Trump declares national emergency at northern border

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.

Up Next

List of items Canadians will pay 25% tariffs on includes US made orange juice, wine, beer, and clothing

Don't Miss

Liberals Hail Mary: To You From Failing Hands

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

Business / 6 hours ago

Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Crime / 15 hours ago

Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links

Business

Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Published on May 3, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

RBC’s dropping of its ‘net zero’ finance targets came just one day after the Liberal Party under Mark Carney was re-elected in Canada.

Just one day after the re-election of the Liberal Party under Mark Carney, the Royal Bank of Canada joined the growing list of top banks withdrawing from a United Nations-backed “net zero” alliance that supports the eventual elimination of the nation’s oil and gas industry in the name of “climate change.”

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) on Tuesday quietly dumped its UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) sustainable finance targets, which called for banks to come in line with the push for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The NZBA is a subgroup of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which Carney was co-chair of until recently.

RBC’s departure comes despite the fact that it was one of the NZBA’s founding members.

RBC joins Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) who earlier in the year said they were withdrawing from the NZBA.

The bank announced the move away from a green agenda in its 2024 sustainability report, noting it would no longer look to pursue a $500 billion sustainable finance goal. It cited changes to Canada’s federal Competition Act as the reason.

The changes to the act, known as the “greenwashing law,” now mandate that companies provide proof of their environmental claims.

“We have reviewed our methodology and have concluded that it may not have appropriately measured certain of our sustainable finance activities,” noted RBC in its report.

RBC also noted it would not make public any of its metrics regarding its energy supply ratio.

Monday’s election saw Liberal leader Carney beat out Conservative rival Poilievre, who also lost his seat. The Conservatives managed to pick up over 20 new seats, however, and Poilievre has vowed to stay on as party leader, for now.

The GFANZ was formed in 2021 while Carney was its co-chair. He resigned from his role in the alliance right before he announced he would run for Liberal leadership to replace former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Large U.S. banks such as Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all withdrawn from the group as well.

Since taking office in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Trudeau and now under Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.

Business

Overregulation is choking Canadian businesses, says the MEI

Published on May 2, 2025

Todayville

From the Montreal Economic Institute

The federal government’s growing regulatory burden on businesses is holding Canada back and must be urgently reviewed, argues a new publication from the MEI released this morning.

“Regulation creep is a real thing, and Ottawa has been fuelling it for decades,” says Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI and coauthor of the Viewpoint. “Regulations are passed but rarely reviewed, making it burdensome to run a business, or even too costly to get started.”

Between 2006 and 2021, the number of federal regulatory requirements in Canada rose by 37 per cent, from 234,200 to 320,900. This is estimated to have reduced real GDP growth by 1.7 percentage points, employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points, according to recent Statistics Canada data.

Small businesses are disproportionately impacted by the proliferation of new regulations.

In 2024, firms with fewer than five employees pay over $10,200 per employee in regulatory and red tape compliance costs, compared to roughly $1,400 per employee for businesses with 100 or more employees, according to data from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Overall, Canadian businesses spend 768 million hours a year on compliance, which is equivalent to almost 394,000 full-time jobs. The costs to the economy in 2024 alone were over $51.5 billion.

It is hardly surprising in this context that entrepreneurship in Canada is on the decline. In the year 2000, 3 out of every 1,000 Canadians started a business. By 2022, that rate had fallen to just 1.3, representing a nearly 57 per cent drop since 2000.

The impact of regulation in particular is real: had Ottawa maintained the number of regulations at 2006 levels, Canada would have seen about 10 per cent more business start-ups in 2021, according to Statistics Canada.

The MEI researcher proposes a practical way to reevaluate the necessity of these regulations, applying a model based on the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.

In the 1990s, the federal government launched a review process aimed at reducing federal spending. Over the course of two years, it successfully eliminated $12 billion in federal spending, a reduction of 9.7 per cent, and restored fiscal balance.

A similar approach applied to regulations could help identify rules that are outdated, duplicative, or unjustified.

The publication outlines six key questions to evaluate existing or proposed regulations:

What is the purpose of the regulation?
Does it serve the public interest?
What is the role of the federal government and is its intervention necessary?
What is the expected economic cost of the regulation?
Is there a less costly or intrusive way to solve the problem the regulation seeks to address?
Is there a net benefit?

According to OECD projections, Canada is expected to experience the lowest GDP per capita growth among advanced economies through 2060.

“Canada has just lived through a decade marked by weak growth, stagnant wages, and declining prosperity,” says Ms. Wittevrongel. “If policymakers are serious about reversing this trend, they must start by asking whether existing regulations are doing more harm than good.”

The MEI Viewpoint is available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.