial trade and logistics bottlenecks.” The ports, the rail corridors, the entire transport network—choke points everywhere. And you can’t build a productive economy on choke points. Companies can’t scale, can’t guarantee delivery, can’t justify the costs. So they leave.
This twenty-three percent figure is the clearest evidence yet that the problem isn’t theoretical. It’s not something for think-tank panels or academic papers. It is happening at the level that matters most: the decision whether to continue doing business in Canada or move operations somewhere more predictable. And once those decisions are made, they’re very hard to reverse. Capital doesn’t boomerang back out of patriotism. It goes where it can earn a return.
For years, Canadian policymakers have talked about productivity as if it were a moral failing of workers or a mystical national characteristic. It’s neither. Productivity comes from investment—real money poured into equipment, technology, training and expansion. When investment stalls, productivity collapses. And when a quarter of firms in a major sector are already planning their exit, you are not looking at a temporary dip. You are looking at a structural rejection of the business environment itself.
The fact that executives are now openly warning Parliament that they cannot afford to stay is a moment of clarity. It is also a test. Either this country becomes a place where people can build things again—quickly, affordably, competitively—or it continues down the path that leads to empty factories, hollowed-out supply chains and consumers who wonder why the shelves look thinner every year.
Twenty-three percent is not just a statistic. It’s the sound of a warning bell ringing at full volume. The only question now is whether anyone in charge hears it.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police
-
Crime10 hours ago‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer
-
Great Reset2 days agoCanadian government forcing doctors to promote euthanasia to patients: report
-
Alberta2 days agoSylvan Lake football coach fired for opposing transgender ideology elected to town council
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Business1 day agoNearly One-Quarter of Consumer-Goods Firms Preparing to Exit Canada, Industry CEO Warns Parliament
-
Health2 days agoNEW STUDY: Infant Vaccine “Intensity” Strongly Predicts Autism Rates Worldwide
-
Daily Caller22 hours agoDemocrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump



